Pionieren tussen straf en zorg: de overweging en toepassing van artikel 2.3 Wet forensische zorg bij geweldsdelicten

The enactment of article 2.3 of the Dutch Forensic Care Act allows criminal courts to issue a care authorization (CA) for compulsory care within the regular mental health care system. Before the enactment, scholars and professionals already stated their worries in the literature. The security levels of regular mental health care facilities would be insufficient and the treatment would lack forensic focus, while persons who would enter through this new article might suffer from complex disorders and/or exhibit violent behavior.
This research therefore focusses on the (severity of) possible violent offences of those for whom a CA was considered. Case law from the first one-and-a-half year since the enactment was analysed quantitatively and qualitatively. Looking at violent offences it appeared that those without a CA were convicted for more severe violent offences than those with one. This was reflected in the number of convictions for (attempted) homicide, while the group with a CA was more often convicted for major physical assault. Furthermore, the use of weapons was important: for those for whom a CA was not issued, weapon use was more often mentioned, especially the use of sharp weapons. In neither one of the groups the use of a gun or another shooting weapon was mentioned. These results are partially in line with the existing literature, since criminal courts seemed less inclined to issue a CA when a severe violent offence was committed. However, a substantial part of the group with a CA committed some sort of violent offence. So, although conviction for a violent offence is not in itself a contra-indication for a CA, the specificities of the offence, like severity and weapon-use, can possibly be considered as such.