The Stairway to Prison: Discretionary decision-making of criminal justice actors and their impact on the outcome of a homicide case

(1)

The Stairway to Prison

Discretionary decision-making of criminal justice actors and the steps of the

Dutch criminal justice system

Leiden University

Faculty of Governance & Global Affairs

Master Crisis and Security Management

By: Helmer van Mal, 2093030

Master thesis

First reader: Dr. M.C.A. Liem Second reader: Dr. J. Vüllers Words: 23729

(2)

Introduction

The case of Eva Willems, part I: introduction

On November 1st_{, Mrs. Lent rings the doorbell of her neighbor Mrs. Willems, after she has heard}

loud screaming and sobbing inside the house.1_{Normally Mrs. Willems is surprisingly quick to}

open the door on her usual day off work. There is no sign of movement behind the curtains and meanwhile the screaming and sobbing continues to break the silence of the cold autumn air. Repeatedly ringing the doorbell does not result in any reaction and Mrs. Lent decides to walk home and call the police. After the police have arrived and forced open the door, they find a completely shocked and disorientated Mrs. Willems in the bedroom of her infant daughter Eva, holding Eva’s lifeless body. Eva, 8 months old, is the only daughter of Mr. and Mrs. Willems. The police immediately try to perform first-aid, in a desperate attempt to bring Eva back. Sadly, their efforts are in vain. The police alarm the general practitioner of the Willems family to assess Eva’s death, and Mrs. Willems gives a very brief statement in between emotional outburst. She tells the police that she woke up some time before 9 am that morning, and immediately went to check on her daughter, as she always does. At first, Eva appeared to be sound asleep, which surprised her because Eva is known to wake up early and start crying loudly. Mrs. Willems quickly realized that she couldn’t hear her daughter breathing, and that’s when she started screaming and crying to get her daughter to wake up. She also tells the police that her biggest fear has come true: Eva has died due to the sudden infant death syndrome.2

Research question

Homicide, or the inexcusable intentional killing of another person, is one of the most violent forms of human behavior (Smit, Bijleveld, & Van Der Zee, 2001).3_{In the Netherlands,}

approximately 159 homicides were registered in 2017 (Leistra, 2017). A homicide receives much attention, and the effort to ‘clear’ the homicide and bring the killer to justice is correspondingly

1_{The case of Eva Willems is entirely fictional and meant to illustrate the flow of a homicide case through the Dutch}

criminal justice system.

2_{Sudden infant death syndrome is the name for the unexplained death of a child less than one year old, usually}

during the night while sleeping. This can only be diagnosed after a thorough investigation into the cause of death leads to no results.

3_{Homicide is discussed in the articles 287 – 291 of the Dutch Penal Code and includes murder (the premediated}

(5)

high.4_{The clearing of a homicide and its ensuing punishment is accomplished by a}

time-consuming and sometimes difficult cooperation between different public officials. The case of Mrs. Willems illustrates how a homicide case goes through the different stages in the Dutch criminal justice system and shows that the choices made by the various criminal justice officials have a profound impact on this course of events.5_{In order to assess why certain choices are}

made, and what the impact of these choices are on the flow of a homicide case through the Dutch criminal justice system, this thesis uses the following research question:

‘How do criminal justice actors (forensic physicians, police detectives, prosecutors, judges) apply discretion in determining the outcome of a homicide case and how can this application be explained?

Academic and societal relevance

The total number of registered crimes in the Netherlands has been declining since 2002. Several possible explanations have been put forward, such as a diminished crime rate, a lower willingness to report crimes or a decreased eagerness of the police to register offenses (De Jong, 2018). The rate of homicide has also been declining since the beginning of the century. Homicide is widely considered immune to issues regarding reporting and registering (De Jong, 2018). The reason why it is declining is unknown, since the phenomenon of homicide is an understudied topic in the Netherlands (Ganpat & Liem, 2012). Much research on homicide originates from the USA. Studies have been conducted on (amongst others) the homicide clearance rate (Davies, 2007; Keel, Jarvis, & Muirhead, 2009; Litwin, 2004), the influence of forensic investigation techniques on the case outcome of homicides (Baskin & Sommers, 2010) and prosecutorial discretion (Romain & Freiburger, 2013; Shermer & Johnson, 2010). Research into homicide in the Dutch context was and still is relatively limited (Bijleveld & Smit, 2006; Ganpat & Liem, 2012; Smit et al., 2001). In order to help address this gap, the Dutch Homicide Monitor (DHM) has been created, along with its European counterpart, the European Homicide Monitor (EHM).6_{So far, homicide research conducted in the Netherlands has been mostly}

4_{Over the period 1992-2009 approximately 90% of homicides were solved (Ganpat & Liem, 2012).} 5_{These different stages are: investigation phase, prosecution phase and trial phase.}

6_{The Dutch Homicide Monitor is a database with information on all homicides that occurred in the Netherlands in}

(6)

oriented towards case, perpetrator and victim characteristics and subtypes of homicide (Ganpat & Liem, 2012). There is no academic research into the decision-making of criminal justice officials, and how this affects the ‘flow’ of homicide cases through the Dutch criminal justice system.7

The ‘outcome’ of a homicide case can be influenced by a number of factors (Keel et al., 2009). One of these factors is ‘discretion’, exercised by criminal justice professionals, meaning the moment when the effective limits of a public official’s power leave him free to choose between multiple courses of action, including the option to do nothing (Culp Davis, 1969). In foreign research, several studies have paid attention to the factor of ‘discretion’, exercised by criminal justice professionals, such as Davis in the US (1969, 1975), Groeneveld (US) (2005), Romain and Freiburger (US) (2013) and Strange (Canada) (1996). These studies conclude that the choices made by criminal justice professionals can have a profound impact on the processing of a homicide case. In the Netherlands, the various public officials involved in the solving and sentencing of a homicide also exercise discretion in the performing of their task (Tak, 1999). But how these discretionary powers are used and their effect on the flow of a homicide case through the justice system is not known. In the US context, both police and prosecutors are named the “gatekeepers” of the criminal justice system, meaning that they have the power to make or break a case (Kerstetter, 1990). The aim of this research is to find out whether this is also true in the Dutch context. Can individual actors, by utilizing their discretion, affect the outcome of a homicide case in the Dutch criminal justice system?

A homicide goes through three phases in the Dutch criminal justice system: the investigation phase, the prosecution phase and the trial phase. When looking at the trial phase of a criminal case there is some research available. Several Dutch studies have been conducted on various factors that could affect the sentencing of a criminal case. To name a few: the impact of perpetrator ethnicity on sentencing (Wermink, Van Wingerden, Nieuwbeerta, & Van Wilsem, 2015) and the impact of socioeconomic factors on sentencing (Kannegieter, 1994; van Eijk, 2017). However, these studies are focused on the effect of one factor in a single stage of the criminal justice system, and the fact that these factors can also impact discretionary decision-making earlier in the criminal justice system is not recognized or addressed. In the Dutch context, the insight into the discretion phenomenon and its impact is lacking. Knowing how

7_{This ‘flow’ of a homicide case means how and why homicide cases progress through the system from the moment}

(7)

perpetrator and victim characteristics influence discretionary decision-making will enable a more accurate assessment of the impact of these characteristics on the outcome of a homicide case. This study aims to provide this insight. By analyzing the route of homicides through the system, the functioning of the criminal justice system can be evaluated, as can the utilization of the discretionary powers of the various public officials. It will tell how public officials view their discretionary powers, and how they use them.

American research demonstrated that the societal impact of discretionary decision-making in the US criminal justice system can be severe. According to Davis (1971), who conducted research into the discretionary powers of police, prosecution service and judges in the USA, police officers also use their discretionary powers to violate legislative statutes. These practices are not exclusive to the USA: only recently the highest court in the Netherlands, the Hoge Raad, decided that an infamous homicide case from 1998 must be tried again, because police detectives used disproportionate and unlawful measures to force the suspects to confess to the homicide, while other evidence was meagre at best (Andringa, 2018). And in 1996, a Parliamentary Enquiry Committee caused a national shock with its conclusion that Dutch police utilized policing methods that were undemocratic and in violation of the rule of law (Tak, 1999).

Concluding, discretionary decision-making can have a profound impact on the processing of a criminal case, and there is very limited knowledge on this aspect of the criminal justice system. Moreover, the impact discretionary decision-making can have on society is also severe: the family of a homicide victim that sees the killer receive a lenient sentence might lose trust in the criminal justice system, which may lead to general discontent; not to mention the feelings of unsafety that people can experience when a homicide goes unpunished.

Reading guide

This thesis is an explorative, qualitative study into discretionary decision-making by criminal justice actors in homicide cases. To answer the research question, a total of fourteen interviews were conducted with various criminal justice actors. Using the information deducted from the interviews, a composite case was created: ‘the case of Eva Willems’. The aim of this case is to present the main findings in a comprehensible way and to present the reader all the subtle details that affect the decision-making of criminal justice actors. Furthermore, it creates understanding of how a homicide case ‘flows’ from its discovery to its trial and all the factors that play a role.

(8)

the theories used to assess the decision-making, on the actors and their role in the criminal justice system and the design of the study. Thereafter, the analysis provides a detailed view of the gathered information. This is done by analyzing quotes and their theoretical implications. After the analysis, the case of Eva Willems is described, followed by the discussion of the findings and the conclusion.

(9)

Body found:

declaration of death after examination by general practicioner or medical specialist (hospital). If cause of death is unclear,

examination by forensic physician. If still unclear or an obvious homicide,

next phase.

Autopsy:

performed by forensic pathologist, ordered

by the public prosecutor. Information is shared with police and public prosecutor.

If deceased died due to a homicide: next phase.

Homicide

investigation:

performed by police detectives, led by

public prosecutor. Investigative approach is

discussed between both actors.

Homicide

investigation:

Some

decision-making or investigative actions are done

by the examining magistrate on request of public prosecutor. If cleared and the

suspect arrested: next phase.

Trial:

homicide case is tried before three judges, who decide on case procedures. Big role for public prosecutor

and defendant's lawyer. If defendant is found guilty:

next phase.

Sentence:

defendant is either acquitted or convicted for homicide. Options: prison sentence, treatment-based sentence

or both.

Theoretical framework

Preface

This chapter will explore the various stages of the Dutch criminal justice system a homicide case progresses through, and the actors that play a role. Afterwards, the three theoretical pillars of this thesis will be explained. The first is the theory of law, proposed by Donald Black (1976), after which the empirical testing of the theory done by Mark Cooney (2009) will be discussed. The discussion of Cooney’s work will tie the theory of law to the occurrence of homicide. This is the second pillar. The interest of this thesis is to research if Black’s theory can explain how criminal justice professionals apply discretion to Dutch homicide cases. To take a closer look at the phenomenon of discretion in the criminal justice system, Culp Davis’ book ‘Discretionary Justice’ (1969) is used, constituting the third pillar of the theoretical framework.

The flow of a homicide

The flow of a homicide case through the Dutch criminal justice system is a cooperation between several criminal justice professionals: the forensic physician, police detective, prosecutor,

(10)

examining magistrate and the judge, as seen in table 1. Each professional has his own discretionary powers (WODC, CBS, & Raad voor de Rechtspraak, 2018). Not all homicide cases end with the imprisonment of the perpetrator, as seen in table 2. Each stage of the criminal justice system shows fewer cases due to various reasons. In the beginning, a homicide may go unnoticed because the general practitioner or the forensic physician draw the unjustified conclusion that the deceased died a natural death.8_{Next, if both actors are not certain about the}

cause of death (natural or unnatural), the prosecutor may decide against an autopsy and consider the case a natural death, when in fact it was a homicide.9_{During the investigation stage, the}

police may fail to gather enough evidence to apprehend the killer, or the killer is abroad, dies himself or goes into hiding. After the investigation stage, the prosecutor may decide against bringing the case before trial, because he thinks the evidence is insufficient. And when a case is brought before court, the judges may acquit the defendant, or decide that he should receive a treatment-based sentence (TBS) instead of a prison sentence (Ganpat & Liem, 2012). 10

8_{The terms used here are derived from the literature. ‘General practitioner’ translates as ‘huisarts’, and ‘forensic}

physician’ translates as ‘forensisch arts’ in Dutch.

9_{The autopsy translates in Dutch as the ‘gerechtelijke sectie’.}

10_{To be precise, in legal terms the killer should be named ‘suspect’ in the investigation phase, and ‘defendant’ in the}

trial phase, for officially his guilt must be ascertained by the judges. This thesis hold on to this differentiation, but speaks about ‘killer’ when the guilt is established (Lundsgaarde, 1977).

Suspicious death _Investigati on _Cleared Suspect Arrested _Suspect Prosecuted _Defendant Sentenced _Perpetrator imprisoned

(11)

The Dutch criminal justice system

The Dutch criminal code is based on the civil law tradition. It is based on the French Code Pénal and was altered after the re-establishment of Dutch independence in 1813, the same year in which the Netherlands abolished the jury system. Ever since, criminal justice has been managed by legally trained prosecutors and career judges (Tak, 1999). The Dutch criminal justice system is characterized by its tempered inquisitor nature in the criminal investigation phase, and a tempered adversary nature during the trial phase (de Jongste, 2007; Tak, 1999). This means that in the investigation phase, the suspect has limited powers to steer the investigative actions of the police, the public prosecutor and the examining magistrate. This position changes when the trial commences. During the trial the defendant and his lawyer have a number of powers, which leads to a more equal legal ‘battle’ between the prosecutor and the defendant’s lawyer (Jörg, Kelk, & Klip, 2012; Kelk, 2013).

Since it is founded in the civil law tradition, there are several differences in the Dutch criminal justice system compared to common law countries. Its core is the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Criminal Code, instead of case law produced by earlier verdicts, as is the case in common law countries (Glendon, Carozza, & Picker, 2016; Vago, 2012). Another difference is the fact that the Dutch prosecutor is part of the judiciary, and acts as an agent of the public interest in criminal justice proceedings (Glendon et al., 2016). Only the prosecutor has the power to decide whether a case should be brought before court. Prosecutors and judges are career jurists, appointed by the Crown, rather than chosen by the popular vote (Glendon et al., 2016). During trial, the judge plays an active role. He has the power to examine witnesses and the defendant, summon the presence of witnesses or appoint an expert. A judge in the Netherlands usually takes the lead in the questioning of the defendant, witnesses and experts (Glendon et al., 2016). The procedures during a criminal trial are the same, regardless of the severity of the accusations brought against the defendant (Glendon et al., 2016). The judge cannot sentence the defendant for any other offence than is stated in the indictment. Only the prosecutor has the power to modify the indictment, however this power is limited (Tak, 1999). In the following paragraph, all the different actors in the Dutch criminal justice system will be discussed.

Actors

In the Netherlands it is required by law that either the general practitioner or the medical specialist (if the deceased died in a hospital) performs an examination of the body. His task is to

(12)

investigate the cause of death, the manner of death and the time and date of passing (Duijst & Das, 2011). Furthermore, he must assess whether the deceased died due to natural causes or not.

11_{If he cannot establish this, he is required to inform the forensic physician. When the case}

involves minors, the general practitioner or the medical specialist is always required to consult the forensic physician (Ministerie van Veiligheid en Justitie, 2017).12_{If the forensic physician is}

involved, both parties must agree that the deceased has died due to natural causes. In such cases the declaration of death is drafted and no more medical actions are required (Timmermans, 2006).13

The forensic physician has the task to perform another examination of the body. Based on his findings, the forensic physician reports to the public prosecutor and may advise to order an autopsy (Ministerie van Veiligheid en Justitie, 2017).14_{This autopsy is performed by the forensic}

pathologist of the NFI (Duijst-Heesters, Woudenberg-van den Broek, & Soerdjbalie-Maikoe, 2016). When the case is an obvious homicide, the prosecutor will order an autopsy immediately after the body is found (Toorenburg, 1999). The goal of this autopsy is to determine the cause of death, and to find evidence which can point out what happened and whom was involved. Nowadays, the autopsy is often preceded by a radiologic CT scan, and if there is a suspicion of poisoning, an toxicological investigation is conducted (Duijst-Heesters et al., 2016).

If the case is a homicide, the police detective investigates it, starting the investigation phase. The investigation into all criminal offences is officially led by the public prosecutor (Tak, 1999). It is the task of the police detective to investigate and gather enough evidence to arrest a suspect and clear the homicide. Research from the USA indicates that police officials have a profound impact on the workings of criminal justice regarding crime in general (Kerstetter, 1990; O’Neal & Spohn, 2017), but it is unclear whether this is also valid in the Netherlands.

11_{In this thesis the word ‘examination’ is used when discussing the procedure of investigating the outside of the}

body for information about the cause of death. This is different from an autopsy, where the body is opened. The functioning of the coroner is arranged by the ‘Wet op de Lijkbezorging’. When the deceased is in the hospital, the examination will be performed by the medical specialist who was treating the patient.

12_{In Dutch: de gemeentelijk lijkschouwer. This is a medical specialist whose task is to do post-mortem research.}

One of his tasks is to perform an examination of the body in cases the general practitioner or medical specialist in a hospital were not able to conclude that the deceased died due to natural causes.

13_{A ‘death by natural causes’ is defined as a death by illness. In all other instances, such as a death by a crime,}

suicide, accident, a medical error or euthanasia, is seen as caused by unnatural causes (Duijst & Das, 2011).

(13)

The prosecutor is the leader of the homicide investigation (Tak, 1999). Their main task is to oversee the collection of the evidence necessary to convict the suspect of a crime and to represent the public interest during trial.1516_{In the Dutch criminal justice system, prosecutors}

have several discretionary powers. First, the prosecutor can decide if they will start an investigation into alleged crime and the power to bring a case before court (or not) (de Jongste, 2007; Tak, 1999). This last power is called the ‘opportuniteitsbeginsel’, or expediency principle. Furthermore, the prosecutor has the power to offer the suspect a ‘penalty decision’ in case of violations, or in case of crimes with a maximum of six years of prison time (Jörg et al., 2012). 17

Finally, the prosecutor must write an indictment, which contains the sentence recommendation and the elaboration on the crimes the defendant is held accountable for. This sentence recommendation has considerable influence on the sentencing decision of the judge (Wermink, Nieuwbeerta, Johnson, & De Keijser, 2015). Regarding a homicide, the prosecutor also has the power to order an autopsy in the early stage of the homicide investigation and the power to steer the investigation in a direction he sees fit (this is discussed with the leadership of the detective team).

In the Netherlands, certain powers are attributed to the examining judge. The main task of the examining judge is to guard the due process of the criminal justice system in the investigation phase (Tak, 1999). He is the actor that decides on certain investigative actions (de Jongste, 2007). Furthermore, the examining judge decides on the public prosecutor’s request to extend the detention of a suspect. The examining judge also has the power to interrogate witnesses, hold a preliminary trial and appoint experts (Jörg et al., 2012; Tak, 1999).18

In the Netherlands, the task of the judge is to assess the indictment, to see if the defendant is guilty of the crime(s) charged, to determine if he can be punished, and what the punishment should be (Jörg et al., 2012). These assessments are made based on written law, its general principles and jurisprudence (Tak, 1999). However, judges are independent, and have a broad discretionary power to determine the type and severity of the sentence (Wermink, Nieuwbeerta,

15_{The actions of a public prosecutor are bound by the rules and regulations of the Code of Criminal Procedure,}

articles 148-167a.

16_{In this thesis, the term ‘suspect’ will be used when the investigation into a committed crime is still ongoing. The}

term ‘defendant’ is used when the court proceedings have begun, and the term ‘perpetrator’ is used when the judge considers the defendant to be guilty of the alleged crime.

17_{See article 257a – 257h of the Dutch Code of Criminal Procedure.} 18_{See the articles 181-242 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.}

(14)

et al., 2015). In serious cases, such as homicide, the assessment of the defendant’s guilt, the question whether he is punishable, and the severity of the sentence is done by three judges, making up a so-called ‘cabinet’ (de Jongste, 2007). Now that the actors and their powers are identified, the phenomenon of discretion and the lens through which to view it are explained.

Discretionary Justice

Culp Davis uses a well-chosen metaphor for his view on discretionary justice: “A government of laws and men” (1971, p. 58). The use of discretion starts where the government of laws end, and the government of men begins (Culp Davis, 1969). Culp Davis describes discretion as the situation in which the effective limits on the power of a public official leave him or her free to make a choice among possible courses of action or inaction (1971). The ‘effective limits on his power’ means that the possible courses of action or inaction do not have to be limited to what is authorized or legal, but rather what is possible within his or her public function. This can also amount to illegal or questionable acts. Furthermore, inaction is included in this definition because in most cases inaction is the preferred modus operandi (Culp Davis, 1969, p. 4). Also, important to note is that discretion also applies to choices concerning the methods used in the carrying out of one’s function, and extends to procedures, degrees of cooperation, timing and much more. Davis (1969, p. 4) describes it as:

“An officer who decides what to do or not to do often (1) finds facts, (2) applies law and (3) decides what is desirable in the circumstances after the facts and law are known. The third of these three functions is customarily called “the exercise of discretion.”

Discretion is found in every stage of the criminal justice system, and it is influenced by a range of factors, such as one’s personal beliefs, organizational culture, characteristics of a case, victim and/or perpetrator and circumstances such as time pressure, workload and personal well-being of the judicial actor (Groeneveld, 2005; Hawk & Dabney, 2014; Salo, 2011). Several authors stress the need for discretion in the administrative process (Culp Davis, 1969; Jörg et al., 2012; Wortley, 2003). Culp Davis goes as far as to say that discretion is an essential part of a functioning legal system. A system based solely on rules and procedures would lead to rigidity, lack of adaptation to individual circumstances, harsh punishment and alienation of citizens (Culp Davis, 1971; Wortley, 2003). Discretion allows public officials to weigh different interests, such

(15)

as the personal impact of punishment, the interest of society to prevent a repetition of the offense and the specific circumstances of the case (Wortley, 2003). It enables them to work efficiently, which in turn adds to their ability to serve society (Salo, 2011). Hence, discretion is not a problem, but uncontrolled discretion can be. Uncontrolled discretion can lead to injustice, since the absence of rules or control mechanisms leaves the decision-making power unchecked and unchallenged.

Now that the theoretical basis for the ‘how’ part of the research question (How do criminal justice actors apply discretion in determining the outcome of a homicide case) is discussed it is time to look at the question of why the actors use their discretionary powers in the way they (how can this application be explained?). The theory with which to assess their decision-making is Black’s theory of law, and Cooney’s application of the theory of law to the act of homicide.

Black’s theory of law: the influence of perpetrator and victim characteristics on discretion Black’s theory of law explains why acts of the same magnitude get treated differently, why certain acts of deviant behavior are punished, and others are not, and why some acts are punished more severely and others more lenient. Or in other words, it “explains variation in the enactment of laws rather than variation in the criminal justice system” (Bernard, 2002, p. 651). In Black’s view, law should be regarded as ‘governmental social control’ (1976), functioning as a state mechanism to ensure behavioral conformity in a complex and heterogenous society (Vago, 2012). This governmental or ‘formal’ social control, is characterized by “(1) explicit rules of conduct, (2) planned use of sanctions to support the rules and (3) designated officials to interpret and enforce the rules, and often to make them” (Davis 1962 as quoted in Vago, 2012, p. 19). Other examples of social control mechanisms are religion or the rules of custom in a certain community. Following Black’s theory, law should be regarded as a quantitative variable (1969), which volume differs depending on the route and location of a deviant act in a social structure (Cooney, 2009). When the conduct, a homicide, is held constant, the outcome of the case varies because the amount of law applied to the case is different, based on the characteristics of the perpetrator and the victim. The amount of law is the severity of sanctions applied to a case, measured by the amount of investigative actions applied to it, how far the case progresses through the criminal justice system and the punishment inflicted upon the perpetrator (Cooney, 2009). Black’s theory states that law can be studied through various lenses, or dimensions, that

(16)

concern the route and location of a deviant act within a social structure. Every individual and group occupies a position in the five dimensions of a social structure. Therefore, all social interaction between these actors has direction, distance and elevation. These dimensions are the vertical, horizontal (which falls apart in relational and radial), cultural, organizational and normative dimensions of social life (Cooney, 2009).

Stratification

The vertical dimension of social life or 'stratification' concerns the uneven division of material requirements of existence and the means by which these are produced (Black, 1976). Less elegantly put, the vertical dimension amounts to the difference in wealth between people, or vertical distance. This difference in wealth attributes a certain rank or social standing to an individual or a group within a social system. Since wealth and the means of its production are often related to (among others) nationality, race and family ties, there is also vertical distance between groups, which makes rank applicable to both individuals and groups. Rank is directly related to the amount of law, meaning that people of high rank have more law than people of low rank (1976). According to Blacks' theory, law within the vertical dimension behaves according to these principles:

"..downward law is greater than upward law; in a downward direction, law increases with vertical distance; in an upward direction, law decreases with vertical distance" (Cooney, 2009, p. 37).

When these hypotheses are applied to a homicide, they state that an individual or member of a group with high vertical status will attract less law when he commits a homicide of a victim with lower vertical status. and an individual or member of a group with low vertical status will attract more law when he commits a homicide of an individual or group member with high vertical status. This difference in law is greater when the difference in vertical status is greater, and the difference is smaller when the difference in vertical status is smaller. Furthermore, the amount of law attracted to an individual with high vertical status who commits a homicide of another individual with high vertical status will be greater (because they have more law) than should a low-status individual commit a homicide of another low-status individual. One potential explanation of this different working of the law is the way a victim is viewed. So-called ‘victim

(17)

deservedness’, a classification based on lifestyle, incident dynamics and socio-economic status influences the perception of the victim as being ‘innocent’, or ‘deserving’ of his or her fate (Hawk & Dabney, 2014). Arguably, these classifications can also be applied to the perpetrator, making him/her more deserving or less deserving of punishment.

According to the Dutch laws, equal cases should be treated equally, and differentiation based on faith, political views, race, sex or any other ground is explicitly forbidden. Therefore, should Black’s theory prove to be true in the Dutch context, this difference in the working of the law is not made based on laws, but in the ways these laws are enacted by criminal justice professionals. In other words, they make different decisions in equal cases, based on their discretionary powers.

Morphology

Morphology, or the ‘horizontal dimension’ of social life falls apart in two separate dimensions: the ‘radial dimension’ and the ‘relational dimension’. The radial dimension relates to the place of an individual or group within society, either within the margins or in the center of society. Being part of a large social group raises one’s status within society (Cooney, 2009). In other words, this radial dimension is concerned with one’s participation in social life (2009). According to Black, this social status affects the way law works. To provide an example: throughout history, the law has offered little protection to those on the margins of society. Black refers to the different laws regarding ‘vagabonds’ or ‘tramps’, which made them subject to more intense police control and more liable to be arrested. These laws were common in twentieth century France, England and America (Black, 1976). If someone with low radial status would be killed by someone with a higher radial status, such a crime would receive less attention and if someone was convicted at all, a more lenient sentence (Cooney, 2009).

The relational dimension is concerned with the intensity of the interaction between people, the length in time of their interaction, frequency and number of social ties within a social system (Black, 1976). This relational distance ranges from close relatives to people who live in entirely different social systems and who will never meet. According to Black, family and intimate relationships are a closed bastion in which the working of the law is diminished in case of a crime, while a crime committed by two strangers will experience the full force of the law (1976); meaning that there is no or very little law in intimate relationships and the greater the relational distance between victim and killer the more law is applied to the case. This proposition

(18)

is based on the observation that only a small percentage of crimes within families get reported to the police, and when a perpetrator is convicted the punishment is often lenient (Conley as quoted in Cooney, 2009, p. 164). As Silverman & Kennedy stated, this is often due to the fact that a homicide in the relational sphere is seen as an emotionally charged drama, and a homicide between strangers as a threat to society’s social fabric (1987). A 1977 study conducted in Houston, Texas found that in certain kinds of homicides within families the perpetrator had a more than fifty percent chance to escape any legal punishment (Lundsgaarde, 1977). And vice versa, the more distant the victim-perpetrator relationship, the greater the chance the perpetrator will be severely punished for his act (Lundsgaarde, 1977). This leniency in punishing such a homicide is not based on law, but on discretion.

If true in the Dutch context, homicide in which the victim is an isolated individual will be subjected to less investigative vigor (less law) than cases in which the victim is a young mother with many friends and relatives, and her killer will receive more severe punishment than the killer of the hermit. Furthermore, a homicide committed in an intimate relationship will invoke less investigative action and a more lenient sentence for the killer than a homicide committed between two strangers. Again, not based on a difference in laws, but a difference in the enactment of laws by discretionary decisions of criminal justice actors.

Culture

The cultural dimension is about a people’s language, etiquette, music, history, traditions and its social norms and values (Cooney, 2009). Black defined culture as “the symbolic aspect of social life” (Black, 1976, p. 61). The cultural dimension of social life also influences the content of the law and the way it behaves. Because culture is built up from the aspects mentioned above, it varies from place to place and time to time and can be quantified. Some cultures have a myriad of rules and customs regarding all aspects of social life, while others have a far smaller number of rules and customs. On the individual level, the cultural differences between people amount to education, language and etiquette. Black states that a highly educated individual who commits a crime attracts less law if this crime is committed in a downwards direction, i.e. inflicted on someone less educated. If the facts of the case are reversed, the amount of law is higher (1976, p. 65).

When looking at groups, cultures differ from one another, including their conventionality. Some cultures are more conventional than others, for example the Christian culture is more

(19)

conventional than Animist culture present in isolated societies. Black’s theory states that the conventionality of a culture is also a form of social status (Cooney, 2009). When a person belongs to the most conventional cultural group in a nation, their social status is higher than someone from an unconventional cultural group, resulting in the fact that higher status groups have more law than the lower status groups. Not only conventionality, but also the difference between cultures varies. Some cultures have more in common than others, and some cultures have almost no similarities. This scale from being very similar to no resemblance whatsoever is explained with the term ‘cultural distance’. Together, conventionality and cultural distance influence law in the following way:

“Murder is more serious in the direction toward more conventionality than toward less conventionality; in a direction toward more conventionality seriousness increases with cultural distance; in a direction toward less conventionality, seriousness decreases with cultural distance; and seriousness increases with the conventionality of both parties” (Cooney, 2009, p. 133).

Cooney states that when one looks at conventionality the strong link with majority-minority relations and the cultural differences between these groups can be seen quickly (2009). In a Dutch study conducted in 2015, Wermink et al. found that ethnic minorities have a significantly higher chance to see their case send to court, to be incarcerated and to receive longer prison sentences (2015). This would support Black’s thesis about the cultural dimension. Since this differentiation is not based on law, it must be the result of discretion. Wermink et al. also point to the wide discretionary powers of judicial actors in combination with time pressure as a potential cause for this phenomenon (2015).

Organization

The organizational dimension concerns the "capacity for collective action", and is measured by “the presence and numbers of administrative officers, the centralization and continuity of decision-making and the quantity of collective action” (Black, 1976, p. 85). Organization is a form of social status, can be quantified, and varies directly with law (Black, 1976). A homicide committed from less to more organization attracts more law and greater sanctions than a homicide committed from more to less organization (Cooney, 2009). Crucial is that

(20)

organizational status not only benefits organizations, but also the people that work for that organization (Cooney, 2009). The organization with the highest degree of organization and therefore the highest organizational status is the state. This means that people that kill a public official will be subjected to more law, and public officials that kill will be subjected to less law. An example of this is the harsh punishment for crimes against the functioning of the state in the Dutch penal code.19

To clarify the influence of organization on the workings of the law, consider the example of the Dutch bank ING, which is about white-collar crime, not homicides. ING is the largest Dutch bank, with over 13,000 employees and 8 million customers in the Netherlands. This bank recently settled with the Dutch government in a money laundering case (Haegens, 2018). ING violated the law with their lack of supervision regarding the transfer of large sums of criminal money. While the law was clearly violated, ING could settle the case with a fine, and no-one was indicted. If an individual would violate the same laws, they would face a severe sentence. This is an example that corresponds to Black’s claim that organizational status influences law (1976).20

One important aspect to consider is that regarding the organizational dimension, the law sometimes allows for different punishment, as noted above. This makes this differentiation based on law, not on discretionary decision-making. However, the law doesn’t state that homicides committed on other public officials must be punished more severely than other homicides, which makes a difference in punishment in such cases the result of discretionary decision-making.

Social Control

Social control, or the ‘normative dimension’ represents one’s respectability in the community, another form of social status. The normative dimension concerns a social system’s rules for ‘normal’ and ‘deviant’ behavior, and the mechanisms to enforce or punish this behavior. One of these mechanisms is law. If a person is showing deviant behavior, he or she will be subjected to social control in order to correct this conduct. This social control is directly related to a person’s respectability: if a person has been subjected to much social control, his or her respectability is low; if a person has been subjected to little or no social control at all, his or her respectability is

19_{See articles 92 – 130b in the Dutch penal code, and the article regarding the killing of the King, article 108.} 20_{After public unrest regarding the fact that ING only had to pay a fine, the bank decided to fire its Chief Financial}

Officer (“‘Grote klap voor ING om de CFO te ontslaan,’” 2018). See also Sutherland 1945: ‘Is White-Collar Crime Crime?’.

(21)

high(er). This respectability is to be seen as one’s ‘normative status’ (Black, 1976). If a person with high respectability commits a crime, they will experience less law than someone with low respectability. When the victim of a crime has a history of deviant behavior, this case will also experience less law, then if the victim was highly respected (Cooney, 2009). This different behavior of law will become more pronounced when the difference in respectability is greater. Important to consider however is the fact that formal law allows for respectability to be taken into account (Cooney, 2009, p. 111). A criminal record can be taken into consideration when the prosecutor formulates the indictment and the judge imposes the punishment.21_{With regard to the}

normative dimension or respectability, Lady Justice is not ‘blind’, while regarding the other dimensions of social life the law should not work different in similar cases. The word ‘can’ is very important, since this gives judicial actors the discretionary power to choose whether or not to impose a more severe sentence on the killer (apply more law). However, the law does not allow the victim’s respectability to be taken into account.

(22)

Methodology

Research method

This research will be of explorative and qualitative nature, with the aim to create more understanding about the nature of people’s behavior (Rivano Eckerdal, 2016). The fact that there is no data on discretionary decision-making of Dutch criminal justice actors and the fact that discretion is elusive phenomenon makes a qualitative research more feasible than one of quantitative nature. To research this topic, a total of fourteen semi-structured interviews were conducted with forensic physicians, police detectives, prosecutors and judges. The interviewees were chosen because of their specific role in the processing of a homicide case and their discretionary powers to affect the outcome of such a case. They were recruited based on their work in the criminal justice system, their experience with homicide cases and their willingness to be interviewed. The interviewees were found via contacts from the researcher’s personal network (n=3) and the professional network of his supervisor (n=3). The interviewees were asked if they could introduce the researcher to his colleagues, who were deemed willing to cooperate in the research as well (n=6). This is the usage of the so-called snowball sampling technique (Sadler, Lee, Lim, & Fullerton, 2010). This technique uses a personal connection (e.g. a colleague or acquaintance) of the would-be interviewee to gain access to him or her (Cohen & Arieli, 2011; Mcdowell, 1998). This was useful, since all interviewees had demanding agendas, and the interviewees had to be conducted in two and a half months (mid-October 2018 – December 2018). Furthermore, interviewees were found by submitting an interview request to various organizations and professional associations, such as the Nederlands Forensisch Instituut (NFI) and the public prosecution office (n=2).

The interviews were conducted in the offices of the interviewees (n=10), in cafés (n=2), at their home (n=1) and the university library (n=1). Before the interviews started, the interview protocol was discussed, and all the interviewees agreed to the terms of the interview.22_The

identity of the interviewees was promised to remain confidential, and a transcript of the conversation was sent to them by e-mail, to enable them to check the correctness of the text and to modify it if they wished to do so. Each interview was conducted in a quiet environment and lasted between one and one and a half hours. All topics were discussed extensively, and questions that arose after the interviews were answered by e-mail and telephone.

(23)

After the interviews four composite cases were created, derived from the data collected by the interviews and based on the key aspects of discretion exercised by the interviewed actors. These stories are used to illustrate how the interviewed criminal justice professionals use their discretionary powers and how this influences the flow of homicide cases through the criminal justice system. This approach is chosen to structure the information in a clear way and by doing so increasing the understanding of discretion and showing how it affects the criminal justice process. Each composite case features one of the four different professions interviewed and is based on the information derived from the interviews with the professionals working in that field. After three professionals in the same field had been interviewed, the composite story based on the derived information was reviewed by a fourth expert within that professional field. This is done in order to increase its reliability and ensure an accurate representation of the facts.23

Justification

The research method of interviewing was chosen for several reasons. First, there was no prior research on discretionary decision-making of criminal justice actors in the Dutch context. Second, the personal accounts of these actors provide a detailed, nuanced view on the way they make their decisions. In the depth interview, the interviewer prepares a set of topics and questions, but exercises great flexibility and discretion in the way the questions are asked, their sequence and their direction (Hagan, 2010). This form of interviewing allows the interviewees to elaborate on their opinions and experiences, and share information they view as relevant, while it enables the researcher to ask follow-up questions to collect more in-depth knowledge on topics they are interested in (Rabionet, 2011; Rivano Eckerdal, 2016). Since the researcher was not knowledgeable about the criminal justice system’s handling of a homicide, this approach was chosen to gain more understanding of the ways criminal justice professionals use their discretion and why.

Data collection

The data used in the analysis is derived from depth interviews. The interviewees were fourteen professionals working in the criminal justice system, of which one forensic pathologist, two

23_{To see this research method applied in the academic field of terrorism studies, see the article by Weggemans,}

(24)

forensic physicians, four homicide detectives, three prosecutors and four judges. This was the maximum number of interviewees possible in the chosen timeframe. The case studies were checked by a judge, a prosecutor, a forensic physician and a police detective. The interviews were conducted by the researcher, using a list of open questions including prompts drafted prior to the interview. The interviews focused on discretionary decision-making of the actor. First the interviewees listened to an explanation of Black’s theory and its concepts, and how the researcher has conceptualized discretion. This approach was chosen to direct the interviewees in the right direction, and to avoid keeping them in the dark about the real motive behind the questions. After the explanation, the interviewees were asked how they exercised their discretion, what factors had an impact on their discretionary decisions, and whether victim or perpetrator characteristics connected to the five dimensions of Black’s theory of law were also a factor that affected their decision-making. The questions focused specifically on the actor’s powers to determine the outcome of homicide case, or in other words its progression to the next phase of the criminal justice system. For the forensic physician, this meant their advice to the prosecutor about an autopsy. For the police it meant their advice to the prosecutor about an autopsy, their choice regarding investigation techniques and strategies. For the prosecutor it meant the decision about the prosecution of a suspect, the choice of the crime in the indictment and the sentence recommendation. For the judge it meant their decision about the defendant’s guilt and the type and severity of the sentence. These questions were prepared based on the literature about the role of the actors in the system, their powers and the literature about discretion (Culp Davis, 1971; Duijst & Das, 2011; Jörg et al., 2012; Tak, 1999). The questions were adjusted to the profession of the interviewee. Since criminal justice actors also have knowledge about the decision-making of other actors due to their cooperation, the interviewees were also asked to reflect on this decision-making.

The order of questions was not fixed, allowing the interviewer to ask follow-up questions if deemed necessary. These interviews were then transcribed by the interviewer, analyzed and the data used to create the four composite cases.24_{Initial data analysis consisted of thoroughly}

reading of the transcripts. Information reoccurring in all or several interviews were assigned to a category and corresponding color code, based on the Grounded Theory framework (Corbin & Strauss, 2008).25_{The categories were created on the basis of the factors that affected the}

24_{For the transcriptions, see the Annex.}

(25)

decision-making of the interviewees, mentioned in the interviews. The data was grouped and coded on the “level of meaning” using the open coding approach (Decuir-Gunby, Marshall, & Mcculloch, 2011). This means that the data was coded according to its meaning. Since the answers given by the interviewees often switched between containing a variety of important factors within the same sentence and one ‘topic’ per number of sentences or a paragraph, this approach was chosen. Particular interest was paid to potential causal relationships between victim and perpetrator characteristics and decision-making of the actor regarding the homicide. The interviewees were ‘scored’ on Black’s dimensions according to their affirmative or negative answers to the questions if victim and killer characteristics connected to these dimensions would change their decision-making. Furthermore, scores were attributed to the affirmative or negative answers to the question if their colleagues would change their decision-making.

Operationalization of the concepts Discretion

All actors were asked how they make their discretionary decisions and based on what factors. These factors were analyzed using the developed coding scheme. Below, the various discretionary powers of all actors are discussed. The task of the forensic physician, the first actor, is to examine the body and to advice the prosecutor on the necessity of an autopsy, which the prosecutor considers seriously. 26_{Their judgement is based on an individual assessment of the}

circumstances, which is not based on statutory rules or regulations (Duijst & Das, 2011). In other words, this judgement is based on discretion, and this judgement can have considerable impact on the outcome of a homicide case.

American research has found that police detectives also exercise discretionary powers when working a criminal investigation (Groeneveld, 2005; Strange, 1996).27_{These discretionary}

powers range from the application of pressure during an interrogation to the choice what clues to follow up on when investigating a homicide case. The application of these discretionary powers

26_{To be exact: if a homicide case is yet to be ‘discovered’, the first actor that makes an important decision is the}

general practitioner or the medical specialist (if someone died in the hospital) that does the first examination of the body. However, this actor is officially not part of the criminal justice system, which starts with the forensic physician.

27_{More specifically, Dutch police detectives are bound by the Code of Criminal Procedure, case law, internal rules}

(26)

are influenced by personal beliefs, police culture, demands from higher ranked officials and sometimes things like time pressure (Groeneveld, 2005; Hawk & Dabney, 2014; Salo, 2011). In most cases, Dutch detectives are known to exercise discretion (Tak, 1999). Important to add is the fact that although the prosecutor legally is the leader of the investigation, the police have a considerable amount of maneuverability and influence when investigating the homicide, since all investigative decision-making is done in cooperation between the police and the prosecutor. Following this, the police have considerable influence on prosecutorial decision-making. Furthermore, the police have the custom to also advice the prosecutor on the necessity of an autopsy, although they have no legal role in this early stage. These are good examples of discretion (Culp Davis, 1975). Since the exact discretionary powers of police detectives in the Dutch context are unknown, the detectives are asked what rules and procedures they must adhere to and which decisions they can make based on their own considerations.

The public prosecutor has discretionary power to order an autopsy, to allow certain investigative actions and to steer the investigation, to prosecute and to determine the sentence recommendation in the indictment. In general, the influence of the prosecutor on the judicial sentencing can be considerable. Most judges seriously consider the suggestions of the prosecutor, and use the sentence recommendation in the indictment in determining the sentence (Fionda, 1995). The role of the public prosecutor is of such importance, that the sentencing of a perpetrator is in practice a joint enterprise between the judge and a public prosecutor (1995). This sentence recommendation will in most cases be based on the gravest offence the prosecutor feels can be proven by the evidence, but often contains one or more extra sentence recommendations should the judge feel that not the gravest offence can be proven, but another offence with less gravity. The prosecutor does so by making an assessment of the mitigating and aggravating conditions of the case. By doing so, the prosecutor directs the judge to several sentences and uses his discretionary power to affect the eventual judicial sentence (1995).

In the Netherlands, the judge wields wide discretionary power, symbolized by the absence of minimal sentencing in the Dutch Criminal Code, and the freedom with which he can choose the severity and form of the punishment imposed (Tak, 1999). Especially regarding his freedom to determinate the type and severity of the sentence, a judge has much discretionary power (Tak, 1999). Statutory rules about the objective of the sentence, sentencing principles or factors to take into account as mitigating or aggravating circumstances are lacking (Wermink, Nieuwbeerta, et al., 2015). Consequently, the sentencing decision in a homicide case is based on

(27)

the judge’s personal assessment of all factors involved. The judicial powers that concern the outcome of a homicide case are the determination of guilt and the type of punishment.

Stratification

In this thesis, the term ‘stratification’ means economic stratification. Economic stratification is measured by the difference in wealth between two persons or groups, or in other words, the “inequality of wealth” (Black, 1976, p. 11). Wealth is a form of social status, a method of ranking within a social system. Differences in occupation, ethnicity, and family relations are aspects of economic stratification between groups (Bendix, 1975). In her article on the role of socio-economic status in the criminal justice system, Van Eijk argues that it is not uncommon for judges to examine the socio-economic status of the defendant when deciding the punishment that should be inflicted (2015). However, these cases involved other crimes than homicide.

To examine if the socio-economic status of the victim or the perpetrator affects the utilization of the discretionary powers of criminal justice professionals, the interviewees were asked if they would make different discretionary decisions if the victim or the killer was wealthy. Since criminal justice actors do not necessarily know the victim’s financial situation, the economic situation of the neighborhood in which the victim is found is commonly known and is therefore used as an indicator of the victim or the killer’s wealth. This approach mirrors that of Litwin in his test of Black’s theory (2004).

Morphology

To test the morphology dimension, the approach of Lundsgaarde is followed, and homicides in families are taken as an indicator to test Black’s hypothesis (Lundsgaarde, 1977).28_The

interviewees were asked if a homicide in an intimate or family relationship would lead to different discretionary decision-making, and their thoughts on whether this aspect can influence their colleagues in their decision-making. Furthermore, the interviewees were asked if a homicide between strangers would lead to different discretionary decision-making and that of their colleagues. This was done to assess the difference in handling these two types of homicide.

The radial status is measured by one’s employment and the involvement of relatives in

28_{Cooney states that Lundsgaarde was not aware of Black’s theory of law, so Lundsgaarde did not test it. However,}

(28)

the homicide investigation, prosecution and trial phases, which is deducted from the interview data. Previous research use an individuals’ employment status as an indication of radial status (Kannegieter, 1994; Litwin, 2004; Wong, 2010). The factor of family and friends was used as a measure of radial status after the analysis of the interview data: this factor was mentioned several times as an indicator. For this research, the interviewees were asked if the fact that the victim or the killer was living an isolated life would lead to different decisions, and if it would affect the decision-making of their colleagues.

Culture

For this research, a specific type of homicide is chosen to see if criminal justice actors utilize their discretionary powers differently when processing such a case. This specific type of homicide is an honor killing. Honor killings are culturally very distant from the ‘mainstream’ Dutch culture, and in the Netherlands this phenomenon only occurs in certain ethnic groups. The interviewees are asked if they use their discretionary powers to make different decisions when a homicide is presumably an honor killing, and if so, what kind of effect this has on the progressing of this homicide case through the criminal justice system. In the past, courts have stated that the inflicted punishment on the perpetrator of an honor killing should also serve as a deterrent for others (Eck, 2003). This could be an indication of a possible harsher punishment than normally would be imposed. Moreover, Cooney states that the phenomenon of honor killings receives much more condemnation in Western societies, which would be a confirmation of Black’s hypothesis (Cooney, 2014).

However, since honor killings are the most extreme type of homicides involving a cultural aspect, another cultural aspect is used in the analysis of the cultural aspect: the closedness of a culture. This is chosen because this aspect was named by several interviewees as a factor that had an impact on their decision-making.

Organization

Organization concerns the dynamics of groups in social life. Organization is “the capacity for collective action” (Black, 1976, p. 85). The quantity of organization differs between groups, societies and individuals. This quantity can be measured by “the presence and number of administrative officers, the centralization and continuity of decision making and the quantity of collective action itself” (Bendix, 1975, p. 170). Next to the difference between organizations, the

(29)

quantity of organization can also differ between individual persons. This degree of organization is a sort of social status, which is not just enjoyed by organizations, but also by the individuals acting on the behalf of organizations (Cooney, 2009). Following this, if the victim of a homicide would be a self-employed individual, the attracted law of this case would be less than if the victim was employed by a large company (Lundsgaarde, 1977). This difference would be greater if the victim was a senior official of a large company, or a public official. To test whether the organizational dimension of a homicide case affects discretional decision-making by criminal justice professionals, the interviewees are asked if they utilize their discretionary powers in a different way when the victim or the perpetrator of a homicide case is a public official. This is done because of the fact that the state is seen as the organization with the highest organizational degree (Cooney, 2009). Furthermore, the public official criterium is easily measurable and known by the criminal justice actors.

Social control

Black qualifies social control as the density of rules and guidelines, no matter the type of social control, a person must follow within a social system (Black, 1976). To operationalize this difference in normative standing, the variable of a criminal record is used, which aligns with the operationalization of social control in other studies (Litwin, 2004). The interviewees are asked whether they would make different discretionary decisions if the victim or the perpetrator of a homicide has a record of previous criminal behavior. A criminal record is the most evident and objective indicator of one’s respectability, since it is the result of prior decision-making by criminal justice actors. The individual is thereby ‘branded’ as someone with low respectability and most importantly: this branding is done by their colleagues and known by the criminal justice actors. Therefore, it can affect their decision-making.

(30)

Analysis

Actor: Forensic physician Participants

Three medical experts were interviewed, one forensic pathologist and two forensic physicians, one man and two women (n=3). The age of the interviewees varied, two being in their thirties and one being in her fifties. The regions where the interviewees work vary. One is working for the NFI, one is working in the province of South-Holland, and one is working in the province of Overijssel. All interviewees have extensive experience with the examination of deceased people.

Tag: Function:

Respondent #1 Male, forensic pathologist at the NFI Respondent #2 Female, forensic physician

Respondent #3 Female, forensic physician

Results

Next to Black’s dimension, several other (related) factors that affected the decision-making of the forensic physician were mentioned by the interviewees, such as lack of forensic training and emotions. Lack of forensic training is discussed separately, emotion is discussed in relation to its connected dimension.

Stratification

For the advice regarding autopsy the wealth of the victim is not important. A forensic physician is not more inclined to advice an autopsy if the victim if wealthy. Although the information is brief, the given answers carefully debunk Black’s hypothesis of cases involving people with high vertical status to be more serious, and therefore receiving more law (1976). At least regarding the decision to advice an autopsy:

“Regarding the impact of the difference in wealth of the victims on the decision of the forensic physician, I think that it works both ways. When the victim is from a wealthy family, one might be more inclined to say that the family must not be burdened with the

The Stairway to Prison: Discretionary decision-making of criminal justice actors and their impact on the outcome of a homicide case