Ruthless and reckless: a new modus operandi in the Netherlands?

Ruthless and reckless: a new modus

operandi in the Netherlands?

A study on developments in the nature of systemic homicides in the

Netherlands between 1992 and 2017.

Final thesis Crisis and Security Management Bob van Wijk - s2105594

Supervisor: Drs. H. J. M. Schönberger/ Dr. P. G. M. Aarten Second reader: Dr. M. C. A. Liem

Acknowledgements

This thesis serves as the Magnus opus of my master Crisis and Security Management, and therefore of my time as a student. In general, I have enjoyed writing this thesis, despite the hard moments, in which I did not see wood for the trees. I want to thank my supervisors, drs. Schönberger, dr. Aarten, and my second reader dr. Liem, for their patience and keep saying that I am on the right track. Specifically, I want to thank drs. Schönberger for helping me with the data. Their feedback really helped me in the writing progress and has provided me with valuable lessons. Also, I would like to thank all staff of the Institute of Security and Global Affairs in the Hague for being so hospitable to let me work at one of their desks for the past three months.

This thesis provided me a unique opportunity to work with an enormous set of data that has provided valuable insights and will surely continue to do so in the future. The ability to systematically analyse and compare homicides from all over Europe can create insights in blank spaces in the field of criminology.

In conclusion, this thesis has confirmed my interests in researching and combatting organized crime and has improved my analytic skills that I will use for the rest of my career.

Bob van Wijk,

Abstract

This thesis aims to describe and explain developments in the prevalence and nature of drug market-related, or systemic, homicides in the Netherlands between 1992 and 2017. This research has longitudinal, retrospective, quantitative method, using data from the Dutch Homicide Monitor. The study used the routine activity approach as its main theoretical framework, supplemented by other insights. It was found out that 2012 is a year after which the nature changed. The modus operandi became more reckless on the one hand, but more professional on the other. In addition, perpetrators take guardianship for granted. All developments have led to a lower ratio of solved cases.

Table of contents

2.3.1 The Routine Activity Approach ________________________________________________________ 13 2.3.2 The absence of guardians and the presence of facilitators. __________________________________ 14 2.3.3 Social Disorganization Theory and the absence of a guardian _______________________________ 15 2.4 Overview on drug markets in the Netherlands _______________________________________ 15

2.4.1 Drug crime in the Netherlands _________________________________________________________ 16 2.4.2 Cocaine ____________________________________________________________________________ 16 2.4.3 Synthetic drugs _____________________________________________________________________ 17 2.4.4 Homicides __________________________________________________________________________ 18 2.5 Hypotheses _____________________________________________________________________ 19 3. Methodology ________________________________________________________________ 20

3.1 Definitions & Operationalizations __________________________________________________ 20 3.1.1 Homicide: p. ________________________________________________________________________ 20 3.1.2 Systemic homicide ___________________________________________________________________ 20 3.2 Indicators ______________________________________________________________________ 20

3.2.1 Size and geographical distribution of systemic homicide ____________________________________ 21 3.2.2 Routine Activities Theory _____________________________________________________________ 21 3.2.3 Social Disorganization Theory _________________________________________________________ 23 3.2.4 Other indicators on the nature of systemic homicides: roughening and professionalism __________ 23 3.2.5 Solved cases ________________________________________________________________________ 24 3.3 Research design _________________________________________________________________ 24

3.3.1 Methodological Approach_____________________________________________________________ 25 3.4 Data sources ___________________________________________________________________ 25

3.4.1 Dutch Homicide Monitor _____________________________________________________________ 25 4. Results _____________________________________________________________________ 26 4.1 Descriptive statistics _____________________________________________________________ 26 4.2 Prevalence of systemic homicide in the Netherlands ___________________________________ 27 4.2.1 Systemic homicides per year ___________________________________________________________ 27 4.2.2 Solved cases ________________________________________________________________________ 28 4.2.3 Development per province ____________________________________________________________ 29 4.3 Nature of Systemic Homicide______________________________________________________ 30

4.3.1 Routine Activity Approach, victim and perpetrator characteristics: age ______________________ 30 4.3.2 Routine Activity Approach, victim and perpetrator characteristics: victim background _________ 31 4.3.3 Routine Activity Approach, guardianship: crime scene ____________________________________ 31

4.3.4 Routine activity theory, guardianship: time ______________________________________________ 32 4.3.5 Social Disorganization Theory _________________________________________________________ 33 4.3.6 Modus operandi _____________________________________________________________________ 34 4.3.6 Mistaken identity ____________________________________________________________________ 36 4.3.7 Professionalism _____________________________________________________________________ 36 5. Conclusion and Discussion_____________________________________________________ 38 5.1 Conclusion _____________________________________________________________________ 38

5.2.1 Theoretical background ______________________________________________________________ 40 5.2.2 Limitations and future research ________________________________________________________ 42 Reference list __________________________________________________________________ 44

Figures

Figure 1: systemic homicide cases per year, 1992-2017 ________________________________________________ 28 Figure 2: percentage of solved cases, per year until 2013 _______________________________________________ 28 Figure 3: geographical distribution of systemic homicide cases, per province ________________________________ 29 Figure 4: development of number of systemic homicides per province, 1992 – 2017. Only for six highest rated

provinces. _____________________________________________________________________________________ 30 Figure 5: p. average age of victims and perpetrators, 1992-2017 _________________________________________ 31 Figure 6: principal victim background, systemic homicide cases 2002 - 2017 ________________________________ 31 Figure 7: crime scene, 2002 - 2017 _________________________________________________________________ 32 Figure 8: division of homicides on the day, 2002 -2017 _________________________________________________ 33 Figure 9: social disorganization score, Amsterdam and Rotterdam, per four years ___________________________ 34 Figure 10: modus operandi, weapon category, 1992 - 2017 ______________________________________________ 35 Figure 11: number of systemic homicide cases with automatic weapons involved ____________________________ 35 Figure 12: number of systemic homicide cases with a mistaken identity victim _______________________________ 36 Figure 13:. systemic homicide by type of homicide _____________________________________________________ 37

Tables

Table 1: ratio of solved cases, crime scene ___________________________________________________________ 32 Table 2: percentage solved cases, part of day ________________________________________________________ 33 Table 3: percentage solved cases, modus operandi _____________________________________________________ 36 Table 4: percentage solved, drug-related and assassinations _____________________________________________ 37

1. Introduction

“The new generation unstoppable criminals”, “The unscrupulous, firearm-threatening generation of criminals today”, “new generation of heavy criminals”: just a grasp of the headliners concerning the alleged change in the use of lethal violence among criminals in the Netherlands (Schrijver & Laumans, 2015; Vugts, 2014; Vugts, 2017). Crime experts argue that the nature of organized crime, particularly relating to drug markets, is becoming more violent over the last years (Schrijver & Laumans, 2015; Vugts, 2014; Vugts, 2017).

According to academic literature lethal violence and organized crime have always been intertwined: p. violence is even seen as one of the key characteristics of organized crime (Albanese, 2005: p. 9; Andreas & Wallman, 2009: p. 225; Vander Beken, 2004: p. 477; Schneider, 2007: p. 125). The Netherlands is no exception to this rule and has been subject of many criminal activities concerning illicit drugs. Due to its favourable geographical location, the Netherlands often functions as a pivot in international illegal activities (Kleemans, 2007: p. 164; Van de Bunt & Kleemans, 2007: p. 15). Large quantities of drugs, predominantly cocaine and cannabis, were bought, sold, and trafficked through the Netherlands (Kleemans, 2007: p. 164). Due to its position as a transit point, the Netherlands has a big history concerning drug-related criminals. Many well-known criminals, such as Klaas Bruinsma, Sam Klepper, and Cor van Hout were victimized at some point in their lives (Kleemans, 2007) and allude to the assumption that lethal violence and the drug-market are intertwined. According to recent publications, there has been a change in the technique these homicides are committed, especially related to the modus operandi (Schrijver & Laumans, 2015; Vugts, 2017a; Vugts, 2017b). By using detailed stories from the violent crimes and murders these criminals commit, the media has sketched a very gloomy, threatening picture on the current developments in organized crime. However, the question remains, if the nature has really changed, or if it is perception, manufactured by outliers.

This thesis focuses on homicides that are related to drug-related crime in the Netherlands. For this, the conceptualization of systemic violence from Peter Goldstein is used (Goldstein, 1985). Goldstein was the first author to conceptualize and operationalize the relation between drugs, drug markets, and violence. Also, his framework has successfully been verified by different authors (Blumstein, 1995; Goldstein, Brownstein & Ryan, 1992). In his article “The Drugs/Violence Nexus:

p. A Tripartite Conceptual Framework”, he argues that one of the relations between drugs and

violence comes from the illegality of drug markets, so called ‘systemic violence’ (Goldstein, 1985: p. 497). He defines systemic violence as the type of violence related to ‘traditionally aggressive patterns of interaction within the system of drug distribution and use’ (Goldstein, 1985: p. 497). For this thesis, his idea of systemic violence will be placed in a homicide context. This gives the opportunity to distinguish systemic homicide from other homicides.

This thesis aims to contribute to the knowledge on developments concerning the prevalence and nature of systemic homicide in the Netherlands, over the past 26 years. Also, it aims to explain the described developments using components of different existing theories that can possibly help explain changes in either size or nature. Theories that are applied to this thesis are the routine activity approach (Cohen & Felson, 1976) and the social disorganization theory (Shaw & McKay, 1942). In conclusion, this thesis aims to connect these findings to suggestions for both policy and future research. To be able to achieve these two objectives, this thesis revolves around the following research question: p. “How can developments in the prevalence and nature of systemic homicide in The

Netherlands between 1992 and 2017 be explained?”

In order to answer this question, the following sub questions have been developed:

• How did the prevalence of systemic homicide in the Netherlands develop between 1992 and

2017?

• How did the nature of systemic homicide in the Netherlands develop between 1992 and 2017? • How did the developing nature influence the ratio of solved systemic homicide cases in the

Netherlands between 1992 and 2017?

• How can the developments in systemic homicide in the Netherlands between 1992 and 2017

be explained using the routine activity approach?

Both academic and societal relevance from this research lies in its unique character: p. components concerning the nature of systemic homicide have not been systematically described over a long period for a whole population in the Netherlands. This thesis is the first study to look at many developments regarding the prevalence and nature for all known systemic homicides in The Netherlands between 1992 and 2017. An extensive analysis from multiple angles of approach on systemic homicide in the Netherlands will provide knowledge on how this specific crime category has developed over the past 26 years. This can be useful in creating important insights, for instance when findings are compared to other countries. When comparing this to other countries, researchers are able to discover developments that are equal between different countries which are exclusive to The Netherlands. By applying this knowledge, Dutch policymakers and executive authorities are able to compare their methods with other countries.

A recent report from the Dutch Scientific Research and Documentation Centre (Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek- en Documentatiecentrum, WODC) described that the nature of assassinations is changing (Van Gestel & Verhoeven, 2017). The authors of the report speak of an increased “roughening and professionalization” of homicides in the past years, however mostly employ anecdotal proof in order substantiate their assumption. By conducting research to the entire

population of systemic homicides in the Netherlands over the last 26 years, this thesis is able to investigate this assumption more thoroughly.

In addition, recent developments in the Netherlands have strengthened the relevance of this research. In the first months of 2018, several systemic homicides have taken place, and a crown witness is about to cooperate with the public prosecutor, in exchange for his safety1_{. This did not} come without a price, only days after the witness was made public, his brother was murdered during the day in his own office. These events strengthen the urgency for better research in the nature and development of systemic homicides.

This thesis is relevant for the field of Crisis and Security management, since it can give new insights on systemic homicides. In the Netherlands, this topic has not been researched in a similar way. It can provide valuable conclusions that can be beginning for new research. Also, due to its actuality, it is a topic that is interesting to study for all students that are involved in security.

https://nos.nl/artikel/2224974-nieuw-dieptepunt-mocro-oorlog-voor-het-eerst-familielid-van-kroongetuige-2. Theoretical framework

The following chapter establishes the theoretical guidelines necessary to answer the research question and be able to explain developments in drug-market related homicide over the last couple of decades. The chapter begins with an explanation of Goldstein’s (1985) framework on the drug/violence nexus. It conceptualizes the relation between drug markets and violence, and thereby explains why (lethal) violence should be considered as inseparable. Further, the chapter provides an overview on research related to developments in drug systemic homicide. Thereafter, the routine activity approach and social disorganization theories are explained. In conclusion, a brief overview is provided about the known developments concerning the different drug markets, notable actors and other developments in the Netherlands. This contextual background gives the ability to put the quantitative results in perspective.

2.1 Systemic homicide

The main framework on the relation between violence and drugs is presented in the article “The

Drugs/Violence Nexus: p. A Tripartite Conceptual Framework” (Goldstein, 1985). Goldstein begins

his framework with the assumption that the relation between drugs and violence appears to be strong, and that drug use and drug trafficking appear to be important etiological factors in the occurrence of violence (Goldstein, 1985: p. 494). However, up to 1985, there was no literature providing a conceptual framework to further support his research. Therefore, Goldstein aimed to establish that framework, conceptualizing the relation between violence and drugs (Goldstein, 1985: p. 494). The framework identifies the relation between drugs and (lethal) violence as trilateral. In this study, the author distinguishes three ways on how drugs and violence are interrelated: p. psychopharmacological, the economically compulsive, and the systemic (Goldstein, 1985: p. 494). Because the systemic method concentrates solely on the drug markets, the former two methods will be explained to a lesser extent

The psychopharmacological model assumes that persons, due to the usage of drugs over time, may become umbrageous and irrational, and therefore are more likely to behave violently (Goldstein, 1985: p. 494, 495).

The second model, the economic compulsive model, distinguishes itself from the psychopharmacological model through its economical characteristic. This model suggests that some users of drugs commit violent crimes with an economic motivation, in order to support their expensive habit (Goldstein, 1985: p. 496). Economic compulsive violence differs from psychopharmacological violence in its rationality, rather than the impulsive characteristic associated with the latter. This illustrates that violence plays a role in both models. In the economic compulsive model, violence is

instrumental in achieving its goal: p. obtaining money (Goldstein, 1985: p. 496). Psychopharmacological violence is expressive, since the violence is not used to reach any monetary objective.

In the third model, Goldstein describes the systemic model (Goldstein, 1985: p. 497) in which violence is not only related to the use of drugs but refers to “the traditionally aggressive patterns of

interaction within the system of drug distribution and use” (Goldstein, 1985 497). According

Goldstein, this aggressive pattern derives from the fact that people involved in drug business operate outside the law. This lawless society within the drug business has several implications that can all lead to violence. Firstly, victims who operate in either production or distribution of drugs are not likely to contact the police in order to resolve their problem because they are unable to speak about their daily business (Goldstein, 1985: p. 501). Therefore, they might be more likely to take matters into their own hands. This is linked to the second consequence, reasons that the presence of weapons and violence lead to more violence (Zahn, in Goldstein, 1985: p. 501). Due to the presence of weapons and violence people fear for their lives, and as a consequence they start carrying weapons in order to be able to defend themselves (Zahn, in Goldstein, 1985: p. 501). Overall, this leads to an increase of violence. The third characteristic of the drug market compels people to operate unrestrictedly, beyond the rules of normal business (Glaser, in Goldstein, 1985: p. 500). When something is not going according to plan, drug operators are more likely to use strategies that would not be accepted in licit markets (Glaser, in Goldstein, 1985: p. 500). Examples could be violence, (violent) threatening, extortion, bribery, blackmail and ultimately homicide.

This conceptual framework serves different purposes in this thesis. First, it conceptualizes the relation between drugs and drug markets on the one hand, and (lethal) violence on the other hand. It describes extensively how drugs and violence are closely related in different forms. Second, it does not only show how drugs and violence are related, but also reveals the underlying reasons for the relation. Third, it creates the possibility to distinguish systemic homicides from all other homicides that have been committed in the Netherlands.

2.2 Literature review

2.2.1 Theories explaining crime

Over the past decades, criminology has offered many explanations for crime. Well known theories that explain crime effectively are the Differential Association Theory, Social Control Theory and the Strain Theory (Agnew, 1992; Hirschi, 1969; Sutherland, 1947). these theories are able to provide valuable insights on the perpetrators and victims of systemic homicide.

The Differential Association theory was developed to explain why certain groups in society commit more crimes than others (Matsueda, 2001: p. 168). The theory argues that that crime is not

congenital and can be constructed by someone in his or her social environment (Matsueda, 2001: p. 168). If the social environment of a person contains more definitions favourable to crime than definitions unfavourable to crime, the probability of this person committing a crime increases (Matsueda, 2001: p. 168). In relation to systemic homicide, this theory can help in developing insights on why people commit these homicides. In order to do so, one needs a lot of detailed information on the background of both victims and perpetrators. This dataset and research method is unavailable for this research.

Social Control theory explains crime the other way around. The theory argues, similar to rational choice theories, that a person will commit a crime if the price is right, in other words, when the benefits exceed the costs (Hirschi, 2017: p. 108, 109). Specific for this theory is that it focuses on factors that decrease the costs for a person in comparison to other people. It argues that the decision a person makes to commit a crime depends on two factors. First, a person is more likely to commit a crime when there is a lack of attachment to institutions, people, or a commitment to conventional ways of acting (Hirschi, 2017: p. 108, 109). The second factor that increases the likelihood of committing a crime is a lack of belief in moral validity norms (Hirschi, 2017: p. 108, 109). The theory argues, similar to rational choice theories, that a person will commit a crime if the price is right, in other words, when the benefits exceed the costs (Hirschi, 2017: p. 108, 109). The theory can create valuable insights on why people would commit systemic homicides and why others related to drug distribution would not. It can increase the knowledge on perpetrators in a research that focuses on perpetrator background. It is very hard to obtain the appropriate large-scale research using this theory.

Lastly, the General Strain Theory focuses on a micro level instead of an individual (Agnew, 1992). According to the theory, people are more likely to commit criminal acts when they experience strain in their life. The author describes three different types of strain: strain as the disjunction between (1) aspirations and expectations/actual achievements, (2) expectations and actual achievements, and (3) just/fair outcomes and actual outcomes (Agnew, 1992: p. 56). The first type of strain is what is considered as the ‘Classic Strain-Theory’ developed by Robert Merton (1957). It argues that the disjunction is predominantly caused by social class and other factors related to welfare (Agnew, 1992: p. 51). It argues that welfare creates a strain between a person’s aspirations and expectations. This can increase the likelihood is delinquency but cannot explain all crime, especially for the case of higher class delinquents (Agnew, 1992: p. 52). Therefore, the General Strain Theory added two more types of strain. The second type argues that strain occurs when expectations are not achieved. This creates strain when people with similar backgrounds achieve the expectations they have set (Agnew, 1992: p. 52). Therefore, this strain cannot contribute towards factors related to welfare. The third type is strain created by the discrepancy between just outcomes and actual outcomes (Agnew, 1992: p. 53). The most common causes of this discrepancy are inequality,

corruption or other factors causing injustice. According to the theory, all types of strain can make people willing to commit criminal acts (Agnew, 1992: p. 56). Strain Theory can create valuable insights in the reasons behind someone’s decision to commit a systemic homicide. It can be of great importance to research what type of strain contributes mostly to a systemic homicide.

The common strength about these mentioned theories is that they can provide detailed insights on perpetrators and victims. However, to perform research by applying these theories, one needs a considerable amount of personal information of the concerned parties. In the case of systemic homicide, it is impossible to conduct interviews with victims. In theory it should be possible to conduct interviews regarding the perpetrators, but it is unlikely that they would be willing to cooperate. Besides, for many cases the perpetrator is not known, therefore systemic homicide is a very specific crime. Parties related to systemic homicide are mostly already involved in the business of drug distribution for a long time. Therefore, the motivation for a homicide is most likely to be found in either money or revenge. In addition, this research aims to look at developments over time, focussing mostly on the nature of systemic homicides.

2.2.2 Theories explaining variations in the prevalence of systemic homicide over time

In the academic field, several authors successfully explained differences in systemic violence and homicide over time (Benson, Leburn & Rasmussen, 2001; Blumstein, 1995; Brownstein et al., 2000; Moeller & Hesse, 2013; Reuter, 2009; Schneider, 2007). They argued how market instability causes conflict which results in homicide. One group of authors showed how market competition causes this unstable situation and therefore conflict (Brownstein et al., 2000; Schneider, 2007). The authors argued that unstable markets are characterized by the absence of established rules and an increase of interactions with unknown people (Brownstein et al., 2000: p. 879). The combination of these two characteristics is likely to result in more conflicts, and also in more conflicts being solved in an unorthodox way, such as homicide (idem: p. 879). The theory was further explored in 2007 in the context of the Canadian cocaine market (Schneider, 2007). The author found that instability was caused by the drive of the Hell’s Angels to monopolize the market, which led to a rapid increase in violence (idem: p. 129). Also, the author found that the aggressive reaction from ‘freelance wholesalers and retailers’, which challenged the Hell’s Angels’ market share led to a further increase of violence (idem p. 129).

Several authors agree with the assumption that systemic homicide is related to market instability (Benson et al., 2001; Moeller & Hesse, 2013; Rasmussen et al., 1993). However, they argue that this instability, and resulting violence is caused by law enforcement (Benson et al., 2001; Moeller & Hesse, 2013; Rasmussen et al., 1993). This assumption is related to the prior group, since these authors also argue that instability causes increased competition, conflict, and therefore violence.

The assumption was examined in both American and Danish context, both leading to an increase in lethal violence after increased law enforcement (Benson et al., 2001: p. 991; Moeller & Hesse, 2013: p. 218). In Mexico, a study found that a strong increase in homicides was detected after a leadership change. This can be through law enforcement or a killing by rival groups (Reuter 2009).

Since these studies focus predominantly on developments on the nature of drug market-related homicide, the theories are only partly sufficient. Despite their capability to explain differences in size, they cannot explain variety in the way systemic homicides are committed. Also, drug market stability and law enforcement are difficult to measure. Besides, this overview shows that different studies have also successfully explained differences in the size of drug market-related homicide over time. In contrary, very little has been said over the nature of homicide in general (Beauregard, Lussier & Proulx, 2005). Especially concerning systemic homicides and more specifically the topic seems untouched in Western-Europe.

In order to research changes in the nature of systemic homicides in the Netherlands over a 26-year period, this thesis uses elements from the Routine Activity Approach and Social Disorganization Theory. The Routine Activity Approach assumes offender motivation and describes the occurrence of the crime mostly to other components (Cohen & Felson 1979; Rice & Smith, 2002: p. 308).

2.3 Theories explaining the nature of systemic homicide

The Routine Activity Approach views the occurrence of a crime as an outcome of opportunities arising from the structure and dynamics of ordinary routines (Felson, 2006). The Routine Activity Approach, established in 1979, is developed for analysing crime rate trends and cycles (Cohen & Felson, 1979). The theory argues that crime consists of three elements: a motivated offender, a suitable target and the absence of a capable guardian (Cohen & Felson, 1979: p. 589). In contrary to many other theories, the Routine Activity Approach takes criminal inclination as given, and focuses on spatio-temporal characteristics (Cohen & Felson, 1979: p. 589). The authors argue that criminal acts are a significant phenomenon in society and are therefore imbedded in routine activities and lifestyles in society (Cohen & Felson, 1980: p. 390). Crime is dependent on the available opportunity for the offender (Cohen & Felson, 1980: p. 390). The opportunity is there when a motivated offender meets a suitable target in an environment with no present guardian. The suitability of a target depends on the characteristics, value, accessibility, and lifestyle (Brantingham & Brantingham, 1993: p. 263). The third crucial component of the Routine Activity Approach is guardianship. A guardian can keep an offender away from offending. Guardianship is a broad concept that can be viewed in many forms. It can either be protection by a police officer or another person. Also, it can be a witness, or a

surveillance camera, or something else that can increase the chance of being caught (Cohen & Felson, 1979: p. 593).

For this research, the Routine Activity Approach is the most suitable theory, since it emphasizes the importance of the nature of crime. Systemic homicide is a very narrow crime category that involves parties which are already involved in criminal acts, namely the illicit drug business. Therefore, offender motivation and target suitability can be viewed as present. In contrary to other theories, the routine activity approach argues that aside from offender motivation, other components of the crime are important. It argues that different elements can increase the chance of not being caught and therefore the attractiveness of committing the crime (Clarke & Eck, 2005: p. 66). The Routine Activity Theory is the most suitable framework for this thesis as it aims to research the developments in the size and nature of systemic homicides. In addition, the source of the data, The Dutch Homicide Monitor, has many indicators that can give information on the nature such as the crime scene and modus operandi. The Routine Activity Theory emphasizes the importance of these indicators.

2.3.2 The absence of guardians and the presence of facilitators.

Routine activities such as work, family, friends, or school bring people together at certain times and places; including motivated offenders, suitable targets and capable guardians (Cohen & Felson, 1979: p. 593). Also, the routine activities of a target can give information to a motivated offender when a guardian is absent. Not only the routine activities of a target influence guardianship, also routine activities of the population create patterns that can either hinder or facilitate guardianship (Clarke, 1995: p. 102). In the context of systemic homicide, the motivation of the offender, and the suitability of the target are largely fixed. The remaining component of the Routine Activity Approach, the absence of a guardian, is therefore important. Clarke and Eck (2005) also emphasize the function of crime facilitators. Crime facilitators are characteristics that can help offenders in committing the crime or decrease the chance of being caught (Clarke & Eck, 2005: p. 66; Miller, 2013: p. 394). In the context of systemic homicide, facilitators are mostly physical (De Korte, 2017: p. 36) Physical facilitators are tools that make the crime easier and possibly decrease the risks for the offender to get caught (Clarke & Eck, 2005: p. 66; De Korte, 2017: p. 31).

Examples of these facilitators can be, among others, fast stolen cars, tracking devices, and weapons (De Korte, 2017: p. 31-32). Routine activity studies have also shown that the availability of weapons created an opportunity for lethal weapons (Savolainen, Messner & Kivivuori, 2000: p. 51; Titterington & Grundies, 2007). Both authors argued that the presence of a gun could increase the chance for an opportunity to commit homicide. In the context of systemic homicide, this means that the presence of facilitators could increase the chance of an opportunity for homicide. In addition,

heavy firearms are used as a form of deterrence (De Korte, 2017: p. 37). It can function as a deterrent for allies of the victim, bystanders and police. It can help the perpetrators to get away. Therefore, it could be that the absence of a guardian is less important when the proper facilitators are available.

2.3.3 Social Disorganization Theory and the absence of a guardian

Even though Social Disorganization and Routine Activities Theories have different starting points, the Social Disorganization Theory emphasizes the importance of a location for criminal activities. Social Disorganization Theory focuses on the social dimension and distribution of crime across neighbourhoods (Shaw & McKay, 1942). The theory examines how distributions in unemployment, poverty, education, stability, ethnic composition can all determine social organization within a neighbourhood (Shaw & McKay, 1942). Social disorganization is related to crime through social control and social cohesion. When social control and cohesion are low, social behaviour decreases (Shaw & McKay, 1942). A decrease in social interactions among neighbours causes less social control, which can lead to delinquency. This absence of social control in a neighbourhood can also be viewed as a form of absence of a guardian. A neighbourhood with higher levels of social disorganization can therefore be viewed as an opportunity for an offender to commit the crime. Characteristics of social disorganization include high immigrant populations, racial or ethnic heterogeneity, low socioeconomic status and single parent and female-headed households (Paulsen & Robinson, 2004, 59). When these two theories are integrated, Social Disorganization Theory can be used to examine the characteristics of the environment that motivate offenders while Routine Activity Theory can be used to examine the characteristics of the environment bring motivated offenders and suitable targets together in time and space. The social and physical characteristics of a place such as the density of the population and the socio-demographic characteristics of the people in an area can affect the convergence of motivated offenders, suitable targets and absence of capable guardians

In relation to systemic homicide, social disorganization can explain differences in the areas where systemic homicides have been committed. Areas that are characterized with a higher degree of social disorganization are more likely to meet the absence of a guardian.

2.4 Overview on drug markets in the Netherlands

This chapter describes the context of the Dutch drug markets. Firstly, it provides a description of the history of drug crime The Netherlands. Secondly, it describes the more recent situation in the two drug markets in which more recent developments take place, namely: cocaine and synthetic drugs. Lastly, a brief context on the change in assassinations according to recent reports is provided. Thereby describing the developments related to organized crime concerning these two illicit markets.

2.4.1 Drug crime in the Netherlands

Until the 1980s, organized crime concerning drugs seemed an exotic phenomenon fated for Americans and Italians (Kleemans, 2007: p. 163-164). Due to its favourable geographical location, The Netherlands has often functioned as a pivot in international illegal activities (Kleemans, 2007: p. 164; Kruisbergen, Van de Bunt & Kleemans, 2007: p. 15). Major quantities of drugs, predominantly cocaine and cannabis, were bought, sold and trafficked through the Netherlands (Kleemans, 2007: p. 164). Drug traffickers and other participants traveling between the Netherlands and Surinam began to earn large sums of money. The moment when these drug criminals began to invest their money in real estate and legal companies, it caught the eye of law enforcement and policy makers (Kruisbergen, Bunt & Kleemans, 2012: p. 16). From that moment on, the topic of organized drug crime became an important topic in Dutch society (Kruisbergen, Bunt & Kleemans, 2012: p. 16).

Most notable criminals were not only selling drugs. One of the biggest known Dutch drug lords in that time was Klaas Bruinsma, who began dealing cannabis and later participated in illicit gambling and prostitution (Korterink, 2012). During the 1990’s, various Dutch drug lords were involved in conflict with each other, resulting in extortion and assassinations (Korterink, 2012). These organisations were known as the “Dutch Networks” (Van Gestel & Verhoeven, 2017: p. 16). The “Dutch Networks” dominated the Dutch crime scene for a long time however many of these actors do not appear to play a major role anymore as most are either killed, serving time, or started a new life far away (Van Gestel & Verhoeven, 2017: p. 16, 17). Recently, various criminals belonging to the Dutch networks, have received sentencing for participating in criminal organizations and are held responsible for several homicides2_{. This event has formed a gap, created opportunities for new groups} to enter the market and make a fortune in de drug business, taking over the places of former criminals.

2.4.2 Cocaine

The most attractive market, due to its high profits, is most likely the cocaine market. At the time, in the early 2000’s, when most Dutch criminals quit due to several reasons, there were no well-known criminals in the scene. The wave of assassinations of the Dutch networks appeared to be over and the amount of violence evidently low. A relatively new group of criminals made its entry onto the cocaine market, Moroccans. For decades, European cannabis was transported from Morocco. After the year 2000, young Moroccan criminals found out that they could earn more money by smuggling cocaine instead of cannabis3 _{(Vugts, 2014), and started using the old cannabis smuggle routes for cocaine.} These criminals quickly earned a lot of money and invested it in real estate in Morocco, Dubai and Spain (Vugts, 2014; Vugts, 2017). They could operate relatively anonymous as it was not their

ambition to invest in The Netherlands. These groups began to draw attention in the Netherlands after 2012 (Schrijver & Laumans, 2015; Vugts, 2014; Vugts, 2017). In 2012 a group of men, predominantly with Moroccan background, had discovered that they lost shipment of 200 kilograms of cocaine, with a street value of 10 million euros. Due to this loss, a conflict arose between the once peacefully operating groups, and began to kill each other. This conflict cost the lives of dozens of people as well as men that are considered very high in rank. The conflict was characterized by increasing recklessness and a very low morality (Schrijver & Laumans, 2015; Vugts, 2015; Vugts, 2017). For a long time, the police were groping in the dark in sentencing these criminals. Due to their unclear structure, innovative methods and secure methods of communication, not much was known about the organizations and those in charge (De Korte, 2017; Schrijver & Laumans, 2015; Van Gestel & Verhoeven, 2017; Vugts, 2015; Vugts, 2017). Today the police have cracked the secured phones and the real leaders have been placed on worldwide search lists45_{. Because of this reason, new} developments related to these arising conflicts and cocaine markets are expected to rise in the near future.

2.4.3 Synthetic drugs

The synthetic drug market is younger than most other drug markets. While cannabis and cocaine are already illicit for decades, MDMA (and ecstasy), forbidden since 1988 and from that moment on production and distribution of these goods were illegal. A large difference from the cocaine market described earlier is that the entire production process of MDMA occurs in The Netherlands. According to a police report people involved in the production and distribution remain more or less the same (Politie, 2017: p. 53). Most people involved in the synthetic drug business are people living in trailer parks in the southern part of the Netherlands (Politie, 2017: p. 53). From the beginning of the 1990’s, people in these areas started to develop their own synthetic drugs of high quality. A small group of criminals found out that to export these drugs was very profitable, especially to the United Kingdom6_{. By utilizing the profit, these Dutch criminals invested and developed their laboratories} and essentially enhanced their position in the drug market. In addition, they transfer their knowledge on to the next generation.

A relatively new development within the world of synthetic drugs is one of interference by Outlaw Motorcycle Gangs (OMG’s) (Politie, 2017: p. 53). In the Netherlands various OMG’s, mainly Hell’s Angels are connected to drug distribution and assassinations. Other criminals involved in synthetic drugs joined OMG’s likely for protection. Because of this, the OMG became involved in

4 _{https://nos.nl/artikel/2162140-om-3-6-miljoen-versleutelde-berichten-van-criminelen-gekraakt.html} 5 _{https://nos.nl/artikel/2224445-liquidatiebaas-ridouan-t-op-nationale-opsporingslijst.html}

the process. The Dutch police have connected OMG’s to different assassinations that have taken place in the Southern part of the Netherlands. In addition, the criminals could benefit from the international network and influence of the Outlaw Motorcycle Gangs (Politie, 2017: p. 53). Dutch synthetic drugs are distributed to every part of the world and the demand is ever growing. Therefore, the police expect an increase in crime connected to synthetic drug markets (Politie, 2017: p. 56, 57).

2.4.4 Homicides

According to the WODC report, a recent development has shown that all drug related markets share a common ground when it comes to homicides (Van Gestel & Verhoeven, 2017: p. 23). Based on interviews and conversations with (former) police officers and public prosecutors, they argue that 2012 is viewed as a year after which different changes are observed. Before 2012, shooters were often either experienced Dutch men or experienced former soldiers from Yugoslavia (Van Gestel & Verhoeven, 2017: p. 19-23). These people were familiar with operating firearms and able to efficiently eliminate their targets. Today, it is observed that inexperienced shooters use heavy firearms and require more ammunition to eliminate their targets and therefore has additional consequences like collateral damage is taken for granted. In the beginning of the Moroccan criminal wave of assassinations in 2012, automatic weapons were almost viewed as common. The increase in automatic weapons is, according to the Dutch police, based on several reasons. Firstly, on the supply aspect because there were automatic weapons coming out from Slovakia (Politie, 2017: p. 97). They were being sold for a relatively low price due to the surplus of weapons in Eastern-Europe at the time. The second reason is based on the increasing presence of bulletproof vests among high value targets (Politie, 2017: p. 97), which requires heavier firearms in order to perform a successful assassination (Politie, 2017: p. 97). In addition, the heavy firearms are used by perpetrators to deter the police after a shooting.

This new generation of perpetrators are often very young men and have little to no experience with firearms at all (Van Gestel & Verhoeven, 2017: p. 19-23). On the other hand, these new perpetrators are said to have become more professional and effective over time due to their use of modern technologies such as tracking devices, secures mobile phones and fast cars or scooters. This increased level of professionalism has led to the rise and existence of new groups that are specialised in committing effective assassinations (Van Gestel & Verhoeven, 2017: p. 24). In addition, these new groups offer their services to anyone who is willing to pay for it and not limited to the drug market. These more recent homicides have led to a situation where it is difficult to distinguish participants from various markets.

2.5 Hypotheses

The previous paragraph argued how the routine activity approach and social disorganization theory offer concepts that can create valuable insights in order to explain developments in the size and nature of systemic homicide in the Netherlands. Based on these theoretical insights five hypotheses have been derived.

The first hypothesis is related to the first sub question. It comes forth from the contextual background that argues that there are several conflicts going on now, but also have been in the past. Therefore, the following hypothesis has been established: “H1: The prevalence of systemic homicides

in the Netherlands did not change significantly between 1992 and 2017”. This hypothesis is related

to the first sub question related to the prevalence of systemic homicide.

The second and third hypotheses come forth from the assumption that the prevalence did not change, so the change must be in the nature of systemic. According to literature, changes is viewed as a crucial year, after which a new generation started committing homicides. Also, the contextual parts argue that the change is partly due to a professionalisation in how the homicides are committed. Therefore, the following hypotheses are established: “H2: After 2012 the nature of systemic

homicides in the Netherlands has changed” and “H3: The nature of systemic homicides has become more professional over time”. These two hypotheses are related to the second sub question, related

to the nature of systemic homicide.

The fourth hypothesis is related to the third sub question about the explainable character or the routine activity approach. It comes forth from the assumption that the offender motivation and target suitability remained equal, so that the changes or developments in the nature of systemic homicide are related to the third component of the theory: guardianship. The hypothesis is as follows: “H4: Developments in the nature of systemic homicides in the Netherlands are related to

guardianship”

The fifth and last hypothesis is related to the amount of solved cases in the fourth sub questions. Due to the presence of facilitators that either simplify homicide or complicate solving, the assumption is that less cases are being solved in more recent cases. The hypothesis is as follows:

3. Methodology

3.1 Definitions & Operationalizations

This thesis uses data from the Dutch Homicide Monitor which is a part of the European Homicide Monitor (EHM) and follows their definition of homicide. The EHM defines homicide as follows: p.

“an intentional criminal act of violence by one or more human beings resulting in the death of one or more other human beings.” (Liem et al., 2013: p. 79). Relating to the Netherlands, it covers the

legal codes of murder, manslaughter, infanticide, and (Liem et al., 2013: p. 79; Art. 287-289 Penal Code). Attempts to these offenses are not included in the database and not included in the research. In addition, cases in which the killing occurred through an involuntary way, such as drunk driving, are not included (Liem et al, 2013: p. 79), nor are voluntary killings that have been legally justified, such as a killing by a police officer in the case of self-defence are included (Liem et al, 2013: p. 79).

3.1.2 Systemic homicide

This research focuses on homicide based on the result of “aggressive patterns of interaction within

the system of drug distribution”, the concept of drug distribution, or a drug market must be defined

(Goldstein, 1985: p. 497). This focus is on systemic homicides in the Netherlands and has distinguished illicit drug markets from other markets based on Dutch law. In the Netherlands, the Opiate act (Opium wet) covers all drugs that are illicit in the Netherlands. Actions relating to these drugs are listed as illegal (art. 3 Opiate act). This covers trafficking, production, selling, possessing and so on. Any action related to the distribution on one of the drugs listed in this law is regarded as an “interaction within the system of drug distribution”. Therefore, any homicide that is related to such an interaction is viewed as a systemic homicide. For the purpose of this research, a homicide is related to an interaction within the system of drug distribution when either the offender or the victim earns his money through drug markets or is related to a group in any way.

3.2 Indicators

In order to explain developments in the nature of systemic homicide, different indicators are used. The choice for these indicators is based on theoretical concepts derived from the Routine Activity Approach, Social Disorganization Theory and code of the street. In addition, indicators are used which are not directly derived from theories, but stem from the overview on recent developments in the drug markets. Firstly, indicators that are used to display the size and geographical distribution are described and secondly, indicators derived from the different theories are explained. And finally, other indicators are explained.

3.2.1 Size and geographical distribution of systemic homicide

The size of systemic homicide is measured by the amount of cases. In order to distinguish single cases from the total amount of systemic homicides, which includes characteristics on all victims and perpetrators, the number of principal victims is measured. The principal victim is, according to the manual “The Principal Victim is the victim with the closest relationship to the perpetrator. If the victim and perpetrator are equally as close, or the relationship is unknown, choose the victim that died first. If the relationship is equal or unknown, choose the oldest victim as the principal victim. If all victims are of the same age or if their age is unknown, choose randomly.” (De Bont & Liem, 2017: p. 14).

The geographical distribution of systemic homicide is conducted in two ways. First, a map of the Netherlands is shown, including the absolute and relative (%) numbers on the amount of systemic homicide per province. The two biggest cities, Amsterdam and Rotterdam, are included in the map, since they are accountable for a high number of systemic homicides. Secondly, the development of systemic homicides is shown per province. This is conducted for the top six provinces with the highest amount of cases, the remaining six provinces hold a number too low to analyse precisely. For the purpose of this analysis, the years 1992 and 1993 have been left out due to the high number of unknowns. The remaining years have been categorized into four-year intervals, because there are several years for provinces with zero cases. Through this analysis, a possible geographical shift over time can be explored and analysed.

3.2.2 Routine Activities Theory

The Routine Activity Approach argues that crime takes place if the opportunity is present. According to the method, the opportunity takes place when a situation includes a suitable target and a motivated offender and in the absence of a capable guardian (Cohen & Felson, 1979). In the Dutch Homicide Monitor there are numerous variables available that can give information on offenders, targets, and guardianship.

When analysing offender characteristics, there are certain variables that are observed in order to identify any changes that have developed over time. Offenders are all persons that are sentenced for a crime such as murderers as well as accomplices and mandators. This research looks at the age of the perpetrator(s) and victim(s) in each case. For every year, the average is displayed in order to observe any changes over time in relation to the ages of the victims or offenders.

For this thesis, regarding the victims, a foreign background is considered for two reasons. On the one hand, this reveals insights on how the drug-markets have developed and on the other hand it can generate invaluable knowledge on groups vulnerable for criminal acts in the Netherlands.

Desktop research into the background of each victim is conducted and if there was no mention of any foreign background, the person is considered as Dutch. If there is any mention of a foreign background, be it a first or second-generation immigrant, it is mentioned as such. If there were doubts about a victim’s background or no information is available at all, it would be considered as unknown. Possible categories are: Dutch, Moroccan, Turkish and Surinam/Antillean. The last two categories are combined as the two countries share a similar relation to the Netherlands as they are its former colonies. All other countries have been combined in the group category “rest of the world” since the amount of data is so low that having a category for each country would not be useful.

According to literature, guardianship is a broad concept and can therefore be interpreted in multiple ways. For the purpose of this research, guardianship is considered as the probability of the homicide being witnessed by others. There is no variable taken into account that states the exact amount of people present during a homicide however this is measured by variables that indicate a high or low probability of bystanders.

The first indicator is the crime scene. It indicates the location the act of lethal violence took place. The variable refers to the area where the crime was committed, not to the exact spot where the body was found. The categories for this indicator are divided into three groups. The first category is a private home, of either perpetrator, victim, both or unknown person. The second category consists of public spaces inside a building, buildings that public can enter, such as hotels, institutions, workplaces, shops, restaurants or other places of entertainment. The third category are public spaces existing outside a building like parks, forests or other recreational areas and not limited to streets, roads and any forms of public transportation. Private vehicles also belong in this category since it is likely that the perpetrator or victims were outside of their vehicle, this type of homicide is considered as committed outside. Chances of guardianship present are the smallest in private homes and the largest inside public buildings. Homicides committed outside are dependent on the exact location since a park or street can be either crowded or very quiet. For the purpose of this research, outside homicides are considered more likely to have guardians present as homicides committed in a private home.

The third indicator is relating to the crime being committed during day or night time. Due to the majority of the population being active during daylight, the chances of guardianship or witnesses present is significantly higher during these hours than at night. This variable is divided into four categories of six hours: p. morning (06:00-12:00), afternoon (12:00-18:00), evening (18:00-24:00), and night (00:00-06:00). Homicides committed during the morning and afternoon categories are assumed to be committed in daylight and homicides in the evening and night to be committed in the dark. Therefore, the latter two are assumed to have a lower chance of guardianship. Due to a lack of information between the years 1992 and 2001, this indicator is used for the years 2002 until 2017.

3.2.3 Social Disorganization Theory

The final indicator is related to the Social Disorganization Theory. According to this theory, neighbours that have less social cohesion have lower social control. This lack of social control can be indicative of lower chances of guardianship. However, due to a lack of information from crime scenes and the social cohesion of a location in the 1990s and early 2000s, this indicator will only refer to data from the years 2002 to 2017.

The Social Disorganization Theory is measured by connecting postal codes of the crime scene to scores from the “wellbeing meter” (leefbaarometer)7_{. This meter provides information on} wellbeing in a neighbourhood and is based on 100 indicators obtainable on a postal code level. The indicators are based on research (Leidelmeijer & Van Kamp, 2003) and divided in five dimensions: p. housing, residents, services, safety and physical environment. The information is provided for the years 2002, 2008, 2012, 2014 and 2016. The leefbaarometer years that are used for the homicides are shown in appendix 1. Based on the indicator, the meter assigns every postal code area with a score, ranging from “very unsatisfactory” to “excellent”. Since there are nine different categories, this research codes the lowest three categories as “high social disorganization”, the middle three as “medium social disorganization”, and the highest three as “low social disorganization”.

3.2.4 Other indicators on the nature of systemic homicides: roughening and professionalism

Based on the general overview on developments in the drug-markets in the Netherlands, other indicators have been added in this research. These indicators could not be derived from the theories used, however it can add valuable insights to answer the research question in this thesis. The indicators originate from the information that has been provided by police reports and the WODC. The indicators are related to the roughening and professionalization of systemic homicides which is based on the contextual information.

Concerning roughening, this thesis observes two indicators. First, it takes into account what type of weapon is used: p. stabbing weapons, firearms or other/unknown weapons. Then it observes the number of automatic weapons used in systemic homicides. An automatic weapon can influence the likelihood of perpetrators of not being caught in various ways. First, bystanders will be less likely motivated to intervene since they are afraid of being hit. Second, the homicide can be accomplished more quickly as more bullets can be fired in a short time period. Third, the perpetrator can fire from a greater distance enabling an efficient get away. Fourth, as a means of deterrence, an automatic weapon will cause the police to approach more cautiously in the case of a pursuit. A weapon is

categorized as a heavy or automatic weapon when it fires multiple bullets without having to pull the trigger more than once.

The second indicator related to roughening is a mistaken identity homicide. In the event that a perpetrator mistakenly kills someone, like a bystander or any person but the intended target, is indicative that the perpetrator does not care or hold moral values and further is careless in locating the target victim. In a case, all mistaken identities are taken into account in order to measure the level of recklessness or professionalism by the perpetrator(s). A case is considered as a mistaken identity if a person killed has no ties to an illicit market and the killing seems to be thoughtfully planned. In the event of a mistaken identity case, local media will publish an article in the newspaper or other media sources.

The indicators are related to the professionalization of the type of systemic homicide. The indicator shows whether the systemic homicide should be considered drug-related or an assassination. A drug related homicide is any homicide that can be related directly to the type drug markets the parties are involved in. This can occur during a drug deal, for instance a rip-deal, or in the case of debt. In addition, a case is drug related if the participants have any other feud’s relating to drugs. Another variable is assassination, where a systemic homicide is considered a planned homicide. For instance, when a target victim is murdered outside a private home or private vehicle. This shows professionalism since the planning decreases the chance of being caught. Reason for this is that in the case of an assassination, perpetrators carefully plan their approach and getaway, and therefore leave no or less traces.

3.2.5 Solved cases

The final indicator is if the case is solved. A systemic homicide is considered as solved if the perpetrators are known and have been convicted. Solve cases can show in conclusion if and how, the developments shown through all other indicators, influence the likelihood of being caught. For all relevant indicators, the amount of solved cases is displayed. This is done in order to analyse how a certain indicator related to the chances of being solved.

3.3 Research design

The objective of this thesis is to describe and explain developments in the nature of systemic homicide in the Netherlands between 1992 and 2017. The first part of this research is descriptive. It provides an overview of developments of characteristics regarding size and geographical division of systemic homicides. Thereafter, it aims to explain developments of the characteristics of systemic homicides, its victims and perpetrators using the Routine Activity Approach and related theories.

3.3.1 Methodological Approach

The selected methodological approach for this thesis is a retrospective, longitudinal, quantitative analysis. To provide a general statistical overview on the topic, it begins with a descriptive analysis of general developments concerning systemic homicide focusing on the size and division over the Netherlands. In answering the research question, this thesis uses quantitative data to explore if and how different components concerning the homicide and the crime scene, forthcoming from existing theory, have developed.

3.4 Data sources

3.4.1 Dutch Homicide Monitor

The main source of data for this research is the Dutch Homicide Monitor (DHM). The DHM is a database which is part of a bigger European database, the European Homicide Monitor (EHM). Currently, the EHM consists of the Netherlands, Finland, and Sweden. The DHM keeps track of all homicides, committed from 1992 in the Netherlands. It is therefore a unique database that can provide valuable insights in developments concerning homicide in the Netherlands.

The data that can be found in the DHM is collected from various sources depending on the availability of information on each case. Whenever possible, findings are verified by multiple data sources, in order to maintain the quality of the DHM. The main sources of data for the DHM are newspaper articles, yearly homicide lists, Police data, and Prosecution Office data (Ganpat & Liem, 2012: p. 331). These sources provide an overview on all homicide cases in the Netherlands and are all used in order to verify that all cases are included in the DHM. The database is progressive and more information on homicides, its perpetrators, victims, and modus operandi are continuously being added.

The advantage of the Dutch Homicide Monitor data, is that it contains all known cases of homicide from 1992 (Ganpat & Liem 2012: p. 331). Therefore, this thesis does not have to generalize for a bigger population, after all, the entire population is being studied. In addition, all cases are coded in the same way and can provide unique opportunities for comparisons based on time, groups, weapons, gender and so on. The dataset extends back to 1992 because no uniform registration system for homicides in the Netherlands were available before that year; accordingly, the homicide incidence and characteristics of homicide cases were not known (Ganpat & Liem 2012: p. 331).

4. Results

In this chapter the results of all indicators are displayed graphically. These graphs are analysed in relation to the theoretical and contextual background. First, descriptive statistics of all indicators are briefly discussed. Thereafter, a more in-depth analysis is provided on the developments of the prevalence and nature of systemic homicides in the Netherlands between 1992 and 2017.

4.1 Descriptive statistics

For the analysis of this study, 448 cases of systemic homicide are included. From these cases, 238 were considered solved, what stands for 53,1%. For 55 cases, or 12,3%, the outcome is unknown. Either the case is in court or no further information than the presence of suspects is available. The other 155 cases are considered unsolved, which is 34,6% of all cases.

In all 448 homicide events, 1281 people are involved, 509 victims and 772 perpetrators. Statistics show that mostly men were victims of systemic homicide where only 19 were women, or 3,7%. Among the perpetrators, only 15 or 1,9%. The average victim is 35 years old and the average perpetrator 31,1 years old.

Each case has one principal victim whom the most information is known. Of these 448 principal victims, 11 are women and 434 are men. From three victims, no information on the gender is available. From these victims, 95 have no available information concerning its background, which is 20,8%. 113 victims are considered Dutch and have no signs of an immigrant background, these hold for 25,3%. The second largest group is that of victims with a Moroccan background, consisting of 69 victims or 15,4%. Following is the group consisting of people with a Surinam or Dutch Antillean background, accountable for 53 victims or 13,8%. The last notable group is that of principal victims with a Turkish immigrant background. This groups consists of 41 people which is 9,2% of the total group. All other countries were responsible for between 1 and 7 victims, all responsible for less than 2% each.

Concerning the crime scene, 67 cases have an unknown location. No information is available and counts for 14,9% of the total homicides. 123 cases were committed in private homes which is 27,5% of the total amount. Almost half of all homicides were committed outside, 220 cases or 49,1% of the total. The other 38 cases or 8,5%, were committed inside of public buildings, such as restaurants, malls or other spaces that are accessible to the public. Concerning the time of day and due to a lack of information about older cases, only cases from 2002 were suitable for analysis. Since 2002, 287 cases of systemic homicide were registered. From these cases, 98 cases had no information about the time of the homicide, which is 34,1%. From the other 189 cases, 19 cases or 6,6%, were committed between 06:00 and 12:00 in the morning. Almost double the amount was committed in

the afternoon, between 12:00 and 18:00, 37 cases or 12,9%. The most cases were committed between 18:00 and 24:00 in the evening. During that time 78 cases were committed, which is 27,2%. And finally, during the night (00:00-06:00) 55 cases were committed, which is 19,1%.

Concerning the modus operandi, most of the homicide events were committed using a firearm. A firearm was responsible for 329, or 73,4% of all homicides. The second most used modus was with a knife or another sharp object. This modus was responsible for 66 homicides, which is 14,7% of the total amount. From the other homicides, 25 have an unknown modus operandi, which is 5,6%. All other types of violence leading to the homicide were summed up to 26, which is 5,8% of the total. Regarding the category of firearms, out of 28 cases it was found that an automatic weapon was used. This is 6,3% of the total cases, and 8,5% of all cases in which a firearm was used.

In the past 26 years, 10 cases of a mistaken identity were found, which is 2,2% of the total. With regards to the type of homicide, the homicides were separated into drug-related and assassinations categories. Most homicides are considered drug related: p. 263, or 58,7%. From the others, 176 were assassinations, which holds for 39,3%. In nine cases, the category could not be confirmed, which is 2%.

4.2 Prevalence of systemic homicide in the Netherlands

The first analysis of this thesis focuses on how the amount of systemic homicides has developed between 1992 and 2017. As shown in Figure 1, the number fluctuates over years, having its lowest points in 1996 and 2008. In those two years, only six cases of systemic homicides were registered. Six is a low number, especially if compared to the years that have the highest numbers of cases. Peaks are visible in 1992, 1998, 2013, 2014, and 2017. The latter three are found in a relatively short period of time, which could be interpreted as a trend. The trend line, which is the dashed line in Figure 1, confirms a slight increase over the past years. The highest amount of cases is found very recently in 2017. In that year, 29 cases of systemic homicide were registered in the Dutch Homicide Monitor. Another notable result is the relatively low number of cases in the period before the increase in higher amounts in 2013 and 2014. Between 2006 and 2012, all results were below the trend line. Before and after this period, two series of years are visible that contain a rise in cases.