DOCSLIB.ORG

Comparison of Criminal-History Information Systems in the United States and Other Countries

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Comparison of Criminal-History Information Systems in the United States and Other Countries This report was prepared by RAND, the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Criminal Justice Information Services Division, and the Bureau of Justice Statistics using federal funding provided by the Bureau of Justice Statistics. Document Title: Comparison of Criminal-History Information Systems in the United States and Other Countries Authors: RAND Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services Division Bureau of Justice Statistics Document No.: 253816 Publication Date: April 2, 2020 Award No.: This project was supported by award number 2016-R2-CX-K037. Abstract: Official criminal-history record information is an important component of criminal justice systems worldwide, but little is known about how the United States’ criminal-history system compares to those in other industrialized countries. To address this knowledge gap, the Bureau of Justice Statistics sponsored a study to document and compare the national criminal-history systems in the United States, Australia, Canada, England and Wales, Germany, and the Netherlands. The topics include the operational uses and sources of the criminal-history data, procedures to assess record accuracy and completeness, efforts to improve the systems, and the availability of records to government and non- government entities for operational and research purposes. Sub-national criminal-history systems (e.g., the state repositories in the U.S.) and other data systems that maintain and disseminate criminal justice information were outside the scope of this study. Disclaimer The Bureau of Justice Statistics funded this third-party report. It is not a BJS report and does not release official government statistics. The report is released to help inform interested parties of the research or analysis contained within and to encourage discussion. BJS has performed a limited review of the report to ensure the general accuracy of information and adherence to confidentiality and disclosure standards. Any statistics included in this report are not official BJS statistics unless they have been previously published in a BJS report. Any analysis, conclusions, or opinions expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views, opinions, or policies of the Bureau of Justice Statistics or the U.S. Department of Justice. 1 This page is intentionally left blank. 2 Comparison of Criminal- History Information Systems in the United States and Other Countries RAND Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services Division Bureau of Justice Statistics Bureau of Justice Statistics 810 Seventh Street, NW Washington, DC 20531 3 Acknowledgment This report compares criminal-history information systems in the United States, Australia, Canada, England and Wales, Germany, and the Netherlands. The report discusses operational uses and sources of the criminal-history data, procedures to assess record accuracy and completeness, efforts to improve the systems, and availability of records to government and non-government entities for operational and research purposes. The first chapter focuses on the national criminal-history system in the U.S. Section 1 of this chapter, on the criminal justice system, was produced by Mariel Alper of the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). Sections 2, 3, and 4—on the national criminal-history record system, assessing criminal-history data quality and completeness, and accessing criminal-history data for research purposes—were produced by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Criminal Justice Information Services Division. Section 5, on using criminal-history data for research, was produced by Matthew Durose of BJS. The U.S. chapter is followed by chapters, produced by RAND, on the national criminal-history systems in Australia, Canada, England and Wales, Germany, and the Netherlands. In consultation with the FBI and BJS, RAND also produced the last chapter, which compares the U.S. criminal-history system to the systems in the other countries. 4 Table of Contents Key Findings ................................................................................................................................... 6 US 1. Overview of the Criminal Justice System............................................................................. 7 US 2. Understanding the National Criminal-History Record System .......................................... 10 US 3. Addressing Criminal-History Data Quality and Completeness .......................................... 22 US 4. Accessing Criminal-History Record Data for Research Purposes...................................... 24 US 5. Using Criminal-History Data for Research ........................................................................ 25 5 Key Findings: The United States consists of the federal government, 50 states, 5 permanently inhabited territories, and the District of Columbia. Each state maintains a criminal justice system under the state’s unique laws, while also being subject to the federal criminal justice system. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) maintains the Next Generation Identification (NGI) System, which provides an automated biometric identification and criminal-history record (CHR) reporting system to support law enforcement agencies, criminal justice agencies, national security clearances, and authorized non-criminal-justice entities that conduct background checks on persons for non-criminal-justice purposes, such as employment and licensing. The NGI System is an identity-based, person-centric system that combines criminal and civil repositories. It includes records of fingerprints and in some cases palmprints; CHRs; mug shots; scar, mark, and tattoo photos; physical characteristics; and aliases. The Interstate Identification Index (III) is part of the NGI System and enables CHR data-sharing and integration across the U.S. The III is an index pointer system that ties the FBI’s computerized CHR files and each III-participating state’s centralized files into a national system. CHRs can include criminal justice information from police, prosecutor offices, courts, and correctional agencies. Criminal-history record information (CHRI) is made available for criminal justice, non-criminal-justice, and personal review purposes. Authorized criminal justice and non-criminal-justice agencies may access CHRs through an online III request or via a fingerprint submission to the NGI System. The FBI’s Criminal Justice Information Services (CJIS) Division manages and maintains the NGI System and the III Program. The CJIS Division collaborates with federal, state, territorial, tribal, and local agencies to meet the needs of both the criminal justice and non-criminal-justice communities and to share responsibility for these programs. There are several restrictions on accessing and disseminating CHRI under federal laws and regulations. CHRI is voluntarily submitted by federal, state, territorial, tribal, and local agencies. Two areas of CHR improvement are missing dispositions and rap-sheet standardization. The use of CHR data for research requires review and approval from a governing Institutional Review Board. 6 US 1. Overview of the Criminal Justice System The United States Constitution creates a system of government where power is shared between the federal and state governments. This system of federalism results in criminal justice operations organized at the federal and state levels.1 Law Enforcement In the U.S., law enforcement agencies are responsible for enforcing laws and maintaining public order and public safety. Those responsibilities include preventing, detecting, and investigating crime and apprehending and detaining persons suspected of violating a law.2 After an arrest, charges against the arrestee can be referred for prosecution or dismissed. As of 2016, there are 86 federal law enforcement agencies with arrest and firearm authority, excluding intelligence and military organizations. Forty-three of these agencies are Inspectors General Offices that investigate criminal violations and prevent and detect fraud, waste, and abuse related to federal programs, operations, and employees. The majority of federal officers with arrest and firearm authority are in the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) or the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ). The federal law enforcement agencies with the most full-time law enforcement officers authorized to make arrests and carry firearms are U.S. Customs and Border Protection and U.S. Immigration Customs Enforcement (both part of the DHS) and the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) (both part of the DOJ). The most common duties performed by federal law enforcement officers are criminal investigation and enforcement duties, corrections, police response and patrol, non-criminal investigation or enforcement, court operations, and security or protection.3 Of the 151,000 arrests by federal agencies in fiscal year (FY) 2016, 45% were for immigration offenses, 16% were for drug offenses, and another 16% were for violations of conditions of supervision.4 Supervision violations include failures to appear in court and violations of bail, probation, and post-incarceration supervision. Two percent of arrests were for violent offenses. In addition to federal agencies, there are about 15,000 general-purpose law enforcement agencies at the municipal, county, region, or state level as of 2016.5 These agencies employ an estimated 701,000 full- time sworn law enforcement officers (who carry
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Serious and Organised Crime Strategy
    Serious and Organised Crime Strategy Cm 8715 Serious and Organised Crime Strategy Presented to Parliament by the Secretary of State for the Home Department by Command of Her Majesty October 2013 Cm 8715 £21.25 © Crown copyright 2013 You may re-use this information (excluding logos) free of charge in any format or medium, under the terms of the Open Government Licence. To view this licence, visit http://www. nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/ or e-mail: [email protected]. Where we have identified any third party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned. Any enquiries regarding this publication should be sent to us [email protected] You can download this publication from our website at https://www.gov.uk/government/ publications ISBN: 9780101871525 Printed in the UK by The Stationery Office Limited on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office ID 2593608 10/13 33233 19585 Printed on paper containing 75% recycled fibre content minimum. Contents Home Secretary Foreword 5 Executive Summary 7 Introduction 13 Our Strategic Response 25 PURSUE: Prosecuting and disrupting serious and 27 organised crime PREVENT: Preventing people from engaging 45 in serious and organised crime PROTECT: Increasing protection against 53 serious and organised crime PREPARE: Reducing the impact of serious and 65 organised crime Annex A: Accountability, governance and funding 71 Annex B: Departmental roles and responsibilities for 73 tackling serious and organised crime 4 Serious and Organised Crime Strategy Home Secretary Foreword 5 Home Secretary Foreword The Relentless Disruption of Organised Criminals Serious and organised crime is a threat to our national security and costs the UK more than £24 billion a year.
    [Show full text]
  • Getting and Reading Criminal History Reports in Washington State
    GETTING AND READING CRIMINAL HISTORY REPORTS IN WASHINGTON This guide is designed to help people get, understand, and correct criminal history reports. It provides general information about these records in Washington state. Different states have different laws on criminal records. This guide is not meant to provide legal advice. For more information, see the ACLU of Washington’s Guide to Criminal Records and Employment, available at www.aclu-wa.org/secondchances February 2013 GETTING A CRIMINAL HISTORY RECORD •How do I know if I have a criminal record? If you have ever been arrested and ngerprinted, you have a criminal history record. A written sum- mary of your criminal history is called a criminal history report, “WATCH” report or a “rap sheet.” •Who creates my criminal history reports? Many dierent government agencies and private companies produce criminal history reports. Law enforcement agencies create criminal history reports. e Washington State Patrol (WSP) collects and distributes criminal history reports for Washington state. WSP gets its information from local and county law enforcement agencies and courts. e FBI also maintains a database of all federal criminal history reports and collects information from all states. Washington courts also create and maintain a record of your criminal history related to court pro- ceedings. ese records are separate from the WSP record. In addition, hundreds of private companies purchase information from the courts and law enforce- ment, and compile that information into background check reports. e reports produced by each company look dierent and may contain dierent information. •Why is it important to see my criminal history report? Criminal records can be used by employers, housing providers, volunteer organizations, and other groups deciding whether to accept or approve an application, or take other action.
    [Show full text]
  • Agenda of the Public Meeting - Windsor Police Services Board Thursday, July 22, 2020 at 1:00 P.M
    AGENDA OF THE PUBLIC MEETING - WINDSOR POLICE SERVICES BOARD THURSDAY, JULY 22, 2020 AT 1:00 P.M. ZOOM CONFERENCE CALL HOSTED BY WPSB SECTION 1: 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. DISCLOSURE OF PECUNIARY INTEREST AND THE GENERAL NATURE THEREOF 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Call for amendments to the Agenda. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approval of the Minutes of the Regular Public Meeting held on June 25, 2020. 5. BUSINESS ARISING FROM MINUTES 6. DELEGATIONS None. SECTION 2: NEW BUSINESS None. SECTION 3: REPORTS MAY 2020 REPORTS – for information A. Crime Stoppers B. Crime Statistics C. Professional Standards Branch WPSB Public Agenda: July 22, 2020 Page 1 of 3 D. CCP (City Centre Patrol) / POP (Problem Oriented Policing) Statistics E. Amherstburg Detachment Statistics – Policing Activities Report F. Referral Tracking G. Section 11 Review; SIU 19-OCI-256 (REDACTED) H. Section 11 Review; SIU 19-OCI-185 (REDACTED) I. Public Safety; Service Improvement Plan SECTION 4: POLICY None. SECTION 5: SERVICE BUDGET/FINANCIAL MATTERS/BOARD ACCOUNTS None. SECTION 6: PERSONNEL MATTERS/MULTICULTURAL/RECRUITMENT/ LABOUR RELATIONS A. Retirement Notice – for information - Constable Ron Malolepszy (29 Years & 6 Months), effective July 10, 2020 B. Promotions – for information - Inspector Daniel Potvin to the rank of Superintendent – effective June 7, 2020; - Staff Sergeant David Deluca to the rank of Inspector – effective June 7, 2020; - Sergeant Duke Ing to the rank of Staff Sergeant – effective June 7, 2020; - Constable Leah McFadden to the rank of Sergeant – effective June 7, 2020; - Sergeant Scott Chapman to the rank of Staff Sergeant – effective July 12, 2020 C. Strength Replenishment – for information Elevations to the rank of 4th Class Recruit Constable – effective June 22, 2020 - Cadet Brandon Coburn - Cadet Michael Johnston - Cadet Matthew Conte - Cadet William Eric Leardi WPSB Public Agenda: July 22, 2020 Page 2 of 3 - Cadet Sean Hickson - Cadet Justin Fisher SECTION 7: PLANT/EQUIPMENT/PHYSICAL RESOURCES None.
    [Show full text]
  • Criminal Records and Immigration: Comparing the United States and the European Union
    Fordham International Law Journal Volume 39, Issue 2 Article 3 Criminal Records and Immigration: Comparing the United States and the European Union Dimitra Blitsa∗ Lauryn P. Gouldiny James B. Jacobsz Elena Larrauri∗∗ ∗Greek National School of Judges ySyracuse University College of Law zNew York University School of Law ∗∗Universitat Pompeu Fabra Copyright c by the authors. Fordham International Law Journal is produced by The Berkeley Electronic Press (bepress). http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/ilj Criminal Records and Immigration: Comparing the United States and the European Union Dimitra Blitsa, Lauryn P. Gouldin, James B. Jacobs, and Elena Larrauri Abstract Because the revolution in information technology has made individual criminal history records more comprehensive, efficient, and retrievable, an individual’s criminal history has become an ever more crucial marker of character and public identity. The broad range of collateral consequences of criminal convictions has become a very salient issue for criminal justice scholars and reformers. A single criminal conviction can trigger thousands of potentially applicable restrictions, penalties, or other civil disabilities. There is no better example of this phenomenon than immigration law and policy, where developments in data storage and retrieval converge with opposition to immi- gration, especially to immigrants who bear a criminal stigma. In debates in the United States over immigration reforms, even those politicians and legislators who advocate more liberal immigra- tion policies generally concede the desirability of excluding those with serious criminal records from eligibility for new benefits or status. In the European Union, by contrast, although a criminal record may impact an individual’s ability to travel to or reside in an European Union country, it is not as readily dispositive of immigration outcomes.
    [Show full text]
  • User Guide to Crime Statistics for England and Wales
    User Guide to Crime Statistics for England and Wales April 2017 Office for National Statistics About us Copyright and reproduction The Office for National Statistics © Crown copyright 2017 The Office for National Statistics (ONS) is the executive You may re-use this information (not including logos) office of the UK Statistics Authority, a non-ministerial free of charge in any format or medium, under the terms department which reports directly to Parliament. ONS of the Open Government Licence. is the UK government’s single largest statistical producer. It compiles information about the UK’s To view this licence, go to: society and economy, and provides the evidence-base http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open- for policy and decision-making, the allocation of government-licence resources, and public accountability. The Director- or write to the Information Policy Team, The National General of ONS reports directly to the National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU Statistician who is the Authority's Chief Executive and the Head of the Government Statistical Service. email: [email protected] The Government Statistical Service Any enquiries regarding this publication should be sent The Government Statistical Service (GSS) is a network to: [email protected] of professional statisticians and their staff operating both within the Office for National Statistics and across This publication is available for download at: more than 30 other government departments and www.ons.gov.uk agencies. Contacts This publication For information
    [Show full text]
  • St 9617 2004 Dcl 1
    Council of the European Union Brussels, 30 November 2020 (OR. en) 9617/04 DCL 1 LIMITE SCH-EVAL 33 COMIX 344 DECLASSIFICATION of document: 9617/04 RESTREINT UE dated: 17 May 2004 new status: LIMITE Subject: Questionnaire – Questions to UK on data protection arrangements relating to the UK’s national implementation of the Schengen Information System. - Answers from the UK Delegations will find attached the declassified version of the above document. The text of this document is identical to the previous version. 9617/04 DCL 1 KAL SMART 2.C.S1 LIMITE EN RESTREINT UE COUNCIL OF Brussels, 17 May 2004 THE EUROPEAN UNION 9617/04 RESTREINT UE SCH-EVAL 33 COMIX 344 NOTE from : UK delegation to : Schengen Evaluation Working Party No. prev. doc. : 9227/04 SCH-EVAL 25 COMIX 308 + ADD 1 Subject : Questionnaire – Questions to UK on data protection arrangements relating to the UK’s national implementation of the Schengen Information System. - Answers from the UK The United Kingdom has asked the Schengen Evaluation Group to undertake an evaluation of the data protection arrangements which it has in place to support the introduction of the Schengen Information System to the UK. As the UK’s technical solution to the SIS has not yet been finalised, the questions relate only to data protection arrangements. Questions relating to the management and handling of the data will be answered in the context of the full SIS evaluation which will take place once the UK’s national solution has been fully implemented. 1. Provide the list of services with access to SIS data See Annex A and Annex B 9617/04 WvdR/kve 1 DG H RESTREINT UE EN RESTREINT UE 2.
    [Show full text]
  • Asset Recovery Action Plan (
    GOV.UK 1. Home (https://www.gov.uk/) 2. Asset recovery action plan (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/asset-recovery-action-plan) 1. Home Office (https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/home-office) Policy paper Asset Recovery Action Plan, accessible Updated 13 September 2019 Contents Ministerial Foreword Introduction Section 1: Legal Powers Section 2: Strengthening our Operational Response Section 3: Continuously Review and Embed Best Practice Section 4: Fostering Innovation and Collaboration Appendix A: table of actions © Crown copyright 2019 This publication is licensed under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0 except where otherwise stated. To view this licence, visit nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government- licence/version/3 (https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3) or write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU, or email: [email protected]. Where we have identified any third party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned. This publication is available at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/asset-recovery-action- plan/asset-recovery-action-plan Ministerial Foreword Serious and organised crime is a threat to our national security. Money is the common thread that runs through almost all offending, as criminals use the proceeds of their crime to fund their lifestyle and conduct further crime. As set out in the Serious & Organised Crime Strategy (https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/752850/SOC-2018- web.pdf) we are committed to working collaboratively with our partners and stakeholders to leave no safe space for those seeking to move, hide or use the proceeds of crime and corruption or to evade sanctions.
    [Show full text]
  • Criminal Background Check Procedures
    Shaping the future of international education New Edition Criminal Background Check Procedures CIS in collaboration with other agencies has formed an International Task Force on Child Protection chaired by CIS Executive Director, Jane Larsson, in order to apply our collective resources, expertise, and partnerships to help international school communities address child protection challenges. Member Organisations of the Task Force: • Council of International Schools • Council of British International Schools • Academy of International School Heads • U.S. Department of State, Office of Overseas Schools • Association for the Advancement of International Education • International Schools Services • ECIS CIS is the leader in requiring police background check documentation for Educator and Leadership Candidates as part of the overall effort to ensure effective screening. Please obtain a current police background check from your current country of employment/residence as well as appropriate documentation from any previous country/countries in which you have worked. It is ultimately a school’s responsibility to ensure that they have appropriate police background documentation for their Educators and CIS is committed to supporting them in this endeavour. It is important to demonstrate a willingness and effort to meet the requirement and obtain all of the paperwork that is realistically possible. This document is the result of extensive research into governmental, law enforcement and embassy websites. We have tried to ensure where possible that the information has been obtained from official channels and to provide links to these sources. CIS requests your help in maintaining an accurate and useful resource; if you find any information to be incorrect or out of date, please contact us at: [email protected].
    [Show full text]
  • Updated Mississauga Report FINAL
    STUDY OF REGULATIONS FOR TRANSPORTATION NETWORK COMPANIES (“TNCs”) FINAL REPORT February 2, 2016 The “Study of Regulations for Transportation Network Companies” was prepared by the Transportation Practice Group of Windels Marx Lane & Mittendorf, LLP in response to a public solicitation by the City of Mississauga awarded to the firm following a competitive procurement process. The overwhelming majority of services were contributed Pro Bono, including any and all services by Chair of the firm’s Transportation Practice Group, Matthew W. Daus, Esq. This report has been supplemented to include new material based on the direction given at the December 7, 2015 PVAC meeting, to update the report to address the following: • Update the review and analysis of TNC laws, regulations, and litigation in various jurisdictions across Canada. • Review and address Uber’s response to the “Study of Transportation Network Companies” dated December 7, 2015. • Provide a review and analysis of the Harmonized Sales Tax (HST)/(GST) issue as it relates to TNCs. Newly included sections are designated in the Table of Contents as [NEW] and updated sections are designated as [UPDATED]. Matthew W. Daus, Esq. Partner & Chair, Transportation Practice Group Windels Marx Lane & Mittendorf, LLP http://www.windelsmarx.com/index.cfm T. 212.237.1106 F. 212.262.1215 [email protected] 2 Table of Contents Executive Summary...................................................................................................................................... 4 1 Methodology ........................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Joint Annual Report of the MPS/MPA 2004-05
    Metropolitan Police Service and Metropolitan Police Authority Annual Report 2004/05 Contents Joint foreword by the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police Service and the Chair of the Metropolitan Police Authority 3 Introduction 4 The priorities 5 Priority: Protecting the capital against terrorism 6 Objective: To minimise the risk to life and property from terrorist activity in London 6 Objective: To maintain an effective response to suspected and actual terrorist incidents 6 Priority: Reducing serious crime 10 Objective: To reduce the level of gun-enabled crime 10 Objective: To disrupt organised criminal activity of persons identified as Class A drugs suppliers 12 Objective: To dismantle organised criminal networks and seize their assets 13 Objective: To safeguard children and young persons from physical and sexual abuse 15 Priority: Promoting reassurance 16 Objective: To improve neighbourhood safety 16 Objective: To reduce the level of robbery compared with 2003/04 24 Objective: To improve our contribution to the criminal justice system 26 Objective: To recognise and respond appropriately to the differential impact of crime on people, taking into account their race, gender, sexual orientation, faith, age or disability 28 Supporting the priorities 34 Supporting the priorities 34 Managing our resources – the Directorate of Resources 37 Supporting our people – the Human Resources Directorate 41 Communicating our message – the Directorate of Public Affairs (DPA) 45 MPS financial performance 2004/05 45 The MPS response to the tsunami crisis 48 MPA review of performance 2004/05 50 MPA review of performance 2004/05 50 Performance indicators 2004/05 55 Performance tables 56 Objectives, measures and targets for 2005/06 61 Threatened/civil actions and damages paid 63 Police officers and police staff punished as a result of misconduct proceedings during 2004/05 64 Deaths following police contact during 2004/05 65 Alternative languages 66 Front cover: photo BRD Associates The assistance of the staff and students of Welling School, Bexley is gratefully acknowledged.
    [Show full text]
  • Criminal Records Review
    CRR Phase 2 Report A Common Sense Approach A review of the criminal records regime in England and Wales by Sunita Mason Independent Advisor for Criminality Information Management Report on Phase 2 1 Please note: All photographs used in this document are for illustrative purposes only. All persons depicted in the photographs are models. No connection is implied between those depicted and the actual roles and situations shown. Photo acknowledgment: iStockphoto LP Contents Preface 5 Executive Summary 6 Section 1: Definition & Recording 9 History of criminal records 10 Justification for keeping criminal records 11 Types of criminality information 11 Existing arrangements 15 A proposed working definition 15 Police information records 16 The concept of ‘recordable’ offences 16 Volumes of criminal offence convictions 17 Reconsidering the threshold for recordability 17 The Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 19 Section 2: Management 22 The role and functions of the PNC 22 Data quality of PNC records 22 Is the PNC the only place to store records? 23 Options for the longer term 25 Strengthening the criminal records database 25 Microfiche records 25 Non-Police Prosecuting Agencies’ (NPPAs) records 26 Scotland’s and Northern Ireland’s criminal records 26 Storing police information records 27 Should criminal records ever be deleted? 27 Conviction records 27 Records of ‘out-of-court’ disposals - cautions, reprimands and warnings 29 Police information records 29 Could the administration of criminal records be made more straightforward, efficient and
    [Show full text]
  • Crime, Criminal Justice, and Criminology in the Netherlands
    Scholarship Repository University of Minnesota Law School Articles Faculty Scholarship 2007 Crime, Criminal Justice, and Criminology in the Netherlands Michael Tonry University of Minnesota Law School, [email protected] Catrien Bijleveld Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/faculty_articles Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Michael Tonry and Catrien Bijleveld, Crime, Criminal Justice, and Criminology in the Netherlands, 35 CRIME & JUST. 1 (2007), available at https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/faculty_articles/496. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the University of Minnesota Law School. It has been accepted for inclusion in the Faculty Scholarship collection by an authorized administrator of the Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Michael Tonry and Catrien Bijleveld Crime, Criminal Justice, and Criminology in the Netherlands The Netherlands is particularly appropriate as the subject of the first Crime and Justice volume to focus on a single European country or region. Its criminal justice policies have long been well known, its so- cial policies and problems receive widespread international attention, and it has among the longest and strongest research traditions in crim- inology in Europe. For nearly fifty years after World War II, the Netherlands was com- monly portrayed as having the most liberal and humane criminal justice system among Western countries (e.g., Downes 1988). In the early twenty-first century it is sometimes viewed as having one of Europe's most severe criminal justice systems, perhaps following that of England and Wales (Downes 2007). By the end of 2006, many judges and law- yers were complaining that the criminal law system had become over- heated, with criminalization of behavior increasing and procedural rights of defendants decreasing (Ippel and Heeger 2006).
    [Show full text]