On July 1st 2016 a law entered into force that gives the victim or survivors of serious crimes the right to speak unrestrictedly in court. Where the victim or survivors used to be only permitted to make a statement on the consequences of the crime for them, the recent amendment of the law permits them to speak about the evidence, the legal qualification of the crime, the culpability of the offender and the appropriate punishment as well. Discussions on the introduction or extension of the victim’s right to speak mainly focused on the consequences of victim statements on the procedural consequences and on the consequences for the victim. Little attention is paid to the consequences for the offender. This article reports the findings of a systematic literature review on the relation between a victim statement and the imposed punishment. The findings from the American studies show that a victim statement aggravates sentencing outcomes. How desirable is that? For answering that question, more research is needed, which the legislator has not wanted to wait for.

In the Netherlands two experiments are conducted with a new kind of collaboration between probation and prosecution. The experiments aimed for the development of meaningful, contextual and tailor-made sanctioning. As a result, the experiments reached a new group of citizens that probation nor social services ever reached before, people who commit very light offenses, but struggle with heavy social problems. The new method of working resembles short intensive case management (hit and run) and includes commitment of social context and close collaboration with social work and care. Based on the results, probation and prosecution decided to implement this method in all Dutch regions and the Ministry of Safety and Justice adapted their financing structure.

The dynamic traffic control is an important detection method for Dutch police officers. In December 2015 the appeal court in Amsterdam stated that dynamic traffic control is illegal. This article explains what dynamic traffic control is and which varieties exist. Secondly the article debates whether or not dynamic traffic control is in conflict with the prohibition of the misuse of powers. It is explained that this depends on what kind of dynamic traffic control is carried out and which vision is followed.

Cruelty to and neglect of animals are criminal offences. In the criminal prosecution of perpetrators of cruelty to and neglect of animals, the court may impose an injunction on the offenders to keep animals for a specific period of time. In the Netherlands, this so-called ban on keeping animals (‘houdverbod’) can be imposed by the criminal court in the form of a special condition imposed in combination with a suspended sentence. In this article we present the results of a study into the frequency with which and the manner in which the ban on keeping animals is applied nationwide in the Netherlands. The study provides insights into the prerequisites for adequate application of the ban on keeping animals. In practice, the implementation of the ban on keeping animals in its current form faces some problems. The question is how the effectiveness of the ban on keeping animals may be improved and whether there are alternative ways to apply the ban on keeping animals that may serve the purpose better. The issue of the most effective form in which to implement a ban on keeping animals – also in the longer term – is a thorny one.