Abstract
The transfer of youths from the juvenile to the criminal court was common in large parts of the world throughout the past century. Right from the start, judicial waiver mechanisms to remove very serious cases from the juvenile court formed part of the juvenile justice system in many countries. It was and is still viewed by many as a ‘safety valve’ for the juvenile courts, and for the juvenile justice system as a whole. The idea was that by offering this safety valve for extremely serious cases that happen only rarely, the special treatment of the mass of young offenders could be saved. There has been little if any research into these mechanisms until recently, when, alarmed by reports from the United States, some researchers in Western Europe started to investigate this phenomenon.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Albrecht 2004; Dünkel 1990.
- 2.
For young adults (18 to 20 years) the penalties available in that case vary from 5 to 20 years'detention, see Jesionek 2001
- 3.
Rehberg 2001; Zermatten 2004.
- 4.
Nuytiens et al. 2005.
- 5.
Renucci 1998, p. 106.
- 6.
Bottoms and Dignan 2004.
- 7.
Stump 2003, p. 191.
- 8.
Fourteen years if an offence is committed with an adult offender.
- 9.
Anneveldt Committee 1982, p. 16.
- 10.
For further details, see Weijers 2006.
- 11.
The overwhelming majority of the accused were 17 years old (55 cases), while nine offenders were probably 16 at the time of the offence
- 12.
In the case files we only found nine cases where the Public Prosecutor had demanded a different sentence. In seven of these cases the prosecutor had demanded a heavier sentence and in two cases a lighter one.
- 13.
Theoretically, the Public Prosecutor can still dismiss the case or propose mediation. In practice, this only happens occasionally. This is not surprising, because in most cases it is the Public Prosecutor who demanded transfer.
- 14.
Since the death penalty was abolished in 1996, this restriction has lost its relevance.
- 15.
Van Dijk et al. 2005
- 16.
Nuytiens et al. 2005
- 17.
Goiset 2000
- 18.
The 2006 Act will be put into operation gradually. The entire Act has to be fully operational in 2009.
- 19.
This court, where professional judges are assisted by 12 laymen, deals with the most serious offences.
- 20.
Vanneste 2001. The Youth Court can take preliminary decisions as well as final decisions. The transfer decision can only be imposed as a judgement.
- 21.
Nuytiens 2006
- 22.
Ibidem
- 23.
Nuytiens et al. 2005; Nuytiens et al. 2006
- 24.
Transferred between 1999 and 2001.
- 25.
Antwerp, Brussels, Charleroi, Mechelen and Mons
- 26.
We noted that (1) the categories were constructed before some new member states joined the EU; and (2) the category ‘Africa’ did not include the North African countries (Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia and Mauritania)
- 27.
We noted that problems can exist without being reported in the files. This goes for the other variables as well.
- 28.
For 18% of the families, a financial problem was reported (e.g. debts, living on benefits). For 24.8% of the families, intra-familial aggression was reported (e.g. incest, physical or mental abuse). For 17.1% of the families, drug abuse of the parent(s) was reported. For 26.1% of the families, a health care problem was reported (physical or mental problems of the parents). It was striking that many of the parents were living on social security due to health problems
- 29.
The sibling had come into contact with the Youth Court (welfare reasons and/or offending-related reasons) and/or with the Criminal Court.
- 30.
We interviewed 11 juvenile judges of the Youth Court and 6 juvenile judges of the Court of Appeal31 Nuytiens et al. 2005, p. 196.
- 31.
Nuytiens et al. 2005, p. 196
- 32.
Ibidem, p. 215
- 33.
Another reason is that the Adult Court was of the opinion that the offences had already been punished by means of a former judgement.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2009 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Weijers, I., Nuytiens, A., Christiaens, J. (2009). Transfer of Minors to the Criminal Court in Europe: Belgium and the Netherlands. In: Junger-Tas, J., Dünkel, F. (eds) Reforming Juvenile Justice. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-89295-5_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-89295-5_7
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY
Print ISBN: 978-0-387-89294-8
Online ISBN: 978-0-387-89295-5
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawSocial Sciences (R0)