Most Americans are proud of their country and they have many reasons to be. From time to time they give vent to their patriotic feelings in superlatives, saying things like "The U.S. has the best/ strongest/ finest ... in the world." Frequently such claims are true. Undeniably the United States has the strongest armed forces, the finest universities and the best space technology. Often they are debatable.

Once I heard President George W. Bush assert, "The U.S. has the best justice system in the world." Of course it all depends on what is meant by "best." If one reads "best" as "capable of putting more people behind bars than any other country," then one could perhaps agree. Taking population size into account, the United States has about 10 times more people in jail than, for example, The Netherlands.

Probably President Bush meant "The U.S. justice system is more just and humane than any other in the world." As a Dutchman who has lived several years in the United States I am not at all convinced. And I am painfully aware, as the American public should be, that sweeping and unfounded public declarations regarding the virtues of American society are irritating indeed to the ears of foreign observers. In the case of the justice system, let's consider some facts.

For one thing, sentences in The Netherlands, for example, are much shorter than in the United States. Only a handful of convicts serve life sentences, and even they are eligible for parole. Sentences of more than 10 years are rare and reserved for multiple murderers and repeated offenders. Child molesters and other criminals whose behavior is attributed in whole or in part to mental problems are often given relatively light sentences but must submit to subsequent treatment in closed institutions from which they are releasedif and when they are judged to be no longer a threat to society.

Before their final release they spend short trial periods outside, under gradually diminishing supervision. Occasionally a parolee fails to return from leave and, if not picked up by the police in time, may backslide and commit another offense. This is unfortunate, but generally viewed as inevitable in a system that refuses to lock away people for life.

In The Netherlands, as in the United States, most criminal offenses are drug-related. Perhaps the single most important factor explaining our disproportionately small prison population is that in The Netherlands no one goes to jail for the mere fact of drug use. Drug use is viewed more as a health problem than a criminal offense and the police targets the syndicates rather than the users. This pragmatic and nonmoralistic approach has resulted in a de facto legalization of soft drugs.

The philosophy behind this policy, which includes toleration of "coffee shops" where soft drugs are easily accessible, is that it neatly separates the worlds of hard and soft drugs. Young people who wish to experiment with soft drugs can do so without coming into contact with unscrupulous individuals who would much rather get them hooked on heroin, a much more profitable business. So far this approach seems to be working. In The Netherlands, the number of hard drug addicts is relatively stable.

Two recent and widely publicized developments have highlighted the extent to which the judicial cultures of the United States and The Netherlands are divergent. In one such case, at the request of the U.S. government, a Dutch citizen was recently extradited to the United States for trial on a drug-related charge.

Upon arrival he was introduced to the widespread but thoroughly reprehensible practice of plea bargaining. He was intimidated into making a false confession, never saw a judge, and received a sentence that, in spite of the bargain, was still ridiculously high by Dutch standards. Many commentators found this totally unacceptable. In The Netherlands nobody goes to jail without a trial.

And then there is terrorism. On two occasions in the past year, groups of young Muslim men were arrested in The Netherlands when the Dutch secret service claimed they were implicated in terrorist planning. In both cases they were acquitted of these charges on the ground that the evidence was inadmissible. Understandably, the Secret Service had refused to reveal its methods and to permit its agents to testify. We face a real dilemma here, and attempts are under way to find ways to permit anonymous testimony and to safeguard the confidentiality of the evidence.

But the important point here is that, so far, the Dutch courts have refused to budge on the issue of defendants' rights. Probably they will remain firm on this point in the future. A judicial black hole like Guantanamo Bay will not develop here any time soon.

Dick van Dulst is a retired professor of mathematics at the University of Amsterdam. He is widely traveled and has lived several years in the United States.

back | to top | full article >>