Snelrecht: de generaal en speciaal preventieve effecten van sneller straffen

It is almost generally thought that faster punishing of criminals is more effective. This thought is so well accepted that it is forgotten that it is just an assumption. Just an assumption because little empirical results to support it are available. In this thesis the assumed general and special preventive effects of faster punishing in criminal law are investigated. Herefor, among others, a field-experiment was conducted in Drenthe, in the Northern Netherlands, where in 1994 a speedy trial procedure was introduced. This summary focusses on the conclusions drawn from the empirical part of the study. If faster punishment has a general preventive effect crimerates would decline as a result of the introduction of speedy trial. Surveys were conducted to measure the generale preventive effects of faster punishment. A controlegroup — a comparable district in which the speed of punishment has not been changed — was used. It was found that the introduction of speedy trial had not changed crimerates: both the absolute and the percieved crimerate had remained the same. This draws to the conclusion that faster punishment does not have a general preventive effect. This conclusion can only be generalized beyond the scoop of this particular experiment when three conditions have been fullfilled. Firstly, the mean speed of punishment in all criminal cases must be higher. Secondly, the people must have noticed that the speed of punishment is higher. Thirdly, other factors than speed of punishment that could influence the general preventive effect may not have been changed during the experiment. The first and second criteria are fullfilled, but the second one is not: people have not noticed that the speed of punishment is higher since the introduction of speedy trial. Therefor theoretically the possibility cannot be excluded that a general preventive effect appears when people notice that the speed of punishment is higher. Practically however it will be very difficult to make people notice that criminals are being punished faster. In (local) media a lot of attention has been paid to speedy trial. So it is not realistic to expect that still more attention would make people notice. Besides, before the introduction of speedy trial a large group of people already thought that punishment was considerably faster than realised in practice with the introduction of speedy trial or ever will possibly be realised. It is unthinkable that the introduction of speedy trial has a general preventive effect in this group. Also theoretically the possibility cannot be excluded that a general preventive effect appears when punishment is even faster than was realised in this experiment. However, difficulties that people have to notice changes in speed of punishment and the irrealistic perceptions people have of the speed of punishment make this possibility highly improbable. If faster punishment has a special preventive effect recidivism would deminish as a result of the introduction of speedy trial. A controlegroup of offenders who where punished in a regular and slower way was used. It was found that speedy trial had not deminished recidivism. This draws to the conclusion that faster punishment has no special preventive effect. This conclusion holds indepently of type of crime, gender, age and the amount offenses perpetrated before. The main conclusion of this research is that faster punishment does not improve the effectiveness of criminal law: general nor special preventive effects are improved. Out of experimental psychology literature cannot be concluded that faster punishment in criminal law is more effective. Further, on the basis of — the scarce amount of — criminological literature cannot be concluded that faster punisment has general or special preventive effects. Finally, in the empirical part of this research it is found that introduction of speedy trial has no general or special preventive effects.