‘An eye for an eye and a tough approach; that’s the rhetoric.’

Lindeman only has to open the newspaper to find examples of this ambiguity. "A year and a half ago, NRC published an article about asylum seekers who were arrested for shoplifting. Normally, people get a fine for such an offence, but the asylum seekers in question were immediately put in jail for a few days. They didn't have to pay the fine, though. So, you cancel it out and everyone's happy. I don't want to downplay the problem of asylum seekers causing nuisance in certain places, but it's obviously very strange to impose a custodial sentence when that's normally reserved for the courts."

"Look, if you were to lock someone up for three days without a reason, that would be a criminal offence. But the government itself cannot be prosecuted, as the Supreme Court has ruled. You may think what you want about that, but that's the way it is. Of course, that doesn't alter the fact that the government is operating on the edge of what one would expect in a democratic constitutional state."

Lindeman warns that we should not normalise that ministers take the place of the Public Prosecution Service. “Over the last fifteen years, we have seen a very punitive government policy,” he says. By punitive, he means a policy oriented by the idea that one must punish offenders to deter them. 

"Immediate and harsh punishment are terms we have been hearing for a long time. The government is trying to convince society that harsh punishment is a very good solution, but we know that short prison sentences cause a lot of damage. People experience relationship problems, lose their jobs, can no longer pay their mortgages, and lose their homes. At the same time, the length of the sentence is too short to get someone back on the right track. So, these sentences are completely useless, even though we hand them out a lot. According to politicians, the public likes to see people receive these kinds of sentences."

"Just look at the recent riots on Malieveld. They caught the first troublemakers quickly, even before things escalated. But they didn't set police cars on fire or destroy buildings. They may have thrown a stone, but that's all. The Public Prosecution Service is also demanding months of prison sentences for these people for crimes that would normally result in community service."

When it comes to punishment, Joep Lindeman often sees a narrative in society that focuses on the other person. "We are never the criminals ourselves," he says, pointing to himself and the journalist. "It's the asylum seekers, the terrorists, the people whose behaviour is misunderstood. But it's never us, our neighbour or colleague. No, we are decent people who never do anything wrong. Which is nonsense, of course."

Lindeman mentions environmental offences, such as illegal waste dumping or drug use. "We are in favour of a very strict drugs policy. At the same time, drug use is the most normal thing in the world, especially in big cities. It's easier to get someone to deliver cocaine to your door than to get the plumber to come. Such huge hypocrisy."

Joep Lindeman. Photo: Ivar Pel

Finger-pointing citizens and political opportunism go hand in hand, notes Lindeman. It's all about flexing muscles and insisting on tit for tat. "Recently, a bill was introduced to make escaping from prison a criminal offence. Someone escapes from prison once a year at most. There are all kinds of ways to make it very unpleasant for someone to escape. Such a proposal adds absolutely nothing. Then you read the explanatory memorandum, and it states that 'this will reduce feelings of insecurity'. This is politics without facts."

According to Lindeman, motions proposing to turn all sorts of things into criminal offences are tumbling over each other in the House of Representatives. Lindeman mentioned this phenomenon in his inaugural lecture, delivered on October 10. He also explained the extent of the influence politics subsequently exerts on the criminal justice system. 

"It is quite significant, because if the cabinet drafts a law making escape from prison a criminal offence and it is passed in our democratic process, then it becomes a criminal offence. However, that does not mean the Public Prosecution Service will immediately drop everything to investigate the criminal offence. It takes a little more than that."

"The Public Prosecution Service in the Netherlands is a fairly independent organisation, which is seen as part of the judicial system. While judges are appointed for life and their independence is strongly guaranteed, this is not the case for public prosecutors. They can simply receive instructions from the Board of Procurators General, which in turn can receive instructions from the Minister of Justice, because he is responsible for what the Public Prosecution Service does."

According to the professor, the minister can issue general instructions on the policy to be pursued, for example. He can also issue special instructions, such as when the minister knows that someone is suspected of a criminal offence and indicates that this person must be prosecuted. In 1999, during a reform of the criminal justice system, it was clearly agreed that the Minister would be very cautious about giving specific instructions. Lindeman: "So in more than 25 years, no specific instructions have ever been given to the Public Prosecution Service. But there have been several discussions about whether the Minister has tried to push the Public Prosecution Service in a certain direction. In the Wilders case, for example." (According to MP Geert Wilders, the former Minister of Justice Ivo Opstelten insisted on prosecution, Ed.)

A private member's bill from D66 MP Joost Sneller aims to amend the minister's powers of instruction. Sneller wants to abolish the special powers of instruction. "Even then, the minister can still have a significant impact on the Public Prosecution Service's policy," says Lindeman. "For example, he can say that a great deal of capacity must be devoted to combating extreme left-wing violence."

Personally, Lindeman is in favour of a system in which direct powers no longer exist. He wants to conduct further research into what such a system might look like.

Scientists talk politics
In the run-up to the Dutch elections, DUB spoke with three researchers about the link between their research and politics.

- Urban planner Maarten Hajer on climate policy: “We can only save climate policy with more imagination”

- Criminal lawyer Joep Lindeman on “criminal politics"

- Sociologist Marguerite van den Berg on vulnerability in politics: “Everyone needs protection, love and care.”