Tilburg Law School Philosophy at the Interface of Law and Society: Luhmann's systems theory and the sentencing gap Thesis Research Master in Law 2010-2013 Ellen van Gessel (ANR 925377) Supervisors Prof. dr. G.C.J.C. van Roermund Prof. dr. A.C.M. Spapens GESSELE P 2024749 / 6 TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter 1. Introduction………………………………….…………..………………………………………..……………3 1.1 Problem ………………………………………………….……………………………………………………..……..3 1.2 Social and scientific relevance………………………………………………………………………..…….5 1.3 Hypothesis………………………………………………………………………………..…………..……………….6 1.4 Research questions…………..………………………………………………………………..…………………7 1.5 Data and methods………………………………………………………………………………..……………….9 Chapter 2. Theory: law and society as systems…………………………………………………………….......10 2.1 Systems theory..............................................................................................................................10 2.2 Society as the overarching system.…………………………..…………………………………………11 2.3 Law as a differentiated subsystem……....……….….………………………………….……………..11 2.3.1 Function of law in society……………….…………………………………………...………………11 2.3.2 Operation of law in society………………….………………………………………...…………….12 2.4 Relationship between societal subsystems: structural coupling................................13 2.4.1 Mass media as the mechanism behind structural coupling…………,,,,,,,.................14 2.4.2 Relationship between society and law……………………………………….....…………......15 2.4.2.1 Judicial decision-making……………………………………………….……….…..15 2.4.2.2 Legislative law-making………………………………..……………..………….......17 Chapter 3.From theory to practice: methodology............................................................................20 3.1 A case study..………………………………………………………………………………….……………………20 3.2 Data and sources……………………………………………………………………………………………..…20 3.3 Methods………………………………………….…………………………………………………………………..21 1 GESSELE P 2024749 / 6 Chapter 4. Practice: communication within and between systems…………………….……….…..23 4.1 The idea of mandatory minimum sentences in politics and law…………………...........23 4.2 Communication on mandatory minimum sentences within politics…………………..23 4.2.1 2007-2010: Cabinet Balkenende IV…………,,,,,,,................................................................24 4.2.2 2010-2012: Cabinet Rutte I……………………………………….....…………………..………....24 4.2.3 2007-2012: Luhmann's perspective……………………………………………………………..27 4.3 Communication on mandatory minimum sentences within law…………………….…..28 4.3.1 2007-2010: Communications during cabinet Balkenende IV……………….............28 4.3.2 2010-2012: Communications during cabinet Rutte I………………………...……........29 4.3.3 2007-2012: Luhmann's perspective……………….………………………..…………………..31 4.4 Conclusion: Luhmann's systems theory and the sentencing gap………………..…...…32 Chapter 5. Conclusion……….……………………………………………………………………………….…………….33 Bibliography.…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..36 2 GESSELE P 2024749 / 6 CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION In the summer of 2010 the Court of Den Bosch sentenced a 60-year old swimming teacher to seven years prison for sexually assaulting his pupils. The man was specialized in teaching mentally handicapped children to swim, and had assaulted dozens of girls during swimming lessons in a number of pools.1 The verdict by the Court was met with feelings of anger and disappointment by the parents of the assaulted children, but also the general public showed its disappointment with the sentence. Unfortunately, this is not the only criminal case in which sounds of disapproval with the sentencing practice of judges are voiced in the public realm. 1.1 Problem Empirical studies that were undertaken over the last two decades have frequently shown that the public support towards the sentencing practice of judges is alarming.2 These studies show that throughout the years the public has been invariably of the opinion that the sentences as imposed by the judiciary are too lenient. Based on the notion that crime is increasing and becoming a real problem in the Netherlands, the vast majority of the public feels a strong and consistent desire towards a more severe sentencing practice. However, there is no clear reason underlying this public desire as studies that have been undertaken over the same period of time show that the number of registered crimes has been decreasing, while judges have been imposing more severe sentences.3 This empirically observed difference between actual crime and sentencing on the one hand, and perceived crime and sentencing on the other has been described as a gap between law and society, and has been the focus of many researches.4 These researches have purported to spread light on the matter by defining and explaining the empirically observed gap. However, they have not been able to give any conclusive answers. 1 Court of Appeal ’s-Hertogenbosch 26 May 2011, LJN BQ6181. 2 See e.g. Culturele Veranderingen in Nederland, The Hague: The Netherlands Institute for Social research 1975-2008; K. Wittebrood & M.J. ter Voert, Netherlands Survey on Criminality and Law Enforcement I996: documentation of the survey, Leiden: Netherlands Institute for the Study of Crime and Law Enforcement, 1997; H. Elffers & J.W. de Keijser, 'Het geloof in de kloof: Wederzijdse beelden van rechters en publiek', in J.W. de Keijser & H. Elffers (Eds.), Het maatschappelijk oordeel van de strafrechter: De wisselwerking tussen rechter en samenleving, The Hague: Boom Juridische Uitgevers 2004, pp. 53-84; J.W. de Keijser, P.J. van Koppen & H. Elffers, Op de stoel van de rechter. Oordeelt het publiek net zo als de strafrechter? Research Memoranda 2006/2, p. 20; S. Ruiter & J. Tolsma, ‘Taakstraffen langs de lat: Strafopvattingen van Nederlanders’, Rechtstreeks 7, p. 27; and De sociale staat van Nederland, The Hague: The Netherlands Institute for Social research 2001-2011. 3 Criminaliteit en Rechtshandhaving: ontwikkelingen en samenhangen, Den Haag: WODC/CBS/RvdR 2001- 2011; and F. van Tulder, ‘De straffende rechter, 2000-2009’, NJB 2011, p. 1544-1550. 4 See n. 2. 3 GESSELE P 2024749 / 6 Moreover, since the existence of a gap between law and society could affect the legitimacy of the legal system, which is necessary to achieve an effective degree of compliance,5 ignoring the gap could affect law's capability of effectively carrying out its function in society.6 It is therefore not surprising that the gap has been given a prominent position by government both in election- and policy-programmes.7 This resulted in several governmental interventions, such as the introduction of the function of press officer in 1991; the publication of sentencing guidelines since 1998; the publication of sentencing requisition guidelines since 1999; the publication of journals on the sentencing situation since 2000; and the establishment of a judicial sentencing database in 2002. Initially, these interventions were based on the notion that by improving consistency and transparency in the process of sentencing,8 the legitimacy of the sentencing system could be restored.9 However, over the years the aim of these governmental interventions started to broaden. Instead of merely focusing on improving consistency and transparency, the government decided to focus on all possible aspects that could improve the legitimacy of the sentencing system. This led to interventions such as the introduction of the Council of the Judiciary in 2002; the introduction of section 359 (2) in the Criminal Code imposing stricter motivational requirements on the judge in 2005; the amendment of the Criminal Code and the Road Traffic Act re-adjusting several legal sentencing maxima in 2006; the introduction of the PROMIS-method for judicial sentencing in 2008; the amendment of the Criminal Code reducing the possibilities for imposing a community penalties in 2012. Nevertheless, it seems like all efforts to bridge the gap, and thereby restore the legitimacy of the sentencing system, have been in vain. The earlier mentioned studies as well as mass media reports show no notable improvement in the public opinion on sentencing. Apparently, we are still groping in the dark when it comes to understanding this empirically observed gap between law and society. Therefore, this research project purports to find out 5 See for a more elaborate discussion of the importance of the legitimacy of law: T.R. Tyler, Why people obey the law, New Jersey: Princeton University Press 2006. 6 finding out law's function is one of the objectives of this research project, and will be further discussed in the following chapters. 7 See e.g. Criminaliteitsbeheersing. Investeren in een zichtbare overheid, The Hague: Ministry of Justice and Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom relations 2001; Parliamentary Papers II 2001/02, 27 834, nr. 2; Naar een veiliger samenleving, The Hague: Ministry of Justice and Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom relations 2002, Parliamentary Papers II 2002/03, 28 684, nr. 1 and 2; Veiligheid begint bij Voorkomen, The Hague: Ministry of Justice and Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom relations 2007; Parliamentary Papers II 2007/08, 28684, nr. 119; Vrijheid en Verantwoordelijkheid: Regeerakkoord VVD-CDA, The Hague 2010, Parliamentary Papers II 2010/11, 32417, nr. 14. 8 A lack of transparency and consistency in sentencing is shown by i.a. J.P.S. Fiselier in ‘Regionale verscheidenheid in de strafrechtspleging’, Delikt en Delinkwent 1985, p. 204-221; and A.C. Berghuis in 'De harde en de zachte hand: Een statistische analyse van verschillen in sanctiebeleid', Trema 1992, p. 84-93. 9 e.g. E.W. Oskamp, Computerondersteuning