Child Pornography - Home | National Rapporteur on Trafficking in ...

Implementation
re-offending, 425 and therefore to scrap it entirely. The government indicates in this regard that it does not
consider it appropriate ‘to the character of the community service order that this could actually be imposed
in the case of a sentence for a serious sexual abuse offence or violent offence, as referred to in the present
legislative proposal.’ In a response, the Dutch Probation Service argued that by removing the possibility
of imposing a community service order in combination with a suspended sentence, the ability of courts to
impose a sanction that is appropriate for the criminal offence and for the offender is reduced, including
and partly for the prevention of repeat offences and therefore new victims. 426 The Council for the Judiciary
also points out obstacles in practice, and thereby states that limiting the freedom of the courts to determine
the punishment could frequently lead to sentences being imposed that are not proportional to the
offence committed. 427 “Furthermore, the proposal means that the specific opportunities that community
service orders provide for the realisation of modification of behaviour and reducing repeat offending, can
no longer be of use.” 428 In March 2011, an amended legislative proposal finally emerged, which stated that
a community service order would no longer be possible unless, and only if, it is imposed in combination
with a non-suspended sentence or orders that involve deprivation of freedom. 429 It is, in this case, only possible
to combine the community service order with a sentence of no longer than six months. 430
At the time of writing, the legislative proposal is under discussion in the Senate of the Dutch Parliament.
431 The government is of the opinion that keeping open the possibility to combine the community
service order with a suspended custodial sentence would leave the door too widely open for punishments
in which the community service order would become too dominant and whereby the suspended
custodial sentence imposed alongside it would be subordinate to the community service order. ‘That,
in itself, is in conflict with the premise that the community service order is not a suitable sentence for
serious cases of sexual abuse and violent abuse.’ 432
425 Parliamentary Papers II 2010/11, 32 169, no.9. See also the press release from the Ministry for Security and
Justice ‘Streep door taakstraf bij ernstige zeden- en geweldsmisdrijven’ [Getting rid of community service orders
in serious sexual abuse offences and violent offences], 18 November 2010.
426 Letter from the Dutch Probation Service to the members of the VKC for Security and Justice, 7 February
2011, www.reclassering.nl (viewed 16 June 2011). See also Parliamentary Papers I 2010/11,32 169 no. B, p.4.
427 See www.rechtspraak.nl (viewed 16 June 2011).
428 The Council for the Judiciary has, in addition, stated that it is against restricting community service
orders for cases concerning child pornography because this could limit judicial freedom, which could
in turn damage the quality and the suitability of the criminal procedure. The court should allow scope
for customisation, website of the Council for the Judiciary: www.rechtspraak.nl/Organisatie/Raad-
Voor-De-Rechtspraak/Wetgevingsadvisering/Adviezen%202011/brief-nota-van-wijziging-taakstraffen-2-2-2011.pdf
(viewed 16 June 2011).
429 Amendment of the Van Toorenburg, Parliamentary Papers II 2010/11, 32 169 no. 12. In the present amended
proposal, it is also proposed to make it no longer possible to impose a community service order, unless
it is imposed in combination with a non-suspended sentence or orders that involve deprivation of
freedom – in the event of sentences for offences described in Article 248a of the Dutch Criminal Code
(seduction of a minor) and 248c of the Dutch Criminal Code (presence at sex shows in the company of
a minor).
430 See Article 9, paragraph 4 of the Dutch Criminal Code.
431 Parliamentary Papers I 2010/11, 32 169 no.A.
432 Parliamentary Papers I 2010/11, 32 169 no.C.
189