For this purpose, the instrument of the punishment order will be used more often.

It is now common knowledge that prisons are overcrowded while there is a severe shortage of staff. Prisons are mainly filled with people serving sentences of less than six months. Back in October 2021, the Council for Criminal Justice and Youth Protection (RSJ) reported that short detentions are of little use and, above all, cause much unnecessary harm to the detainee and their environment. They are too short to initiate successful reintegration, but too long to protect someone from detention damage. Think of loss of job, home or relationship. In many cases, the 'cure' is worse than the 'ailment'.

Yet 'short' prison sentences are still considered appropriate by many judges. Sometimes for a long time after the date of the offence, due to a stalled criminal justice chain. This is due to a (too) large influx of criminal cases while there are too few judges and courtrooms to handle these cases in the foreseeable future. As prison sentences continue to be imposed, the list of waiting 'self-reporters' grows, while the impact of a prison sentence on the convicted person only increases over time.

This is why, in February this year, the College of Prosecutors General of the Public Prosecution Service (OM) launched a remarkable initiative to relieve the burden on both prisons and the criminal justice chain by issuing fewer summonses and more frequent punishment orders. Since the prosecution cannot impose a prison sentence with a punishment order, this means that in the near future many more suspects will receive community service, which would have been eligible for imprisonment under court guidelines. These are not the most serious crimes but those for which a maximum of six years' imprisonment can be imposed. In practice, these will mainly be property offences, such as theft and receiving stolen goods, but also simple assault.

This will by no means always lead to satisfactory results. Victims/injured parties will find that the offender gets away with community service. On the other hand, under the new way of working, victims will have to wait less time for compensation for their damages. Furthermore, a community service sentence of (at most 180 hours in the case of punishment orders) cannot exactly be called 'light'.

However, the rights of the accused should also be closely monitored. After all, those who agree to a punishment order do get a criminal record. And it is important for a suspect to know that he does not have to agree. He may also present his case to a court with the aim of being acquitted. In that case, he can also continue to exercise his due defence rights, such as hearing witnesses. The downside, however, is that in some cases the court, unlike the public prosecutor, may come to a prison sentence in the event of a proven conviction. This consideration should be made by the accused (and his lawyer) in each case.

In criminal law, you cannot please everyone. The prosecution in this case seems to be opting for a strategy 'if it can't be done the way it should be done, then so be it' and I can agree with that in this case. Indeed, it may be a keeper that more often community service is chosen instead of a 'short' prison sentence. Looking abroad, short prison sentences are often not enforced and other modalities such as electronic detention (kind of house arrest) are chosen. Also bearing in mind the RSJ conclusions cited above, society as a whole could benefit more from this.

Mr. D.M. Penn