This text criticizes the Dutch government's handling of acute prison personnel shortages. The author argues that "temporary" measures—like electronic monitoring, early releases, and shifting juvenile offenders to adult facilities—undermine public safety and fail to reduce high recidivism rates. Ultimately, it questions whether lenient sentencing inadvertently rewards criminal behavior and signals systemic governance failure.

It remains a constant trigger for me—all those daily news reports about personnel shortages within the government in the Netherlands and its neighboring countries. How incredibly well our civil servants and their advisors must have thought about the future of our country. Many millions, and perhaps even billions, must have been spent on advisory costs. However, when I look at the current staffing situation within governments, I find myself growing increasingly worried once again. The entire narrative appearing in the press makes me, and probably many other Europeans, very insecure about a potentially unsafe future.

Are criminals taking greater risks because the likelihood of getting caught is lower?

Today, the newspaper literally states once again: "The lack of available prison cells as a result of the personnel shortage at the Custodial Institutions Agency (DJI) has barely decreased in recent months." The "temporary" measures the government has taken—such as no longer incarcerating lower-sentenced individuals, using ankle monitors instead of prison sentences, or even the early release of prisoners—must, according to the current demissionary minister Franc Weerwind, soon start showing results. Measures that, according to others, are currently yielding little to no effect on the pressure that current staff in detention centers or prisons must endure.

Are these measures leading to more crime?

Naturally, you understand just as well as I do that what is happening now should have been brought to the attention of the responsible civil servants and their advisors much earlier. Prompt measures and agreements should have been made to prevent the current situation. (Or did the policymakers see this coming much longer ago?) As we often read in the press, the chance of recidivism among criminals is quite high. The percentage of ex-convicts who reoffend within two years is 47% (Nearly half!!). After a community service sentence or probation supervision, that percentage is lower: 34%. (Still more than a third of the total target group!!) . Do these criminals apparently not fear a prison sentence, or are they unable to maintain themselves properly in our society?

Should sentences not be much harsher to prevent recidivism?

Imagine if these criminals start fearing prison sentences even less because they keep getting shorter, or are even replaced by ankle monitors or community service; will crime increase even further? For instance, shouldn't a communication ban also be imposed on a criminal wearing an ankle monitor? It seems to me that an ankle monitor alone is quite tough, but if you can just keep having your food, a nice drink, sex with beautiful women, and contact with your "criminal" friends, then it’s not all that bad, is it? Yes, you have to stay at home, but half the world—and therefore, in my opinion, also half of our criminals—is addicted to computer games, so they can just enjoy themselves! Finally, they no longer have to watch the clock; they can spread their games across the available twenty-four hours in a day. They only have to clock in occasionally and leave the house to buy groceries.

Do you also think that harsher sentences do not work?

More and more, I think that a slogan like "harsher sentencing is useless, it only makes the criminal more criminal" is deliberately put out into the world by responsible policymakers just so they don't have to expose their own helplessness or incompetence. The target group that our demissionary minister Weerwind is talking about, and in which he sees improvement, can therefore never be much larger than forty percent of the "sentenced" criminals in our country. If we add to this that the criminals we are talking about now represent only the tip of the iceberg, then you, just like me, can figure out what must really be going on, right?

Is the tip of the iceberg expanding due to the current policy?

So, more and more criminals are being released early, or are enjoying the latest computer games during their sentence. What is also going on, and what attention is being paid to, is the flow of younger criminals who are being transferred from institutions or youth prisons to adult penitentiary institutions. This is because there is no longer any room for these groups of younger criminals in the facilities normally available to them. I may surely assume that this will soon have a negative impact on the outcome of the detention of these juvenile criminals? Just like with any other "company" or institution, the policy in these different facilities must surely be tailored to the target group being "treated"? So, are these transferred youths still receiving the treatment that was intended for them, or will crime rise even further because of this?

Will "incorrect" sentencing come back to haunt us in the future?

The message was "neatly" told to us by the demissionary minister, but would he believe this message himself? Fortunately for Mr. Weerwind, he is demissionary, and a new cabinet will arrive very soon in the Netherlands. We will have to wait and see if they understand how to deal with criminals and delinquents. As I have written previously, there are more and more unfilled vacancies within the government in the Netherlands, including among the police, prison staff, fire department, hospital staff, and all other civil servants. I am very curious and watch the future with suspicion. How safe and well-cared-for is our welfare state anymore? Can the people in the Netherlands, who partly due to government personnel shortages must take care of themselves more and more, actually do so? Or is our government slowly stimulating crime to a new high in our history? How is this going in the countries where you live; do you ask yourselves the same questions?