Government staff shortages in the Netherlands are raising serious public safety concerns. Despite significant consultancy spending, temporary measures like reduced prison sentences and ankle bracelets are ineffective. High recidivism rates and transferring young offenders to adult prisons worsen the issue. With unfilled government positions, the future of public safety in the Netherlands looks increasingly uncertain.
Picture : NBC News
The persistent reports in the daily news about government staff shortages in the Netherlands and surrounding countries keep triggering my concerns. It’s disheartening to see the careful planning of our civil servants and their advisers for the future of our country seemingly fall short. Despite millions, possibly billions, spent on consultancy fees, the current staffing situation in public administrations makes me increasingly worried. The narrative presented in the press fosters uncertainty about a potentially unsafe future for many Europeans.
Are criminals taking greater risks because the chance of being caught is smaller?
Today, the newspaper explicitly stated: “The lack of available prison cells as a result of the staff shortage at the Custodial Institutions Agency (DJI) has hardly decreased in recent months.” According to the outgoing minister, Franc Weerwind, the government’s “temporary” measures, such as not imprisoning those with shorter sentences, using ankle bracelets instead of prison terms, or even releasing prisoners early, should soon have an impact. However, many argue that these measures currently do little to alleviate the pressure on the existing staff in detention centers or prisons.
Won’t these measures lead to more crime?
It’s clear that what’s happening now should have been brought to the attention of the responsible officials and their advisers long ago. Firm measures and agreements should have been taken to prevent the current situation. Did policymakers see this coming for a long time? According to the press, the recidivism rate is quite high: 47% of ex-prisoners reoffend within two years. Even after community service or probation supervision, the rate is 34%. These figures suggest that criminals do not fear prison sentences or cannot reintegrate into society properly.
Shouldn’t penalties be much stricter to prevent recidivism?
If criminals become even less reluctant to imprisonment due to shorter sentences or alternative measures like ankle bracelets or community service, will crime increase? For instance, shouldn’t a criminal wearing an ankle bracelet also be banned from communicating with certain people? It seems insufficient to restrict their movement alone. If they can still enjoy food, drinks, sex, and contact with their “criminal” friends, the punishment doesn’t seem severe. Yes, they must stay at home, but given that many are addicted to computer games, this might not be a significant deterrent. They can divide their time between games over the available twenty-four hours a day, only needing to check in occasionally and step out for groceries.
Do you agree that tougher penalties do not work?
I often think that slogans like “stricter punishments make no sense, it only makes the criminal more criminal” are deliberately propagated by policymakers to hide their powerlessness or ignorance. The improvement seen by Minister Weerwind can never encompass more than forty percent of the punished criminals in our country. Adding to this, the fact that these criminals represent just the tip of the iceberg, reveals the depth of the issue.
Is the tip of the iceberg being expanded by current policies?
With more criminals being released early or enjoying leisure activities during their sentence, it raises concerns. Additionally, young offenders are being transferred from juvenile detention centers to adult prisons due to a lack of space in their designated homes. This will likely have a detrimental effect on the rehabilitation of these juvenile criminals. Just like any other institution, the policy in these institutions will adapt to the target group being “treated.” Will these relocated young people still receive the appropriate treatment, or will this lead to further increases in crime?
Will “wrong” punishment break us down?
The message was delivered “neatly” by the outgoing minister, but does he believe it himself? Fortunately for Mr. Weerwind, he is outgoing, and a new cabinet will soon take over in the Netherlands. We must wait and see whether the new leaders understand how to deal with criminals and delinquents. As I mentioned earlier, there are increasing unfillable vacancies in the government in the Netherlands, including in the police, prison staff, fire brigade, hospital staff, and other civil service positions. I am very curious and look to the future with suspicion. How safe and well-cared-for is our welfare state? Can the people in the Netherlands, who must increasingly fend for themselves due to government staff shortages, manage this, or is our government inadvertently fostering a new peak in crime in our history?
How is this situation in the countries where you live? Do you find yourself asking the same questions?
