Inleiding en context

Beste mensen het is vandaag woensdag 13 oktober 2021, maak er wat moois van. En omdat het grijs en nat weer is trakteer ik jullie op een zonnig muziekje waar iedereen vrolijk van zou moeten worden: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j9oH5ngQcdU Maar nu naar de bijgesloten ´kennisparel´ van vandaag. Dat betreft een meta analyse van zogenaamde alternatieve sancties / taakstraffen voor jeugdigen in vergelijking met gevangenisstraf. Gekeken wordt naar de verschillen in recidive tussen beide strafmodaliteiten. Alternatieve sancties / taakstraffen kennen een lange historie binnen het Nederlandse strafrecht voor jeugdigen. Begin jaren ´80 van de vorige eeuw werd er al mee geëxperimenteerd. Peter van der Laan was destijds één van de meest vooraanstaande onderzoekers die hier onderzoek naar deed: https://repository.wodc.nl/handle/20.500.12832/418 In 1991 promoveerde hij aan de Vrije Universiteit met het proefschrift ‘ Experimenteren met alternatieve sancties voor jeugdigen’. O ja, op 4 november a.s. gaat hij trouwens met pensioen.

Kortom: er is sprake van een lange traditie in Nederland waar het de toepassing van alternatieve sancties / taakstraffen voor jeugdigen betreft. Maar wat zijn de effecten van die sancties in vergelijking met bijvoorbeeld gevangenisstraf uitgedrukt in de omvang en ontwikkeling van recidive? Bijgesloten ´kennisparel´ geeft daar een antwoord op. 

Bron

Koops-Geuze, Gwendolyn J. & Frank M. Weerman (August 2021). Community sanctions in youth justice compared to other youth crime responses: A meta-analysis. European Journal of Criminology, 2 August, pp. 1-24. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/14773708211035305

Samenvatting

This meta-analysis examines the official recidivism effects of two types of community sanctions in youth justice, namely community service and behavioural intervention programmes. Two analyses were conducted: a comparison between the effects of community sanctions and custodial sanctions, versus a comparison between the effects of community sanctions and dismissals. Following a systematic literature search, data extraction and analysis, mean effect sizes were calculated utilizing (log) odds ratio as the main effect measure. To explore heterogeneity, a meta-regression was conducted with four moderator variables: methodological rigour, referral stage, main focus of sanction and sample risk level. The hypotheses were that recidivism would be significantly lower for delinquent youth subject to community sanctions compared with those subject to custodial sanctions, but that differences in recidivism between delinquent youth subject to community sanctions versus dismissals would be insignificant. In total, 23 studies were deemed eligible for inclusion (Ncust = 7, Ndism = 16). Final results were in favour of the hypotheses, namely, significantly lower recidivism rates for community sanctions compared with custodial sanctions, and no significant differences for community sanctions compared with dismissals. For both comparisons, the 95% confidence interval indicated the effects varied from just below zero to substantially in favour of community sanctions. Finally, moderator analysis revealed that studies of lower methodological quality and mixed referral stages were more likely to report larger effect sizes.

In the present study, community sanctions are defined as sanctions, measures, or modes of punishment that contain work, learning, therapeutic and/or supervision components, intended as a viable alternative to custodial sanctions that can be performed in the community instead of custodial settings. As mentioned before, we focus on two types of community sanctions, namely: community service and behavioural intervention programmes. Further, custodial sanctions are defined as sanctions that predominantly consist of detention, whether referred to as incarceration, confinement, custody or institutionalization. Dismissals are defined as any justice system response that does not involve the administration of a sanction, treatment or intervention, but concerns the (immediate) release of the suspect to the community (if applicable) or unconditional case dispositions. Lastly, effectiveness is defined as the extent to which a punishment response to youth crime encourages desistance from crime, as measured by registered recidivism.

The current meta-analysis included 23 effect sizes of studies where the experimental group received a community sanction, and the control group received either a custodial sanction or a dismissal (without any additional treatment). The pooled effect estimate of the comparison between community sanctions and custodial sanctions was negative (LOR = −0.24), and translates into an OR < 1 (OR = 0.78), which indicates a negative association. This suggests that the odds of recidivism are smaller amongst youth who received a community sanction compared with youth who received a custodial sanction. This estimate translates into an OR of 0.78, and assuming a 50 percent base rate for recidivism, we conclude that the recidivism rates for youth subject to a community sanction would be 44 percent, compared with 50 percent for youth subject to custodial sanctions.

Afsluitend

Het is duidelijk, alternatieve sancties of taakstraffen voor jeugdigen zijn meer effectief om recidive te voorkomen dan gevangenisstraf. Een daarmee is duidelijk dat de Nederlandse traditie en beleid om jongeren zoveel mogelijk buiten het formele strafrecht te houden effectief is. Trouwens, dat het goed gaat met de ontwikkeling van criminaliteit en jeugdcriminaliteit in het bijzonder blijkt wel uit onderstaande dia:

Inleiding en context

Beste mensen het is vandaag woensdag 13 oktober 2021, maak er wat moois van. En omdat het grijs en nat weer is trakteer ik jullie op een zonnig muziekje waar iedereen vrolijk van zou moeten worden: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j9oH5ngQcdU Maar nu naar de bijgesloten ´kennisparel´ van vandaag. Dat betreft een meta analyse van zogenaamde alternatieve sancties / taakstraffen voor jeugdigen in vergelijking met gevangenisstraf. Gekeken wordt naar de verschillen in recidive tussen beide strafmodaliteiten. Alternatieve sancties / taakstraffen kennen een lange historie binnen het Nederlandse strafrecht voor jeugdigen. Begin jaren ´80 van de vorige eeuw werd er al mee geëxperimenteerd. Peter van der Laan was destijds één van de meest vooraanstaande onderzoekers die hier onderzoek naar deed: https://repository.wodc.nl/handle/20.500.12832/418 In 1991 promoveerde hij aan de Vrije Universiteit met het proefschrift ‘ Experimenteren met alternatieve sancties voor jeugdigen’. O ja, op 4 november a.s. gaat hij trouwens met pensioen.

Kortom: er is sprake van een lange traditie in Nederland waar het de toepassing van alternatieve sancties / taakstraffen voor jeugdigen betreft. Maar wat zijn de effecten van die sancties in vergelijking met bijvoorbeeld gevangenisstraf uitgedrukt in de omvang en ontwikkeling van recidive? Bijgesloten ´kennisparel´ geeft daar een antwoord op. 

Bron

Koops-Geuze, Gwendolyn J. & Frank M. Weerman (August 2021). Community sanctions in youth justice compared to other youth crime responses: A meta-analysis. European Journal of Criminology, 2 August, pp. 1-24. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/14773708211035305

Samenvatting

This meta-analysis examines the official recidivism effects of two types of community sanctions in youth justice, namely community service and behavioural intervention programmes. Two analyses were conducted: a comparison between the effects of community sanctions and custodial sanctions, versus a comparison between the effects of community sanctions and dismissals. Following a systematic literature search, data extraction and analysis, mean effect sizes were calculated utilizing (log) odds ratio as the main effect measure. To explore heterogeneity, a meta-regression was conducted with four moderator variables: methodological rigour, referral stage, main focus of sanction and sample risk level. The hypotheses were that recidivism would be significantly lower for delinquent youth subject to community sanctions compared with those subject to custodial sanctions, but that differences in recidivism between delinquent youth subject to community sanctions versus dismissals would be insignificant. In total, 23 studies were deemed eligible for inclusion (Ncust = 7, Ndism = 16). Final results were in favour of the hypotheses, namely, significantly lower recidivism rates for community sanctions compared with custodial sanctions, and no significant differences for community sanctions compared with dismissals. For both comparisons, the 95% confidence interval indicated the effects varied from just below zero to substantially in favour of community sanctions. Finally, moderator analysis revealed that studies of lower methodological quality and mixed referral stages were more likely to report larger effect sizes.

In the present study, community sanctions are defined as sanctions, measures, or modes of punishment that contain work, learning, therapeutic and/or supervision components, intended as a viable alternative to custodial sanctions that can be performed in the community instead of custodial settings. As mentioned before, we focus on two types of community sanctions, namely: community service and behavioural intervention programmes. Further, custodial sanctions are defined as sanctions that predominantly consist of detention, whether referred to as incarceration, confinement, custody or institutionalization. Dismissals are defined as any justice system response that does not involve the administration of a sanction, treatment or intervention, but concerns the (immediate) release of the suspect to the community (if applicable) or unconditional case dispositions. Lastly, effectiveness is defined as the extent to which a punishment response to youth crime encourages desistance from crime, as measured by registered recidivism.

The current meta-analysis included 23 effect sizes of studies where the experimental group received a community sanction, and the control group received either a custodial sanction or a dismissal (without any additional treatment). The pooled effect estimate of the comparison between community sanctions and custodial sanctions was negative (LOR = −0.24), and translates into an OR < 1 (OR = 0.78), which indicates a negative association. This suggests that the odds of recidivism are smaller amongst youth who received a community sanction compared with youth who received a custodial sanction. This estimate translates into an OR of 0.78, and assuming a 50 percent base rate for recidivism, we conclude that the recidivism rates for youth subject to a community sanction would be 44 percent, compared with 50 percent for youth subject to custodial sanctions.

Afsluitend

Het is duidelijk, alternatieve sancties of taakstraffen voor jeugdigen zijn meer effectief om recidive te voorkomen dan gevangenisstraf. Een daarmee is duidelijk dat de Nederlandse traditie en beleid om jongeren zoveel mogelijk buiten het formele strafrecht te houden effectief is. Trouwens, dat het goed gaat met de ontwikkeling van criminaliteit en jeugdcriminaliteit in het bijzonder blijkt wel uit onderstaande dia: