Sanne Struijk is a professor of Penal law at the Erasmus School of Law. She researches what sentences judges can impose and how they are implemented in practice. Additionally, she works as a substitute judge at the Rotterdam District Court and as a complaints chair in the Rotterdam prison De Schie, where she talks to inmates every two weeks.
What exactly is going on?
“The occupancy rate of prison cells is 99.5 percent. This leaves no room for proper flow. Imprisonment remains the most frequently imposed sentence in the Netherlands. The duration can vary from a few days or weeks to thirty years or even life imprisonment. The group of short-term prisoners is by far the largest: about three-quarters of all inmates are incarcerated for less than three months. This group is now often waiting at home to serve their time.”
Why are there too few cells?
“It is a confluence of problems. The government has closed a significant number of prisons over the past twenty years because the intake was low at that time. That saved money back then, but it was truly short-term thinking. The level of crime always fluctuates. When something happens, such as the coronavirus riots, there is suddenly an increase. It was therefore to be expected that the system would break down when the need for capacity would rise again.
“Moreover, many buildings are old, with deferred maintenance leading to some cells being unusable. Efforts are being made to address this by reopening prisons, but a significant staff shortage remains. Sometimes there are empty cells but not enough guards. Many older guards, who have a real passion for the job, are retiring and are difficult to replace. Additionally, staff who ‘disappeared’ with the closure of prisons are hard to bring back. Young vocationally trained individuals often prefer other jobs that offer better working conditions and less stress. Sick leave is currently alarming, the workload is high, and there is a negative atmosphere due to significant government cutbacks on the daily programme and wellbeing of inmates.
“Finally, there is less outflow. Convicted individuals are in prison longer than before on average, as judges are increasingly imposing sentences of twenty years, thirty years or life. There are also too few places in the forensic psychiatric clinic. As a result, convicts with mental disorders remain in prison longer, awaiting transfer to a clinic. This not only creates additional crowding but also escalates tension in a prison unit.”
Why are longer sentences being imposed nowadays?
“The recorded crime rate hasn’t increased. However, the number of very serious offences, such as organised crime or murders, has risen. Additionally, maximum sentences have been increased. Judges are also increasingly imposing those higher sentences. The Netherlands has become stricter in its sentencing. We once had a reputation as Europe’s soft, humane guiding country, but that is long gone.”
What solutions are currently being considered?
“The state secretary, Ingrid Coenradie, is attempting to alleviate the system by releasing certain inmates three days early. This has caused considerable uproar, but at the same time, it offers little real solution, as it ultimately provides only six extra places.
“She is also examining whether multiple prisoners can occupy one cell. This isn’t new. Since 2004, we have had multi-occupancy cells. But that simply means another bed has been mounted to the wall above the existing bed. This increases capacity, but it also brings complications. A prison can be a pressure cooker. You never know what happens at night in a cell. For a guard, it makes a significant difference if they are ambushed by one or two inmates when opening the cell door. Recently, in Krimpen aan den IJssel, someone was murdered by their cellmate. The Netherlands is obligated by human rights to protect its citizens. This includes protecting both the guards and the inmates.
“So yes, detaining in multi-occupancy cells does happen, and it frees up more places. But you need to tailor the approach and think carefully about which convicts can be placed together.”
Coenradie faced considerable opposition to her proposal to release inmates early, particularly from her own party, the PVV. According to Geert Wilders, early release undermines the rule of law. Is that justified?
“Wilders frames it as if criminals would get off easily. However, such reductions don’t diminish the punishment of the committed offence. Not even in the case of a relatively short sentence of, for instance, three months.
“It would indeed be undermining if we couldn’t imprison convicts who, due to capacity shortages, are waiting for their sentences at home. That is also a conceivable scenario that is currently being discussed. I’d find that much more concerning, as it goes against the judge’s ruling.”
Van Dijk, another PVV member, proposed housing eight convicts in one cell. How did Coenradie respond to that?
“I appreciate that she dealt with that proposal firmly in the debate. She takes her role as state secretary seriously, she visits the penal institutions, talks to guards and inmates, and she recognises that it doesn’t work as her party suggests.
“We can see from Belgium where it could lead. It’s truly alarming. Belgium has been operating at a capacity of 120 percent for a long time. Too many people are confined in one cell, under abysmal conditions. Hygiene is severely lacking, and safety too. Belgium has been reprimanded several times by the European Court for this. It shows how any penal system can quickly deteriorate from a possibly austere but humane system to an inhumane one. That is something we must avoid.
“But what is already happening in the Netherlands is that ‘solutions’ are being sought at the expense of inmates for the mismanagement of a few years ago. Like the proposal of eight prisoners in one cell. I find that truly reprehensible. Luckily, Coenradie seems to be against that.”
Is imprisonment an effective form of punishment?
“When it comes to retribution: yes. But if you look at preventing recidivism, then no. Recidivism rates for prison sentences can be around 70 percent, especially for short-term sentences. Even then, there is a large chance that people lose their job, housing, or social safety net. They serve their time but feel written off – that they aren’t worth the investment.
“Look at the United States. People are mass incarcerated with long sentences, and even the death penalty is applied, yet crime rates aren’t better. That says a lot.”
Are there better alternatives?
“Yes. Community service significantly reduces recidivism rates. People can continue their lives, maintain their jobs or studies. Community service, like working eight hours over ten Saturdays, is a serious sentence. You lose your freedom, you are monitored, but you remain part of society. That works.
“It’s crucial that judges have a toolbox full of different sanctions, including conditional imprisonment. In this case, someone doesn’t go to prison but must comply with strict conditions, such as mandatory treatment, checking in, or urine testing. But there is no quick fix. We can’t say: ‘From now on, we will impose more fines than prison sentences.’ It must fit the offence and the suspect. A fine for someone in deep debt won’t work.”
Could such a toolbox be a solution to ‘revolving door criminals’?
“Yes. We have a relatively high number of repeat offenders in the Netherlands, and everyone is disheartened: the neighbourhood officer, the assistant public prosecutor, the prison guard. For the most persistent offenders, we have in our sanctioning system the so-called ISD measure, which can last for two years. That sounds like an opportunity to change their criminal behaviour pattern. But in practice, it is simply a unit within a regular prison. While most repeat offenders are addicted, homeless, illiterate, or otherwise vulnerable. They won’t successfully reintegrate on their own; they need help from the government. Otherwise, they will relapse at the gate of the prison. Their dealer is already waiting there to say, ‘the first round is free.'”
If it is so effective, why are alternative sentences relatively rarely imposed in the Netherlands?
“If someone assaults an ambulance worker or commits a sexual offence and ‘gets away’ with only a community service sentence, society goes up in arms. Former state secretary Fred Teeven dismissed electronic detention, with an ankle bracelet, as ‘serving your sentence at home with a beer on the couch.’ And just like that, a proposal to add it to the sanction list was immediately off the table. That perception is hard to counter.”
Should we listen to what ‘the people’ want regarding penal policy?
“That is a good question. Punishment partly serves a retributive purpose, especially for victims and their families. It is legitimate that people call for this. But how do you determine what is enough punishment? For someone whose child has been murdered, no punishment is ever sufficient.
“Some offenders have committed truly serious crimes, and appropriate punishment comes with that. But for those whose criminality stems from addiction, poverty, trauma, or a disorder, it is vital to address that. This is important for society as well.”
Can this crisis also be a moment to rethink other forms of punishment?
“Yes. In countries like Belgium, France, and Scandinavia, alternatives like electronic detention are already routinely employed. This proves effective.
“Unfortunately, incarcerating someone is relatively cheap, especially if you place multiple people in one cell. Investing in the causes of criminal behaviour, such as mental health issues or debt, is much more complex. But if you want to reduce recidivism and address the capacity issue, you must be willing as a government and society to make that investment. Retribution is acceptable, but you should keep looking at the bigger picture.”
