Hope for the best, prepare for the worst
The application of life imprisonment sentences for homicides in
the Netherlands and the Dutch Caribbean, 1999-2015
Name: Margit Plomp Studentnr: s2237873 Date: June 9, 2019
Supervisor: Dr. M.C.A. Liem and dr. P.G.M. Aarten Thesis topic: Interpersonal Violence
Table of contents
1. Introduction ... 5 1.1 Academic Relevance ... 7 1.2 Societal Relevance ... 8 1.3 Research question ... 9 1.4 Reading guide ... 9 2. Concepts ... 92.1 The Dutch Caribbean ... 9
2.2 Homicide ... 10
2.3 Life imprisonment in the Netherlands ... 11
2.4 Life imprisonment in the Dutch Caribbean ... 13
3. Empirical background ... 14 4. Application of punishment ... 17 4.1 Legal characteristics ... 18 4.2 Crime characteristics ... 19 4.3 Perpetrator characteristics ... 19 4.4 Victim characteristics ... 21 4.5 Process characteristics ... 21 5. Methodology ... 22 5.1 Research Design ... 22 5.2 Data collection ... 23
5.2.1 Databases ‘Levenslanggestraften Nederland’ and ‘Levenslanggestraften Dutch Caribbean’ ... 23
5.2.2 The Dutch Homicide Monitor (DHM) and the Dutch Caribbean Homicide Monitor (DCHM) ... 24
5.2.3 Rechtspraak.nl ... 25
5.2.4 Selection of cases for the research ... 25
5.2.4.1 LLG NL and DC ... 25
5.2.4.2 DHM and DCHM ... 25
5.2.4.3 Selection for research ... 26
5.3 Operationalization ... 27
5.3.1 Variable selection LLG NL and LLG DC ... 27
5.3.2 Variable selection DHM and DCHM ... 30
6.1 Introduction ... 33
6.2 Case characteristics ... 33
6.3 Legal- and process characteristics ... 37
6.3.1 Number of perpetrators and number of victims ... 37
6.3.2 Judicial process in first instance and appeal ... 39
6.4 Crime characteristics ... 41 6.4.1 Type of homicide ... 41 6.4.2 Modus operandi ... 42 6.4.3 Locus delicti ... 42 6.4.4 Motives ... 43 6.5 Perpetrator characteristics ... 43
6.5.1 Gender of the perpetrator ... 44
6.5.2 Age of the perpetrator ... 44
6.5.3 Number of committed life crimes per homicide incident ... 45
6.5.4 History of violence and previous convictions ... 46
6.5.5 Gender combination victim and perpetrator ... 47
6.6 Victim characteristics ... 47
6.6.1 Gender of the victim ... 47
6.6.2 Age of the victim ... 48
6.6.3 Relationship between victim and perpetrator ... 48
6.7 Individual judgments ... 49 6.7.1 The Netherlands ... 49 6.7.1.1 1999-1 ... 50 6.7.1.2 2001-6 ... 50 6.7.1.3 2003-2 ... 51 6.7.1.4 2004-5 ... 52 6.7.1.5 2005-1 ... 54
6.7.1.6 Overview for the Netherlands ... 55
6.7.2 The Dutch Caribbean ... 57
6.7.2.1 2008 ... 57
6.7.2.2 2013 ... 58
6.7.2.3 Overview for the Dutch Caribbean ... 59
7. Discussion ... 61
7.1 Findings ... 61
7.1.1 Legal characteristics ... 61
7.1.3 Perpetrator characteristics ... 63
7.1.4 Victim characteristics ... 65
7.1.5 Individual judgments ... 66
7.2 Recommendations ... 70
7.3 Shortcomings and future research ... 71
8. Conclusion ... 72
9. Reference list ... 74
10. Appendix A: Coding Manual LLG NL and DC ... 82
1999 2000 2002 2005 2006 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Aruba 232 241 224 233 165 Curacao 306 412 365 289 285 221 St. Maarten 396 362 374 319 458 396 347 The Netherlands 87 134 92 87 82 75 69 61 BES Islands 350 450 425 382 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
Detention rate, 1999-2015
1. Introduction
The rate of registered crimes to the police between the Netherlands and the Dutch Caribbean differs only factor 1,5 per 100,000 inhabitants, in which the latter has a higher rate. The remarkable thing, however, is that the detention rate for the Dutch Caribbean, the number of people detained per 100,000 inhabitants, is five times higher than that in the Netherlands (Leertouwer and Zaalberg, 2015: 15). A comparable rate of crimes is reported, but in the Dutch Caribbean a higher rate of those crimes gets sentenced to imprisonment (Leertouwer and Zaalberg, 2015: 9).
Figure 1 shows a time line for the detention rate of Aruba, Curacao, St. Maarten, the BES-islands (Bonaire, St. Eustatius and Saba) and the Netherlands, between 1999-2015. The figure is based on data from both the World Prison Population Brief of the International Centre for Prison Studies and the Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek- en Documentatiecentrum (Leertouwer and Zaalberg, 2015; Walmsley, 2018). The figure provides an overview of the available numbers, to provide insight into the development of the detention rate. Unfortunately not for all consecutive years data was available.
Figure 1 Detention rate 1999-2015 (Aruba, Curacao, St. Maarten, BES Islands and the Netherlands)
Throughout the entire time period the detention rate of the Dutch Caribbean together, so Aruba, Curacao, St. Maarten and the BES-islands, is considerably higher compared to the Netherlands. The number of unconditional imprisonments and the length thereof within the Dutch Caribbean is believed to be higher than that in the Netherlands, however; only limited information is accessible (Leertouwer and Zaalberg, 2015: 9 and 37). The detention rate, as provided here, entails all forms of imprisonment, from pre-trial detainees to perpetrators that have been convicted and are sentenced to either temporary or life imprisonment (Walmsley, 2018: 1). No distinction is made within the World Prison Population Brief or the WODC between detainees convicted to temporary imprisonment or life imprisonment. The detention rate is thus made up of detainees who have been sentenced to maybe 30 days, but also to people sentenced to 30 years in prison or even life imprisonment without parole. For both regions, the Netherlands and the Dutch Caribbean, the exact number of people sentenced to life imprisonment, the most severe punishment, within the number of people detained is not known (de Bont and Meijer, 2013: 119).
For the Netherlands, it is known, that the number of people sentenced to life imprisonment has quadrupled in the period of 2000-2015, compared to the last decennia of the 20th century. In 2016, a total of 34 people were serving life imprisonment sentences in the Netherlands (Liem, van Kuijck and Raes, 2016: 10). At this moment, there are 37 people incarcerated for life (Liem and Elbers, 2015). One would argue that the higher number of life imprisonment sentences is the result of a higher number of homicides, yet that is not the case. The number of homicides, both murder and manslaughter, has been declining for years (Aarten, 2019; Ganpat and Liem, 2012: 331-332; Liem et al., 2012: 18). The decline in the is remarkable, as it is a reversal of a long term trend of increasing numbers of homicide (Liem et al., 2012: 18; Nieuwbeerta and Leistra, 2003). From the middle of the 1960s until the end of the 1990s there was a constant rise in the number of homicide incidents. After that period, the homicide rate was stable around 1,58 victims per 100,000 inhabitants per year for a decade. In most recent years however, that rate has dropped to 1,09 per 100,000 (Liem et al., 2012: 18). Yet, there is no explanation for the higher number of life imprisonment sentences.
For the Dutch Caribbean the number of perpetrators sentenced to life imprisonment at this time is not known. Reports do give insight into the crime level in the region. The OSAC report posed that, for Curacao, the number of incidents of violent crime is increasing. Gang violence is increasing, however, the number of homicides is rather stable for the last few
years (OSAC, 2018: 1). Curacao does serve as a major transit point for cocaine, heroin and marihuana coming from Venezuela and Colombia. Drugs entering Aruba, Curacao, Bonaire and offshore areas are generally destined for the United States and Europe (mainly the Netherlands). Drugs passing through St. Maarten are generally destined for the US Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico (OSAC, 2018: 4-5). The UNODC reports similar outcomes, where the Dutch Caribbean has become an important passage for drugs heading to Europe (UNODC, 12: 40).
1.1 Academic Relevance
It is clear that data and insight is lacking into the number of life imprisonment for both the Netherlands and the Dutch Caribbean. It is known that for the Netherlands the number of people sentenced to life imprisonment has been increasing, however, no explanation is provided for this.
Previous research on life imprisonment in the Netherlands has been done extensively, however, the majority of the research is approached from a legal perspective (van Hattum, 2018; van Zyl Smit, 2006; van Zyl Smit, 2014). Little research has been done from a social and behavioural perspective, yet the focus is on the impact and experience of the detainees (Fleischer, 2013; Liem, van Kuijck and Raes, 2016). Most of Dutch and international literature focus on the question whether life imprisonment is permitted under international law (Liem and Schuyt, 2017; van Hattum, 2016; van Hattum, 2013). For the Dutch Caribbean, not much research has been done on the life imprisonment at all. There are documents from governmental institutions proposing to enhance the investigation and prosecution resources of the Public Prosecution Offices in the region of the Dutch Caribbean (Leertouwer and Zaalberg, 2015; Openbaar Ministerie, 2016).
To be able to possibly explain the increase in life imprisonment sentences, a link should be provided to both the motivation of the judges to impose life sentences (the legal side) and the characteristics of the homicide incident, the perpetrator and the victim (the social and behavioural aspect).
The problem and threat of crime, both within the Dutch Caribbean and from spill-over of surrounding countries, has been researched (OSAC, 2018, UNODC, 2012). The focus of most of the literature and studies, however, is on the Caribbean in general, without specifying the
islands of the Dutch Caribbean (Sutton and Ruprah, 2017; UNODC 2013). Most of these researches are focused upon surrounding islands in the Caribbean. The studies conducted regarding the islands of the Dutch Caribbean are mostly done by those islands themselves or commissioned by the islands (Leertouwer and Zaalberg, 2015; van der Zee and Hoebé, 2019).
1.2 Societal Relevance
The threats coming from international organized crime to the Dutch Caribbean are enormous, perhaps even largest of all time. For Bonaire, the frequency of violent crimes is increasing in recent years (van der Zee and Hoebé, 2019: 39). Also due to the troubles in Venezuela, the Dutch Caribbean has become less safe, general crime increases and there is more gun violence (Antilliaans Dagblad, 2017; Haverkort, 2018). The prosecution offices at the Dutch Caribbean are confronted with an increase in investigations of serious and undermining forms of criminality (Openbaar Ministerie, 2016; 1-2). The countries in the Dutch Caribbean are not prepared to deal with this scale of investigations and crime, the crime that is seeking these vulnerable democracies and small societies to settle. Not only spill over crime from neighbouring countries, but also high impact crime and frequently committed crimes are of great concern for the safety of the society (Openbaar Ministerie, 2016: 1-2). This research can give an insight in the characteristics of the convicts, committing the worst crimes of all, which can be of great use for the prosecution offices on the Dutch Caribbean.
It is relevant to have more insight in the perpetrators and victims of homicide crimes in both the Netherlands and the Dutch Caribbean. If there is more known regarding the lifers, judgments can be made better suited to past judgments, building further upon this knowledge. If a certain pattern can be found in the motivation of the judges, the legal system benefits from that, in the form of legal certainty. Also, when it is known what certain group of people are more likely to commit such homicides, the governments of the Netherlands and the Dutch Caribbean can anticipate to that. In this way, society will be protected.
The regions of the Netherlands and the Dutch Caribbean are very different in crime rate and detention rate. For the Netherlands, data is available on the life imprisonment, for the Dutch Caribbean it is not. In order to gain insight into life imprisonment sentences, especially for the Dutch Caribbean, the application of life imprisonment sentences in that region will be compared to those in the Netherlands.
1.3 Research question
The research question that this thesis addresses is: To what extent is there a difference in the application of life imprisonment sentences for homicides between the Netherlands and the Dutch Caribbean? This study seeks to address the aforementioned gaps in research, by examining how the circumstances of the cases of homicides committed are different, but also whether there is possible diversity within the perpetrators and the victims in the two regions. The aim of this thesis is to analyse cases in both the Dutch Caribbean and the Netherlands where perpetrators of homicides have been sentenced to life imprisonment. In that way, insight will be provided in the scope of the people imprisoned for life in the Netherlands and the Dutch Caribbean and the characteristics of the cases in which life imprisonment is applied.
1.4 Reading guide
To address the research question, first the relevant concepts of Dutch Caribbean, homicide and life imprisonment will be clarified. After that, an overview of the relevant literature is given, focusing on both homicides and life imprisonment in the Netherlands and the Dutch Caribbean. Next, the application of punishment will be elaborated upon. Subsequently, the methodology used in this research will be laid out. In the next section, the characteristics for the application of punishment will be used to analyse the data. In the discussion the findings of the analysis will be elaborated upon. Here, the limitations of the research and the recommendations will be discussed as well, leading to possibilities for future research. Ending with the conclusion, which will give an answer to the proposed research question.
2. Concepts
2.1 The Dutch Caribbean
To address the research question, it is important to explain the geographical scope of the Dutch Caribbean. The Dutch Caribbean are part of a larger region of the Caribbean, they do not exist in solitude. When looking at a world map, the islands are intertwined with the other islands of the Caribbean. The region’s histories, cultures, languages, structures, demographics and types of criminality influence all surrounding nations. Using the patterns and trends researched carefully in the region, provides a useful tool for the influences on the Dutch Caribbean as well (Maguire, 2014).
The Dutch Caribbean entail Curacao, St. Maarten, Aruba and the BES islands. Until 2010, the Netherlands Antilles were part of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, therefore the same laws concerning life imprisonment applied. However, the Netherlands Antilles no longer exists as a separate entity. Aruba already seceded from the Netherlands Antilles in 1986, becoming an autonomous country within the Kingdom of the Netherlands. The same applies for Curacao and St. Maarten since 2010. Bonaire, St. Eustatius and Saba (BES islands) form special municipalities within the Netherlands.
Within the BES islands the Dutch law is applicable, however it is possible that certain provisions differ from those in the Netherlands. Since the dissolution of the Netherlands Antilles, the Kingdom of the Netherlands exists of four countries: the Netherlands, Curacao, Aruba and St. Maarten (NOS, 2010b). Most of the literature and data focuses on Curacao. Since the detention regimes are similar in all islands of the Dutch Caribbean, given data can be generalized for the entire region of the Dutch Caribbean (Reijntjes, 2002: 68).
The change in status of the islands of the Dutch Caribbean does have implications for the Netherlands as well. Bonaire, St. Eustatius and Saba are special municipalities within the Netherlands, therefore these islands are treated the same as for example, Amsterdam or Rotterdam. The islands do have their own local government, but the Netherlands is responsible for the police, fire department, education, health care and benefits (NOS, 2017). The law prescribes that in case of need, municipalities and provinces are assisted by the government. For Curacao, Aruba and St. Maarten, this is somewhat different. These islands are autonomous, with their own government and parliament and they have to solve their own issues. However, agreements are made between the Dutch government and the separate islands, that in case of need, help will be provided (NOS, 2017).
2.2 Homicide
To explain the concept of ‘homicide’ the legal explanation will be used, in order to present the Dutch law clearly. The legal definition is used, as this research gives insight into the application of life imprisonment sentences by judges. Homicide entails both the crimes of murder and manslaughter (Smit, Bijleveld and van der Zee, 2001: 293). Homicide is defined as the intentional killing of another person, and is covered by articles 287 through 292 of the Dutch Penal Code. For the Dutch Caribbean, the same wording is used in articles 2:260 and
2:262 for the Penal Code of Curacao, the Penal Code of Aruba and the Penal Code of St. Maarten. For Bonaire, St. Eustatius and Saba, the Dutch Penal Code is relevant.
Euthanasia, abortion and assisted suicide do not fall under the term homicide. These actions are only considered crimes under special circumstances (Smit, Bijleveld and van der Zee, 2001: 293). For the Dutch Caribbean, abortion, euthanasia and assisted suicide are illegal (Article 2:264-2:268 Penal Code Curacao, Penal Code St. Maarten and Penal Code Aruba; Antilliaans Dagblad, 2015; Jurna, 2015; Knipselkrant Curacao, 2015). However, for current research, only murder and manslaughter will be taken into consideration.
Murder is a crime under article 289 of the Dutch Penal Code and is described as the deliberate deprivation of another person’s life with premeditation. The punishment can either be life imprisonment, temporary imprisonment of maximum 30 years, or a fine. Manslaughter is described in article 287 and distinguishes itself from murder, for not being premeditated. The maximum punishment is 15 years or a fine. However, if the manslaughter is committed followed by, accompanied by or prior to another crime, in order for the execution of that crime to become easier or to prepare that crime, or when the suspect is caught red-handed, then the punishment can be life imprisonment, temporary imprisonment for a maximum of 30 years or a fine as well, as described in Article 288 of the Dutch Penal Code. For the Dutch Caribbean the provisions in the Penal Codes are the same.1
The legal definition of homicide, both murder and manslaughter, suits this research best, as the focus is on the sentencing of the convicts. The sentencing happens on the basis of the provision in which the crimes are made illegal under the Dutch Penal Code, or the Penal Codes of the islands of the Dutch Caribbean.
2.3 Life imprisonment in the Netherlands
The focus of this research will only be on the cases in which the perpetrator is sentenced for homicide, not for different crimes in which the punishment is life imprisonment, such as acts of terrorism or crimes against the king or the parliament (Forum Levenslang, 2011). This criterion is used, as the research aims at homicide perpetrators.
Some of the most heinous crimes in the Netherlands can be punished with a life imprisonment, which concerns imprisonment until death (Liem and Elbers, 2015). The judge can decide, however, to sentence the suspect to a temporary imprisonment of maximum 30 years when he or she has committed such crimes (Article 10 Sr). The judge makes the final decision in the application of the punishment. If the judge decides to sentence the suspect to temporary imprisonment, that person has the possibility of being released after completing two thirds of the sentence, this procedure is called ‘voorwaardelijke invrijheidsstelling’ (VI), or parole. However, this arrangement is not applicable to life imprisonment. Under Dutch law, there are only two ways in which a person can be released from prison early; pardon by royal decree or revision of the case (article 558 and 457 Sv).
The royal pardon was used frequently within the last century. After the Second World War, a new policy evolved in which the prisoners sentenced for life would be subject to an investigation, after an amount of years served, in order to decide whether that person could return to society. The main aim of this policy was to protect the prisoners from inhuman decline in prison. The term was set to 15 years, later to 12,5 and in 1957 it was set to 10 years. Since 1977, no prisoner has been granted royal pardon in the Netherlands (van Hattum, 2016: 13-14). Due to the review procedure and the sporadic sentencing of people to life imprisonment, the actual number of people serving life was never large. Precise numbers are not known, however, from 1975 to 1982 there was only one person in the Netherlands sentenced to life imprisonment, Hans van Z. for several murders. The soft punishment culture of the 1970s led to not one person being prosecuted to life imprisonment, despite severe crimes in that period (van Hattum, 2016: 13-14).
It is important to discuss the royal pardon, as of 2016 the State Secretary for Justice and Security established the ‘Adviescollege Levenslanggestraften’ (ACL) for the review of the sentence of convicts of life imprisonment. The ACL is an independent organ, which advises the Minister for Legal Protection whether or not a resocialization procedure should start for a detainee sentenced to life imprisonment, after he or she has spent 25 years in prison. After the primary advise, the ACL will provide follow up advice and decide on the frequency of the next testing for the detainee (Adviescollege Levenslanggestraften, 2019: 4). The independent advice is considered carefully by the ALC and focuses on the content and circumstances of the case, conscientious and without prejudice. The ALC consists of experts from different
fields of academia, all with wide knowledge and experience on the subject of penal law and forensic psychology (Adviescollege Levenslanggestraften, 2019: 6-7).
The punishment culture in the Netherlands changed throughout the 1990s, it became more punitive. The number of life imprisonment sentences increased and the possibility of early release was no longer possible. Due to the change in culture in punishing, the maximum of a temporary punishment increased from 20 years to 30 years in 2006.2 The reason for this change is the fact that prisoners sentenced to temporary imprisonment can apply for release after they served two thirds of their punishment. This entailed that if a person was convicted to 20 years in prison, in practice, he or she could apply for release after only 13 years of incarceration. Especially for heinous crimes such as murder, it was felt to be too mild. The higher maximum of temporary imprisonment should close the big gap between applying the maximum temporary imprisonment of 20 years and life imprisonment (Nieuwbeerta and van Wingerden, 2006: 329).
The change in legislation led to debate in the cabinet. The Minister of Justice at that time, Piet Hein Donner, clearly stated that life imprisonment as ascribed in the Penal Code, indeed constitutes a life in prison.3 The cabinets after that, no matter the composition, used his explanation for life imprisonment. Life imprisonment did not mean the possibility of returning into society, and for that reason, there was no need to evaluate the policy. On the contrary, the cabinets were planning to place the people sentenced with life imprisonment in separate departments within general prisons, without any activities aimed at re-socialising. Both developments, the increasing number of people sentenced to life imprisonment and the lack of practicing royal pardon, led to an unprecedented number of lifers, to Dutch standards (van Hattum, 2015: 14).
2.4 Life imprisonment in the Dutch Caribbean
All the islands of the Dutch Caribbean apply life imprisonment sentences when it is found to be necessary. The BES islands follow the law of the Dutch Penal Code, the same rules are applicable regarding life imprisonment. Until 2010, all islands of the Dutch Caribbean were part of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, so the Dutch life imprisonment policies applied there as well. Except for Aruba, which already seceded from the Netherlands in 1986, becoming an
2 Wetsontwerp herijking strafmaxima, Kamerstuk 28484, Wet van 22 december 2006, S. 2006, 11, entered into
force 1 februari 2006.
autonomous country within the Netherlands. In 2010, Curacao and St. Maarten followed Aruba and became autonomous countries within the Kingdom of the Netherlands as well. The autonomous countries are responsible for their own legislation (NOS, 2017). Separate Penal Codes for Curacao (2011), Aruba (2014) and St. Maarten (2015) entered into force, creating own laws on life imprisonment.
With the creation of their own Penal Codes, the life imprisonment sentence slightly changed for Curacao, St. Maarten and Aruba. With the new law, came the new procedure of parole. Under article 1:30 of the Penal Code of Curacao, the Penal Code of Aruba and the Penal Code of St. Maarten, the convict has the possibility of early release by making use of parole. For Curacao and Aruba the test for parole happens after 20 years, for St. Maarten the detainee has to wait 25 years. The ‘twenty years test’ (or ‘twenty five years test’ for St. Maarten) assesses whether it is still reasonable to unconditionally continue to execute the life sentence after twenty years of imprisonment (De Doelder et al., 2014: 343-344; De Doelder et al., 2015: 325-334). The Public Prosecution Office summons the convict for the hearing of the Court of Justice (Smid and Smid, 2013: 109-110). If the Court of Justice finds there is no reasonable goal to keep the convict in prison, it decides to allow the convict to return into society. The aim of the procedure is to prevent the possibility of an inhuman existing for the ones involved. When deciding on the test, the Court of Justice takes into account the victim and its relatives and the possible threat of recidivism. The procedure is similar to review procedure in the Netherlands, however, the ‘twenty years test’ (or ‘twenty five years test’ for St. Maarten) does not have to be initiated, as the test is conducted with every person detained for the given period of time. The review procedure of the ACL requires initiation by the Minister of Legal Protection (Adviescollege Levenslanggestraften, 2019).
For the Dutch Caribbean, the punishment culture has been more severe compared to the Netherlands. It needs to be said that within the different courts of the Netherlands, the severity of the punishments varies as well, however the difference between the Dutch Caribbean and the Netherlands is bigger (Reijntjes, 2002: 69).
3. Empirical background
In the Netherlands, limited studies have been done to analyse the application of life imprisonment sentences in the case of homicide incidents. Most of the studies either focus on life imprisonment or on homicide incidents, while some research the combination. For the
Dutch Caribbean there are no known studies conducted on the specific topics of life imprisonment or homicides in this manner.
Nieuwbeerta and Leistra give an overview of the different characteristics of the murders and manslaughters in the Netherlands between 1992 and 2001 (2003b: 50). Conclusions are drawn on perpetrator-, victim- and case characteristics (Nieuwbeerta and Leistra, 2003: 41-50). One important recommendation they made was to establish a continuous Monitor for Murder and Manslaughter (Nieuwbeerta and Leistra, 2003: 51).
Van Wingerden and Nieuwbeerta studied the developments in the length of imprisonment sentence for murder and manslaughter (2006: 329). The study set out the length of the proposed sentence and of the imposed punishment for all perpetrators sentenced for murder and manslaughter between 1993 and 2004. By doing this a trend in temporary and life imprisonment can be described for that time period. The conclusion of the study is the statement that both the Prosecution Office and the judge punish more severely (van Wingerden and Nieuwbeerta, 2006: 336).
Smit and Nieuwbeerta researched the murders and manslaughters that took place in the years 1998 and 2002-2004 (2007: 1). Their study provided an overview of the ‘Monitor Moord en Doodslag’ and a numerical overview of the homicide in those years. For the Monitor data had been collected regarding the crime, the victim, the perpetrator and the relationship between the victim and the perpetrator. In addition the homicides were categorised into subcategories of types of homicides: intimate, fight, criminal, robbery, other and unknown (Smit and Nieuwbeerta, 2007: 2-3).
Dutch judges enjoy a rather large freedom in deciding punishment. The Penal Code prescribes some general minimum penalties and the judge, after the suspect claims guilty, is even allowed to not sentence the person to a punishment. In practice, the maximum options for punishment provide the judges with enough freedom. The freedom is confined by the ‘nulla poena’ principle, which entails that the judge is only allowed to impose punishments prescribed by law. This principle still leaves certain freedom to the judge, as many provisions in the Dutch Penal Code leave the opportunity to set special conditions, concerning the behavior of the convicted (Bleichrodt, 2009).
Van Wingerden and Nieuwbeerta looked into the perpetrator-, victim- and crime characteristics on the sentence given to perpetrators of murder and manslaughter (2010: 11). They studied the Database Murder and Manslaughter, which consisted of incidents of homicide between 1993-2004. For the research, cases were selected in which the suspects were charged with murder or manslaughter (van Wingerden and Nieuwbeerta, 2010: 16). Their research showed that certain perpetrator-, victim- and crime characteristics influence the length of the unconditional imprisonment sentence (van Wingerden and Nieuwbeerta, 2010: 18). This research was the first research such application of punishment (van Wingerden and Nieuwbeerta, 2010: 18).
Johnson, van Wingerden and Nieuwbeerta studied the contemporary sentencing of homicides the Netherlands, in order to apply outcomes in the United States (2010: 983). The research focuses on the offender-, victim- and situational characteristics. The study concludes that to some extend it is possbile to generalize research on criminal sentencing in the United States and the Netherlands to a broader international context (Johnson, van Wingerden and Nieuwbeerta, 2010: 1010).
Van Wingerden and van Wilsem studied the effects of perpetrator characteristics on the application of combinations of sanctions (2014: 3). The research wants to investigate to what extent the results of earlier done research in the application of punishments will withstand, if the research is broadened from only unconditional imprisonment to include the combination of sanctions (van Wingerden and van Wilsem, 2014: 5).
Van Velthoven focuses solely on the punishment of crimes, not looking into punishment for offences (2014: 247). Within the punishment of crimes he studies the development of the decisions of the Court in first instance, in cases where the judge declared the suspect as guilty to the charged crime, in the period of 1995-2012 (van Velthoven, 2014: 247). He concludes by stating that judges have a wide variety of possible manners of punishment. The judges make use of these different opportunities and use different punishments or combinations thereof (van Velthoven, 2014: 261). However, this also makes it harder for the outside world to value the punishments given by judges. Throughout the years, relief and increase of the severity of punishments alternate (van Velthoven, 2014: 262).
Table 1 Previous research regarding homicide and the determination of sentences
Author(s) Region(s) Period Type data Focus
Nieuwbeerta and Leistra (2003)
The Netherlands 1992-2001 Database Murder and Manslaughter Characteristics of homicide incidents Van Wingerden and Nieuwbeerta (2006)
The Netherlands 1993-2004 Database Murder and Manslaughter Development of length of prison sentences Smit and Nieuwbeerta (2007)
The Netherlands 1998, 2002-2004 Monitor murder and manslaughter Frequency and characteristics of murders and manslaughters Blochreidt (2009)
The Netherlands - Judgments The judge and
the decision of the punishment Van Wingerden
and Nieuwbeerta (2010)
The Netherlands 1993-2004 Database Murder and Manslaughter Influence of characteristics on sentence Johnson, van Wingerden and Nieuwbeerta (2010) The United States and the Netherlands - Sentencing of homicide offenders Comparison between the US and the Netherlands Van Wingerden
and van Wilsem (2014)
The Netherlands - Combination of
sanctions Impact on earlier research, only unconditional imprisonment Van Velthoven (2014)
The Netherlans 1995-2012 Judgments The
development of punishments
4. Application of punishment
In order for the judge to come to its decision on the punishment, the judge needs as much clarity as possible regarding several elements of the case. The judge, either knowingly or
unknowingly, addresses the following characteristics when deciding on the punishment for the suspect: legal and process characteristics, crime characteristics, perpetrator characteristics and victim characteristics (van Wingerden and Nieuwbeerta, 2010: 13). The practice of taking the different characteristics into account, when applying punishment, fits the Dutch legal system (van Wingerden and Nieuwbeerta, 2006: 40029. Law and jurisprudence shows that the judge takes before mentioned characteristics into account when applying a punishment (van Wingerden and Nieuwbeerta, 2006: 18). For the Dutch Caribbean, the application of punishment is also in the hands of the judge and the penal law is similar, therefore these characteristics can also be applied for homicide incidents in that region (Reijntjes, 2002: 68). Additionally, many of the cases are ruled by Dutch judges who were send there to decide on the cases (Reijntjes, 2002: 69).
4.1 Legal characteristics
The judge is bound by the maximum possible punishments and guidelines applied for the charged crime as provided for in the Dutch Penal Code. The legal prescriptions form the frame of reference within which the judge has the freedom to decide on the length and severity of the punishment (Wermink et al., 2015: 26-27; van Wingerden and Nieuwbeerta, 2006: 4-6). In the Netherlands there is one general provision regarding the minimum of imprisonment, being one day (Article 10 Sr). The judge is free to decide on the duration and severity of the punishment, but the judge can also grant its judicial pardon, even in the case of proven culpability of the suspect. If the judge grants its judicial pardon, he does not provide any form of punishment to the convicted (van Wingerden and Nieuwbeerta, 2010: 13).
The judge can also decide to apply an additional measure, if he or she deems necessary, alongside temporary imprisonment. The most common measure applied for violent crimes, in the Dutch penal law, is ‘terbeschikkingstelling’ (TBS). The measures can be found in the Dutch Penal Code, within the first book, Title IIA.4 TBS can be applied when the suspect, during time of the crime, suffered poor mental development or mental illness, and the judge is of the opinion that the suspect is a threat to the safety of others (Article 37a Sr, van Wingerden and Nieuwbeerta, 2006: 20).
4 The measures in the Dutch Penal Law are withdrawal from traffic (‘onttrekking aan het verkeer’), deprivation
of the unlawful obtained benefit (‘ontneming van het wederrechtelijk verkregen voordeel’), payment of damages to the victim (‘het betalen van een schadevergoeding aan het slachtoffer’), placement in a psychiatric hospital (‘plaatsing in een psychiatrisch ziekenhuis’), TBS (‘terbeschikkingstelling’) and placement in an institution for the care of addicts (‘plaatsing in een inrichting voor de opvang van verslaafden’) (van Wingerden and Nieuwbeerta, 2006: 20).
The combination between the number of perpetrators and the number of victims is another characteristic that the judge takes into account when deciding on the punishment. It is presumed that when there are multiple perpetrators, but only a single victim, the perpetrator will be punished more severely (van Wingerden and Nieuwbeerta, 2006: 23). The reason for this could be that the victim is more powerless against multiple perpetrators (van Wingerden and Nieuwbeerta, 2006: 23).
The number of crimes for which the suspect is prosecuted is important for the judgment, if there is a conjunction of different crimes, one punishment will be given (van Wingerden and Nieuwbeerta, 2010: 14-15).
4.2 Crime characteristics
Not only the legal side of the crime is important for the decision of the judge, the special circumstances of the committed crime are also relevant. The modus operandi, the motive and the locus delicti are of relevance to the judge (Wermink et al., 2015: 24).
The modus operandi influences the severity of the punishment. Stabbing someone to death is punished milder than when the death of the victim is caused by gun violence (van Wingerden and Nieuwbeerta, 2010: 18).
If the locus delicti of the homicide is a public place, the violation of the public order will be of greater scale, compared to when the homicide takes place inside a home. Also from the point of view of protection for society, van Wingerden and Nieuwbeerta expect that homicides committed in public place will be punished more severely, compared to homicides committed out of the open (2006; 24).
4.3 Perpetrator characteristics
Characteristics of the perpetrator play an important role in the application of the punishment. Sex of the suspect is an important element for the judge on deciding the duration and intensity of the punishment (van Wingerden and Nieuwbeerta, 2006: 25-26). When abiding to the patriarchal theory, it has become clear that women are punished for a shorter period of time, especially when she is the perfect role model of a caring, married woman (van Wingerden and Nieuwbeerta, 2010: 14). However, practical objections can also be of influence. As it is, for example, expected that women will be less able to survive in a prison. Another example is
linked to the perfect role model, were it is expected that women have to take care of children (Wermink et al., 2015: 25). The judge partially implies the risk of recidivism and the exact danger to society on the basis of stereotyping. The stereotype for women is that she has a smaller risk of recidivism and in physical regard proposes less danger to society than men (van Wingerden and Nieuwbeerta, 2006: 26).
The ethnicity and race of the perpetrator is an important characteristic in the determination of the punishment. The conflict theory presumes that white people will be punished less severe compared to others. It is also expected that perpetrators born abroad are punished more severely compared to perpetrators born in the Netherlands (van Wingerden and Nieuwbeerta, 2006: 26).
Earlier research shows that the criminal history of the suspect, together with the severity of the crimes, is the most important factor for applying a punishment (van Wingerden and Nieuwbeerta, 2006: 27). Especially if the suspect has a violent criminal history, in practice, he will be punished more severely than first time offenders. Suspects with an extensive criminal record will have a higher risk of recidivism and are therefore a bigger threat to society (van Wingerden and Nieuwbeerta, 2006: 27).
The age of the suspect is a very important factor that is taken into account by the judge when deciding on the punishment. Young perpetrators, between the age of 18 and 20, are expected to be less culpable and will deserve ‘a second chance’ and will therefore receive a lower punishment. Older perpetrators, above the age of 30, are seen as a lesser threat to society, therefore they are punished less. Perpetrators above the age of 50 years old are sentenced to the least severe punishment (van Wingerden and Nieuwbeerta, 2006: 26). The age group of 21-30 receives the longest and most severe punishments (van Wingerden and Nieuwbeerta, 2010: 14; Wermink et al., 2015: 25).
Whether or not the perpetrator suffers from mental illness or psychological disorder is of importance to the judge as well. It could be that not in all cases the perpetrator can be held responsible for the crime he or she has committed, leading to a lower punishment, or even no punishment at all (van Wingerden and Nieuwbeerta, 2006; 27).
4.4 Victim characteristics
Characteristics of the victim are neither mentioned in the law, nor in the motivation for the punishment of the judge. However, the severity of the circumstances of the case can also be determined by looking at the victim in the case (van Wingerden and Nieuwbeerta, 2010: 15; Wermink et al., 2015: 25). Sex, age and the relation between the victim and the perpetrator are characteristics that determine to what extent the perpetrator is a threat to society and to what extent he poses the threat of re-offending (van Wingerden and Nieuwbeerta, 2010: 15).
The ethnicity and race are relevant for the victim as well. Earlier research has shown that when the victim is white, the perpetrator is punished more severely, compared to when the victim is not white (van Wingerden and Nieuwbeerta, 2006: 28).
It has been found that perpetrators of female victims are punished more severely. Here perpetrator characteristics are linked to victim characteristics (van Wingerden and Nieuwbeerta, 2006: 29). The reason for this is the belief that female victims are more defenceless than men and they are less likely to play part in provoking a crime. Men are more likely to get into a fight, which might flow over into murder or manslaughter (van Wingerden and Nieuwbeerta, 2010: 15; Wermink et al., 2015: 26).
4.5 Process characteristics
The process characteristics that can influence the decision of the judge are the charges filed and the sanction recommended by the Public Prosecutor (van Wingerden and Nieuwbeerta, 2006: 30).
The attitude of the suspect is of relevance to the decision of the judge as well. The way the suspect comes across to the judge during trial has an effect on the decision. Whether the suspect has confessed to committing the crime or whether the suspect shows remorse and regret are factors that give an image of the suspect during the trial (van Wingerden and Nieuwbeerta, 2006: 31-32).
Society can influence the decision of the judge as well, for example when society expects the suspect to receive a higher punishment than recommended by the Prosecution Office (Wermink et al., 2015: 26-27). There is pressure on the judge to act in a reaction to society.
Citizens expect the government to adequately address crime, therefore they expect the judges to punish criminals (van Wingerden and Nieuwbeerta, 2006: 33).
5. Methodology
5.1 Research DesignIn order to address the research question, this section aims to make visible what procedures will be followed and how data will be collected and analysed. Data will be collected by using different sources, both already existing sources and sources codified for this research.
The research design for this thesis is an exploratory study into the details of the perpetrators of homicides sentenced to life imprisonment both in the Netherlands and the Dutch Caribbean. The aim is to set a first step to analyse the available data, in order to provide a fundament for the focus of future research regarding this subject.
Earlier research has been analysed in order to collect data on the characteristics relating to the judicial freedom to decide on the punishment for the sentenced person. The empirical background also elaborated upon homicide and life imprisonment. The aim of creating the empirical background was to set a basis and use it as a fundament for the analysis. It exists mainly of academic articles and reports by the WODC. For the empirical background the focus has been both on life imprisonment and on the application of punishments by judges in different courts.
What is missing more specifically from the current topic is an analysis of the information as provided for in the different databases, both for life imprisonment and for homicides. To be able to analyse the collected data, first, an insight has been provided in the empirical background of the application of punishment by judges and the elements on which judges base their decision. On the basis of this empirical background, the data collected within the database ‘Levenslanggestraften Nederland’, the database ‘Levenslanggestraften Dutch Caribbean’, the Dutch Homicide Monitor and the Dutch Caribbean Homicide Monitor, can be selected and analysed using different variables within these databases. After that, some of the individual cases, as selected for the research, will be analysed by reviewing the decisions of the courts in first instance and in appeal. This analysis will give insight into specific details of specific homicide incidents, perpetrators and victims and can therefore provide additional reasoning to what elements influenced the judges in applying life imprisonment sentences.
The research, thus, consists of mixed methods, both quantitative and qualitative. This research will set a first step in analysing the available data, in order to set the focus for future research.
5.2 Data collection
5.2.1 Databases ‘Levenslanggestraften Nederland’ and ‘Levenslanggestraften Dutch Caribbean’
Since years, Forum Levenslang has been maintaining a database on the characteristics of people sentenced to life imprisonment in the Netherlands, database ‘Levenslanggestraften Nederland’ (LLG NL). The database LLG NL contains confidential data of the people sentenced to life imprisonment in the Netherlands. However, the database was not yet equipped to perform analyses. For that reason, as part of the thesis trajectory, together with my colleague in the capstone project, we have developed a coding manual in order to codify the different characteristics of each case. The coding manual consists of variables relating to the individual, the judicial process and the special circumstances of the particular case. The coding manual is based upon the available data and information provided for in the existing database LLG NL. As the data of the LLG NL has now been codified, it is possible to analyse the data and draw conclusions from it.
The next step in the research was to collect similar data on people sentenced to life imprisonment in the Dutch Caribbean. The data existed of judicial information, details of the perpetrator and special circumstances of the case. The same coding manual has been used to provide a complete database ‘Levenslanggestraften Dutch Caribbean’ (LLG DC), relating to the database LLG NL. As both databases are suitable for analysis, differences and similarities can be elaborated upon.
The information available on the people sentenced to life imprisonment on the Dutch Caribbean is limited. With the fellow participants of the capstone project, relevant data has been collected, making use of newspaper articles, collected from Knipselkrant (online newspaper of Curacao) and Dutch newspapers, the website www.blikopdewereld.nl and decisions of judges within the Dutch Caribbean, collected from www.rechtspraak.nl.
The coding manual that has been developed for both the LLG NL and LLG DC can be found in Appendix A. Explanations for the chosen variables and the different levels of the data are
embedded within the coding manual. The levels of the data refer to the related person or to the instance of the judgment.
5.2.2 The Dutch Homicide Monitor (DHM) and the Dutch Caribbean Homicide Monitor (DCHM)
The Dutch Homicide Monitor (DHM) will be used to collect data regarding cases of homicide in the Netherlands. The DHM is an ongoing monitoring system which encompasses all homicides that occurred between 1992 and 2016. The DHM is based on national data, derived from several sources; newspaper articles, the Elsevier Annual Reports, files from the National Bureau of Investigation (NRI), files from the Public Prosecution Service, files from the judicial Information Service and the Ministry of Justice, additional data from regional police and files from the Criminal Justice Knowledge Centre (WODC). It provides information regarding the characteristics of the victims, perpetrators and the incidents of homicide. The Monitor comprehends all lethal offences categorized as murder (Article 289 and 291 Dutch Code of Criminal Law) or manslaughter (Article 287, 288 and 290 Dutch Code of Criminal Law), together forming the category homicide (Liem et al., 2013: 111-112). Some data regarding cases of homicide in which life imprisonment has been applied, were missing from the DHM. Full cases and additional data to already existing cases in the DHM were supplemented.
Recently, the Dutch Caribbean Homicide Monitor (DCHM) came into place as well. The DCHM is based on the DHM. In general, the variables are the same in both the DHM and the DCHM. However, in both Monitors there is the possibility that variables are added, relating to specifics of the different regions. The DCHM covered homicides that took place in Curacao, between 2014-2018. Fellow students in the capstone project completed the DCHM with homicides that took place on Bonaire, Aruba, St. Eustatius, Saba and St. Maarten in that same time period. To make the Monitor even more complete, the homicides of 2012-2013 were included for the six islands of the Dutch Caribbean. For the research on life imprisonment, homicides on these islands were added, outside of the time frame of 2012-2018. These cases were added to make the analysis for this research more complete, corresponding to the timeframe of the DHM as well (1992-2016). The data for the DCHM was derived from various sources, such as information from Infocell Caribbean (ICCA), which is part of the Dutch Police based in Rotterdam; files from the Public Prosecution Office; ‘criminal cards’,
which reflect the criminal history of the perpetrator of the victim and local newspapers, for verification and the addition of details of the cases (Liem, n.d.).
The data collected from the DHM and the DCHM give insight into the different characteristics of both the perpetrators and the victims. The DHM and the DCHM provide detailed information regarding motive, the type of homicide and the relationship between the victim and the perpetrator, amongst others.
5.2.3 Rechtspraak.nl
For the analysis of the individual judgments, the qualitative analysis, www.rechtspraak.nl has been used. On this website all decisions of the Courts of first instance, Courts of Appeal and High Court of the Netherlands and the Dutch Caribbean are provided. The cases on the website have been anonymized, due to confidential information. However, the LLG NL gave insight into the number of the case at the Court, therefore the relevant cases could be collected. With help of the DCHM and the LLG DC, the relevant information for the Dutch Caribbean cases could be collected as well.
5.2.4 Selection of cases for the research 5.2.4.1 LLG NL and DC
The data available in the database LLG NL starts in 1979 and runs until 2019, as there are cases of which the judicial process is still ongoing. LLG NL consists of the names and details known to Forum Levenslang, therefore making it a nearly exhaustive list of all people sentenced to life imprisonment in the Netherlands in that time period. Data collected for the database LLG DC starts with the Murray case in 1980 and ends in 2017. The collection of relevant data on life imprisonment cases, such as judicial information, information on the perpetrator and special circumstances during trial, is much more difficult for this region. Due to the high crime and homicide rates on the islands, the Public Prosecution Office lacks resources for investigation and prosecution, due to their insufficient scope (Openbaar Minister, 2016: 2). The result of this is that crimes go unpunished in the Dutch Caribbean and the official documentation on cases is insufficient.
5.2.4.2 DHM and DCHM
The available data has been collected and codified in the LLG DC. The DHM consists of homicides in the Netherlands from 1992-2015. The DCHM only consisted of homicides
committed between 2014-2018, however this has been extended by fellow participants of the research to the period 2012-2018. In addition, cases that were obtained for the LLG DC in the time period before this, have been added to the DCHM to complement the Monitor. As a thorough analysis of the data is only possible in the overlapping time frame of 1999-2015, only cases between 1999 and 2015 will be taken into consideration for this research, both from the LLG NL and DC; and the DHM and DCHM.
5.2.4.3 Selection for research
The overlapping cases in both the LLG NL/DC and the DHM/DCHM are selected for this research, for the time period of 1999-2015; as for these cases it is possible to make an analysis on both similarities and differences. The data from the LLG NL and the DHM will be compared to cases in the LLG DC and the DCHM. In that way, a clear distinction can be made between the Netherlands on the one side and the Dutch Caribbean on the other side. The cases will be analysed by looking at the different characteristics as set forth in the previous chapter.
For the analysis of the individual judgments, a small number of cases have been selected to provide insight in the ruling and motivation of the judges to sentence the perpetrator to either life imprisonment or temporary imprisonment. For both regions, the Netherlands and the Dutch Caribbean, at least one case involves the final decision of life imprisonment without parole, and at least one case involves the final decision of a temporary imprisonment in appeal, in which the judge in first instance sentenced the suspect to life imprisonment. Through content analysis of the provided decisions by the different courts, insight will be given into the characteristics of each case and possible differences and similarities between the rulings. The individual judgments will focus on the characteristics that could not be analysed from the databases. As the judicial cases have all been anonymized, Appendix B provides insight into the numbers given to the cases for this research. Since explicit details of the cases, such as the name of the perpetrator and of the victim(s), can be found online, therefore the description of the cases in the analysis is rather extensive.
For this research, homicide incidents will be included in which; life imprisonment has been sentenced and applied; where life imprisonment was applied, but changed later; where the Prosecution Office proposed life imprisonment as the punishment, but the judge decided differently and cases in which the process is still ongoing, but life imprisonment has either
been proposed by the Prosecution Office or applied in first instance. For the latter category, the perpetrator still has the right to appeal. These forms of punishment are included in the research, in order to provide an extensive analysis regarding the application of life imprisonment. The reason for including cases in which the final decision was not life imprisonment is to create a larger N for the research, and additionally if life imprisonment has been discussed in one of the judgments, the Prosecution Office and/or the judge deemed the details of the incident to be of such severity that life imprisonment would be a fitting punishment.
The incidents of homicides that occurred on Saba and St. Eustatius are not taken into consideration for this research. No data or information has been found regarding life imprisonment in relation to these islands.
5.3 Operationalization
The relevant concepts for this research are operationalized here. In section two, the relevant concepts of homicide and life imprisonment have been explained. In this section, the specific variables used for the analysis are set out.
Not all of the necessary data could be analysed from the mentioned databases. Information regarding certain characteristics, as mentioned in the previous section, have been analysed through the judgments of the courts. The risk of recidivism, the attitude of the suspect during the trial, the impact on society and mental illness or psychological disorder with the perpetrator are the characteristics that will be discussed with the qualitative analysis of the individual judgments.
5.3.1 Variable selection LLG NL and LLG DC
The selection of the variables for the LLG NL and the LLG DC is based on the following considerations. First, the variables had to gain insight into the general occurrence of life imprisonment both in the Netherlands and the Dutch Caribbean. Second, the variables had to be relevant for the understanding of the characteristics on which the judge based the decision of sentencing the perpetrator to life imprisonment.
The selected variables were already existent in the LLG NL, before it was codified. However, some of the variables have been restructured and values for some variables were added, in
order to reinforce the analysis. The variables are presented in the order as embedded in the coding manual of the LLG NL and DC.
Table 2 Variable selection for the LLG NL and LLG DC as presented in the coding manual, 1999-2015
Name of the variable Explanation of the variable Level CATEGORIE The category of the process
of the case of the suspect, or perpetrator
Case
DEL_JAAR Year of the committed crime Crime
LEVENSDEL_AANT The number of life crimes committed by the suspect, or perpetrator
Perpetrator
LEVENSDEL_M The number of life crimes in the category murder
Perpetrator
LEVENSDEL_D The number of life crimes in the category manslaughter
Perpetrator
EERDERE_VER Indicates whether the
suspect, or perpetrator, has been convicted for a crime before
Perpetrator
RB_EIS The proposed sentence by the
Prosecution Office in first instance
Court in First Instance
RB_UITSPR_LL Indicates whether the
decision in first instance was life imprisonment or not
Court in First Instance
RB_UITSPR_GLL In case the decision in first instance was not life imprisonment, here the number of years of temporary imprisonment is indicated
Court in First Instance
GH_EIS The proposed sentence by the
Prosecution Office in appeal
GH_UITSPR_LL Indicates whether the
decision in first instance was life imprisonment or not
Court of Appeal
GH_UITSPR_GLL In case the decision in first instance was not life imprisonment, here the number of years of temporary imprisonment is indicated
Court of Appeal
Table 2 gives an overview of the variables used for the analysis of the LLG NL and LLG DC. The relevance of the variables will be explained here.
The category of the case: The category of the case is an important variable, as it gives an
overview of the process of the cases. It provides insight into the number of irrevocable life imprisonment cases, cases that are still on-going, cases in which the life imprisonment sentence has been changed and cases in which the decision was acquittal. The variable is used for both the Netherlands and the Dutch Caribbean between 1999-2015.
The year of the committed crime: The year of the committed crime gives insight in the years
in which most of the crimes have been committed, and is therefore important to show a possible relationship with the detention rate.
Life crimes: The three variables related to life crimes, either murder or manslaughter, give
insight into the number of life crimes the perpetrator has committed in the homicide incident. It is important to analyse this information, as it influences the decision of the judge for applying a certain punishment.
Previous convictions: The number of previous convictions is important to indicate whether
the perpetrator has a criminal history. The judge takes this into account when deciding on the punishment.
Court in First Instance: The three variables related to the proposed sentence and the decision
of the Court in First Instance is relevant as it gives insight in to a general overview to show whether the judge follows the advice of the Prosecution office. But also, the variable
regarding temporary imprisonment provides insight into the severity of the punishment, when life imprisonment is not applied.
Court of Appeal: The three variables related to the proposed sentence and the decision of the
Court of Appeal are relevant for the same reasons as mentioned at the Court of First Instance.
5.3.2 Variable selection DHM and DCHM
The selection of the variables for the DHM and DCHM is based on the following considerations. First, the selected variables should gain insight into the general occurrence of the homicide incident. Second, the selected variables had to provide an overview of the demographics of both the perpetrators and the victims.
The selected variables were already present in the DHM and DCHM. The variables are presented in the order as embedded in the coding manual for the DHM and the DCHM.
Table 3 Variable selection for the DHM and DCHM as presented in the coding manual, 1999-2015
Name of the variable Explanation of the variable Level
NRVIC Indicates the number of
victims involved in the homicide incident
Crime
NRPERP Indicates the number of
perpetrators involved in the homicide incident
Crime
CRIMESCENE Indicates where the homicide incident took place
Crime
MODUS Indicates the modus operandi
of the homicide incident
Crime
TYPEHOM Indicates the type of
homicide (in broad terms)
Crime
MOTMEN Indicates whether the motive
was mental illness or psychological disorder
Crime
was criminal, for a financial purpose
MOTSEX Indicates whether the motive
was rape or another sexual offence
Crime
MOTCRIM Indicates whether the motive
was of other criminal nature
Crime
MOTOTH Indicates whether there was
any other motive
Crime
RELAT Indicates the relationship
between the victim and the perpetrator
Victim and perpetrator
GENDER_TYPE_SUM Indicates the relationship between the gender of the victim and the gender of the perpetrator of the homicide incident
Victim and perpetrator
COMB_VIC_PERP Indicates the combination between the number of victims and the number of perpetrators of the homicide incident
Crime
GENDER Indicates the gender of the
victim and the gender of the perpetrator
Victim and perpetrator
AGE Indicates the age of the
victim and the age of the perpetrator
Victim and perpetrator
VIOLENTHISTORY Indicates whether the perpetrator had a history of violence
Perpetrator
Table 3 gives an overview of the variables used for the analysis of the DHM and the DCHM. The relevance of the variables is used here.
Number of victims and perpetrators: The number of victims and perpetrators for the homicide
incident is an important variable as it gives an indication of the possibility for the victim to defend itself against a certain number of perpetrators. The number of perpetrators of the homicide incident is also relevant for the decision of the judge, as it gives an indication of the severity of the violence and crime.
Crime scene: The locus delicti is of importance for the motivation of the decision of the
judge. Additionally, it relates to the impact the crime has on society.
Modus: The modus operandi is relevant for the analysis as it gives an overview in the type of
violence with which the perpetrator killed the victim. It provides insight into possible different relations the modus has to the decision of the court.
Type of homicide: This variable can give insight into whether the application of life
imprisonment occurs more often with certain types of homicides. Judges might punish certain types of homicides more severely than others.
Motives: The variables regarding motives are important as it gives information regarding the
type of violence used and the person of the perpetrator.
Relationship between victim and perpetrator: The relationship between the victim and the
perpetrator is an important variable to define the type of homicide. It describes the relationship the victim has to the perpetrator.
Relationship between gender of the victim and gender of the perpetrator: This is a relevant
variable as the judge takes this into account when deciding on the punishment.
Combination of number of victims and perpetrators: This variable is related to separate
variables of the number of victims and of the number of perpetrators per homicide incident.
Gender of the victim and the perpetrator: The gender of both the victim and the perpetrator
will show whether there are differences in the application of the life imprisonment depending on the gender.
Age of the victim and the perpetrator: This variable is important to see if there are certain
ages in which there are more perpetrators or victims. The age of both the victims and the perpetrators has been divided into groups of years of age: <18, 18-24, 25-34, 35-44, 45-65 and 65+ years old. The groups for age have been chosen based on similar research, structuring homicides in the Netherlands (Bijleveld and Smit, 2006: 204).
Violent history of the perpetrator: This variable gives insight into the possible criminal
history of the perpetrator. It provides an indication for the possibility of recidivism, which the judge takes into account when deciding on the sentence.
6. Analysis
6.1 IntroductionIn this section, the results from analyses extracted from the databases will be provided. The analysis rests on the four different levels of characteristics of the case: legal- and process characteristics, crime characteristics, perpetrator characteristics and victim characteristics. The tables presented here, all have the extra category of ‘Unknown’, as not for all cases the relevant data could be collected. In some tables, the category ‘Not applicable’ has been added, which refers to incidents of which the data is known, but where the perpetrator did not make use of that option. An example could be that the perpetrator did not make use of his or her right to appeal. Since the research focuses on a small N, the reported data is provided in whole percentages, rather than with decimals.
6.2 Case characteristics
To get a complete oversight of the scope and timing of the incidents, first the number of cases, perpetrators and victims for both the Netherlands and the Dutch Caribbean for the period of 1999-2015 will be set out. Over the period of 1999-2015 in the Netherlands, in total 43 homicide incidents or cases, were known in which life imprisonment was involved. In total, 60 people became the victim of homicide incidents in which the perpetrator’s punishment involved life imprisonment. For the Dutch Caribbean, the documented number of cases is considerably smaller, where 11 cases, and thus 11 perpetrators, are known involved with life imprisonment over that same period of time. For the Dutch Caribbean, the cases amounted to 15 victims in total.
