Volume 3, Number 4: November 2019 | Op-Ed
Most countries in the world are struggling with overpopulation of their prisons. The inevitable solution to this problem is to construct more prisons. Nonetheless, in the Netherlands the exact opposite is happening. In fact, the incarceration rate dropped so significantly over the last decade that 19 Dutch prisons have had to shut down. In this article, I will explain how the Dutch government realized such a large decrease in active prisons, and I will argue why the Dutch approach to punishing convicts, which focusses on rehabilitation rather than prison sentences, is more beneficial to society than locking people behind bars.
Firstly, I will explain how the Dutch government managed to reduce the incarceration rate, leading to the closure of 19 prisons. In the 90’s, much like other countries, the Netherlands struggled with overpopulation of its prisons. This led policymakers to examine alternatives for prison sentences and the relaxation of drug laws. Eventually, the prior resulted in the implementation of a more rehabilitation orientated legal system, focusing on sentences that include people in society rather than excluding them. As such, wherever possible, sentences changed from incarceration to mandatory social work, mandatory visits to specialists and the usage of ankle monitoring systems. These renewed punishments aim to help convicts to function in society rather than alienating them from society. Similarly, within prisons the attitude towards inmates changed in a rehabilitating way too. Originally, inmates were merely isolated from society to repay for their crimes, however nowadays prisoners in the Netherlands receive extensive rehabilitation. Depending on individual requirements, treatment can be provided in prison, varying from providing anger management guidance to treatment of addictions.
The other change that led to a reduction in the number of prison sentences in the Netherlands is the relaxation of drug laws. This legislative change resulted in a decrease in the number of people being sentenced in drugs related crimes and less severe sentences for the people who are sentenced. Consequently, a large group of people who would face long prison sentences before the relaxation would face considerably shorter prison sentences, if at all any, or other types of punishment.
Having explained how the Dutch government accomplished such a decrease in incarceration it is important to look at hard numbers to evaluate its effects on crime reduction. The alternative sentences and rehabilitation orientated approach of the Dutch legal system has halved the rate of recidivism compared to traditional incarceration (Independent, 2017). Furthermore, in comparison to other countries the Dutch legal system is more successful at decreasing recidivism. Whereas approximately 50 percent of American or UK prisoners serving short sentences return to prison after their release, the numbers of recidivism in the Netherlands onlylay around 10%.
Besides the empirical data showing that the Dutch legal system is successful at preventing crime, there is a moral argument to be made that supports the claim that the Dutch legal system is preferable over ones that reinforce incarceration. Namely, that it is more ethical to rehabilitate people than to lock them up. To arrive at this statement, I use the following reasoning. If people are imprisoned in a conventional legal system, they are being excluded from society to protect society from the acts of these people and to repay for their crimes. However, merely imprisoning people does not resolve the foundational problems of individuals that might have led to the deviant behavior of the individuals. Instead, imprisoning people without offering rehabilitation might reinforce deviant behaviour, because all people in prison have portrayed criminal behaviour and are being alienated from society into another environment where deviant behaviour is normative. Therefore, to prevent the normalization of criminal behaviour it is more desirable to examine whether there are possibilities to help convicts function in society again through rehabilitation or mandatory social work rather than incarceration, thereby including them rather than excluding them from society.
Additionally, considering the Netherlands is a country with a public prison system, the tax payers indirectly pay for the expenses of the prisons. Therefore, there is a disincentive to incarcerate people as it increases costs for the tax payers, especially if cheaper and more effective alternative punishments are available. On the other hand, it must be noted that incarceration can still have significant benefits to society if it concerns severe criminals that form a threat to society, as safety of society is priceless and therefore outweighs the costs of incarceration. Nonetheless, this does not apply to convicts who committed minor felonies and do not form a threat to society. In this case, the costs for the taxpayers of sending them to prison are higher than the benefits of the protection society obtains from excluding them from society.
All in all, it seems like the Netherlands has established a successful legal system in which it reduces the number of incarcerations and replaces it with alternative punishments and rehabilitation, ultimately focusing on reintegrating convicts into society rather than excluding them. Looking at the positive effects of this legal structure on overall criminality and its cost saving structure it seems that other countries could try a similar approach if they want to resolve their problems regarding overpopulated prisons.
