This contribution provides an overview of the legal and criminological research into the decision following the determination of a supervisor that the conditions of a freedom-restricting sanction are not met. It is an important decision, on the one hand because it can result in a more severe sanction than was initially imposed, on the other hand because a decision that is perceived as unfair can influence the extent to which suspects and convicts are willing to comply with conditions, and recidivism. Yet little research has been conducted into this decision. The legal safeguards with which it is accompanied are lagging behind those of the original sentencing decision. Undeserved according to penitentiary experts. The scarce empirical research shows that decision-making involves many different layers and that the actors involved have different goals, ranging from deterrence and emphasizing the credibility of the system to the successful completion of the sanction. Even in countries where regulations have been tightened considerably, the discretionary power of direct supervisors, such as employees of the working project or therapists, is still large. This raises the question to what extent the final decision maker (usually a judge) still has sufficient room to make an independent decision.

Two developments are discussed that have a significant influence on the scope and content of the penology of the future, but otherwise have little to do with each other: The expansion of the sentencing field has resulted in a completely fluid research field. However, the important questions of penology can only be answered by integrally mapping and analyzing that sentencing field. For that reason, penology should radically free itself of the limitation of its field of research to the penal sanction. Ongoing insight into the functioning of the brain and the predictability of behavior on the basis of algorithms shine a different light on the portraits of mankind on which we base punishment. It also exposes a range of new possibilities to influence behavior and prevent criminal behavior. It is also part of the research field of penology to question which of those possibilities we want to use and under which conditions.

The detention experiences of male criminal foreign national prisoners without legal residence receive little attention in penological literature. A qualitative study amongst 30 prisoners with and 16 prisoners without legal residence in the penitentiary institution Tilburg shows that contacts with the social network and the preparation of the reintegration in society are (more) complicated for foreign national prisoners without legal residence. Besides, communication with the staff is more difficult for this group. These factors have negative impact on their detention experiences. The results show that both deprivation and importation theory apply to foreign national prisoners without legal residence. However, importation aspects – especially the lack of legal residence – may substantially and systematically increase the deprivation and result in additional exclusion and isolation mechanisms for this particular group.

Until approximately 1995, the Netherlands had a very low prison rate compared to the surrounding countries. David Downes, who made a comparison between the Dutch and the British penal policy, choose as a title for his book: Contrasts in Tolerance. He attributed the differences between England & Wales and the Netherlands, partly to the tolerant culture in the Netherlands compared to England & Wales (Downes, 1985: 69 e.v.). What exactly did he mean by tolerance in this context and in how far can this characteristic of Dutch penal policy explain the recent downfall of the Dutch prison population.

In the Netherlands, the number of cocaine traffickers arrested at Schiphol International Airport peaked in 2003. In May 2003, sentencing guidelines regarding cocaine traffickers were redefined into a smaller number of categories (wider quantity ranges, less specified offender categories) with lower sentences than before. New guidelines allowed criminal courts more flexibility, and judges were expected to sentence cocaine traffickers more often than before in accordance with guidelines. All cases, at all four applicable criminal courts, against cocaine traffickers that had been arrested at Schiphol in 2003 were analyzed (877 simple court and 994 full court cases). In between 30 and 40 percent of cases sentences were not according to the guidelines (mostly lower), and even more frequently than before the new guidelines had been introduced. Experience as a judge (number of years) was not associated with keeping up with guidelines, but male judges sentenced suspects more often than female judges in discordance with guidelines (and consequently below guidelines). In line with American literature, personal characteristics of suspects appeared strong predictors of the extent judges conformed to sentencing guidelines. Female offenders were twice as often as male offenders sentenced lower than the guidelines. The same result was found for offenders born or living in the Netherlands, versus migrants and offenders living abroad.