Characteristics of Young Adults Sentenced with Juvenile Sanctions in the Netherlands

Abstract

Since 1 April 2014, young adults aged 18 up to and including 22 years can be sentenced with juvenile sanctions in the Netherlands. This legislation is referred to as 'adolescent criminal law' (ACL). An important reason for the special treatment of young adults is their over-representation in crime. The underlying idea of ACL is that some young adult offenders are less mature than others. These young adults may benefit more from pedagogically oriented juvenile sanctions than from the deterrent focus of adult sanctions. Little is known, however, about the characteristics of the young adults sentenced with juvenile sanctions since the implementation of ACL. The aim of this study is to gain insight into the demographic, criminogenic and criminal case characteristics of young adult offenders sentenced with juvenile sanctions in the first year after the implementation of ACL. A cross-sectional study was conducted using a juvenile sanction group and an adult sanction group. Data on 583 criminal cases of young adults, sanctioned from 1 April 2014 up to March 2015, were included. Data were obtained from the Public Prosecution Service, the Dutch Probation Service and Statistics Netherlands. The results showed that characteristics indicating problems across different domains were more prevalent among young adults sentenced with juvenile sanctions. Furthermore, these young adults committed a greater number of serious offences compared with young adults who were sentenced with adult sanctions. The findings of this study provide support for the special treatment of young adult offenders in criminal law as intended by ACL.

Young Adults in the Justice System: The Interplay between Scientific Insights, Legal Reform and Implementation in Practice in The Netherlands

“…This problem is amplified by the fact that the decision-making process led by the prosecution service is not transparent enough (De Jong, 2015; Mijnarends and Rensen, 2017a, 2017b). Different assessment and screening tools are used by different actors, and considerable room for discretion is given to professionals in the application of the Act on Adolescent Criminal Law (Prop et al, 2018). Both the lack of legislative guidance and a lack of sufficient knowledge regarding adolescent development and of the juvenile sentences among judicial professionals presumably play a role in this regard (Mijnarends and Rensen, 2017a, 2017b; Weijers, 2018).…”

“…Both the lack of legislative guidance and a lack of sufficient knowledge regarding adolescent development and of the juvenile sentences among judicial professionals presumably play a role in this regard (Mijnarends and Rensen, 2017a, 2017b; Weijers, 2018). This raises the question whether the proposed ‘tailored approach’ in practice results in a lack of legal certainty and perhaps even a lack of legal equality for adolescents (see also Prop et al, 2018: 35).…”

“…On one hand, the seriousness of the offence is said to be used – and indeed, often seems to be used in practice – as a contraindication for the application of juvenile sentences to young adults (Weijers, 2018). On the other hand, research has shown that in practice, juvenile criminal law is nonetheless applied relatively often by the Dutch courts in cases concerning serious offences committed by young adults (Prop et al, 2018; Weijers, 2018: 742–743). This issue relates to the question of criminal responsibility of adolescents and proportionality of sentencing: should young adults be held fully criminally responsible when they have committed a serious offence and therefore treated as an adult?…”

“…To assess the practical implications of the amended legislation, it is important to have a look at the number of young adults that has been affected by this law. This is monitored extensively by the Scientific Research and Documentation Centre [ Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek- en Documentatiecentrum, WODC ] of the Ministry of Justice as well, which has been commissioned by the government to evaluate this law from 2014 until the end of 2019 (see Barendregt et al, 2016, 2018; Prop et al, 2018; Van der Laan et al, 2016, 2021).…”