In the Netherlands penal interventions aimed at the reduction of recidivism are progressively executed according to the ‘what works’ approach, a research tradition that tries to articulate the conditions under which penal interventions can be effective in preventing offenders to relapse into crime. The ideas on ‘what works’ originate from international studies, but what about the Dutch research itself? Which interventions have proved to be successful in the Netherlands and which have had adverse results? The WODC has carried out a meta-analysis of all relevant studies that have been published in the Netherlands and the Dutch-speaking part of Belgium since the early seventies of the previous century. 141 evaluations were identified, 83 of which contained some sort of comparison with a control group. Results indicate that programmes aimed at adult offenders were more successful than interventions for youth and young adults. Programmes based on the idea of rehabilitation appeared to have been more successful than sanctions based on deterrence.

Based on qualitative research within Chinese restaurants in the Netherlands, the authors describe and discuss (informal) labour relations among Chinese restaurant owners and their illegal Chinese workers. It is argued that a too one-sided emphasis on interpreting these labour relations in terms of ‘labour exploitation’ reduces employers to offenders and employees to victims. Such a judicial perspective hinders a clear view on the causes of underlying themes as illegal labour and illegal stay. The authors discuss how restaurant owners and employees operate in a ‘moral economy’ in which a demand for cheap products and flexible, motivated, cheap, and capable labour interacts with culturally shared expectations on justice and reciprocity and influences labour relations.

Annually hundreds of victims make use of their right to speak in court. Victims often expect this will result in more punitive sentences. According to judges this is unlikely. This experiment among law students examines the influence of victim impact statements (VIS) on the sentencing outcome. Furthermore the effect of how the statement is delivered is examined. Is there a difference between the VIS as document in the case file and one delivered by the victim in court? Does it matter if the victim still has visible injuries? Study findings indicate that neither the presence of a VIS, nor the mode of delivery and visible injuries affect sentence length.

Victims of crime entertain various wishes regarding the criminal justice system. This paper present the results of a study that made use of vignettes. Victim wishes regarding the goals of punishment were examined, and the relation with degree offender intent (intent, negligence) has been established. The results show that when the perpetrator acted intentionally, victims have a greater wish for retribution and the other punishment goals, but they have a smaller need for restoration. Victims wish to be compensated and to receive apologies from the offender, but generally are reluctant to meet with the perpetrator in person.

The author discusses the proposals done by Richard Korver, a Dutch victim-solicitor, with regard to the legal position of the victim in the Dutch penal procedure. They amount to making the victim a fully equipped party to the procedure with – as it were – the same arms as the offender and his solicitor has. These proposals include an autonomous right to appeal against the verdict in first instance, a right to make a victim statement of opinion, the right to rebuke the bench, and the right to be heard in almost every procedural and substantial decision of any authority in the penal process and in the execution of punishment. The authors comment is that these proposals, when realized, will imply an intensification of the polarized legal debate in the penal procedure, with more risks of secondary victimization. The problem is not that the defendant will oppose two prosecutors, but that the victim will find the public prosecutor not on his side when the latter does his job as he should: serving the interests of justice. The inquisitorial procedure does allow for participation of victims, but only in so far as this participation can serve the interests of establishing the truth of the matter and determining proportionate and equal punishment. Meanwhile the risk of instrumentalising the victim and his needs in interests in punitive strategies exists. Restorative practices offer a much better context for an assertive victim to defend his interests and satisfy his needs, staying out of a debate in which the measure of punishment functions as the yardstick of his suffering. Regular civil law procedures could be the second option and criminal procedures should be relegated again to their rightful place as ultima ratio.