Table of content
1. Introduction…………..………………………………………………………………………..1
2. ZSM and the larger Community ..…………………...………………………………………3
3. The Structure and Culture of ZSM.…………….…..…………………….………………….9
4. Criminal variables & opportunity …...………………..………………….…………….…..10
5. Book knowledge and ZSM ...…………..……………………………………………………12
6. Delimitation, Implications, and Future Research …...……………….……………………14
6.1 Delimitations of ZSM …..…………………………………………………………………..14
6.2 Implications: The Netherlands vs. the United States ……...…………….……………….16
6.3 Future Research: ZSM & Recidivism ……......…………..………………………………18
7. Summary of most valuable learning experiences …...………………..…………….….…..19
1. Introduction
The Netherlands is a small country with a lot of inhabitants. With a population of 16.7
million (World Bank, 2013), we see an estimate of 8 million offenses committed each year
(Public Prosecutor’s Office, 2012). The high density of our population demands a system in
which information and actions are smoothly processed through an infrastructure that is designed
on principles of efficiency and accountability. A good example of a component of the Dutch
society that possesses a logistical structure that focuses on those principles is the Police force.
The Dutch system of policing like any other dynamic organization has to adapt to the
modernization of its society. The bureaucratic process in respect to criminal registration and
administration has to be digitalized. With the use of progressive information resources the
criminal justice process can be sped up while the appropriate measures are being implemented.
In the Dutch political arena the modernization of government departments has been a hot topic
for several years now. Traditionally the Dutch police force has been a decentralized organization.
Several autonomous regions would control and steer their own local units. National interest was
barely visible within the separate regions which caused political debate on centralizing certain
police tasks to increase. Lex Cachet and Peter Marks (2009), professors at the Erasmus
University in Rotterdam, addressed the development of the Dutch police force in their essay
“Police reform in The Netherlands”. They write in regards to legislative reform, “The 1994
police reform was a significant deviation from the decentralization principle that dominated until
then” (Cachet & Marks, p. 106). Since the police act of 1993, and its reform in 1994, the
autonomy of the regional forces has been reduced, while the authority of political influence has
increased to protect national interest. More concrete reform plans were proposed in February
2012, when Dutch minister of safety and justice, Mr. Opstelten, commented on the optimization
1
of the criminal justice process in a letter to the Dutch parliament. In his letter of recommendation
for the implementation of new policies he promotes the development of a national police force
and a centralization of the administrative functions of the regional police forces. With more
uniform cooperation between the separate elements that comprise of the Criminal justice system
he believes that the Criminal justice process could see positive developments in the areas of
investigation, prosecution and punishment. In his letter Minister Opstelten (2012) suggests that
in order for these initiatives to succeed there must be “a clear task-responsibility division
between the partner organizations” (letter to parliament, p. 3) involved in the criminal justice
system. One of these initiatives that perfectly embodies the working relationships between
partner organizations involved in the criminal justice process is ZSM. ZSM translates into “as
soon as possible”, where the S stands for the Dutch words; snel (quick), slim (smart), selectief
(selective), simpel (simple), samen (together), and samenlevingsgericht (community-oriented).
ZSM is a collaborative project in which several criminal justice agencies work together to
decrease the bureaucratic processes within the criminal justice system. At the same time ZSM
realizes an increase in effective capability of offender-based policing. The main partner
organizations involved in the ZSM project are the police force, victim-services, the child care
and protection board, the public prosecutor’s office, and the office of probation. The public
prosecutor’s office and the Dutch police launched ZSM-project pilots early in 2011 in five
different regions throughout the country. A core element of the ZSM procedural initiative is that
of meaningful intervention through effective settlement of cases involving high volume crime.
The ZSM-project attempts to realize this meaningful intervention by focusing on four groups; the
victim, the offender, the community and the employee. Most of the attention is placed on the
offender. In attempt to counter recidivism the offender must feel that he or she has been
2
appropriately and swiftly punished for the crime he or she committed. In this process the
offender must come to realize the consequences of his or her actions and that ultimately the
benefits of their crime did not outweigh the costs. The victim must receive proper and just
compensation for possible damages. If these damages are emotional he or she must feel that the
offender has been punished. The quick ZSM process attempts to eliminate the opportunity for
repeat and or secondary victimization. Additionally the victim has to be informed on the
resources that are available associated with his or her victimization. Additionally, the community
has to feel that justice has been served. ZSM maintains a transparency in which the public can
see that the moral standards of the community have been upheld through the cooperation of the
partner organizations. Lastly the employees of the police force and the ZSM partner
organizations must receive a feeling of satisfaction in regards to their work. The results have to
be clear and visible and the correlation between hard work and significant results must be
noticed. ZSM has been implemented in several areas in the country. There are 11 selective
coordination centers at which the police, the public prosecutor’s office and the partner
organizations come together. The Deventer location is the first and only department that has
completely digitalized the process. ZSM provides a unique learning environment in which one
can observe the effectiveness of an innovative project aimed at providing an efficient method to
deal with high volume crime. The close cooperation of several criminal justice partner
organizations is a vital element in the success of ZSM.
2. ZSM and the larger Community
One of the main goals of ZSM is creating a visible relationship between the crime and the
punishment. Previously, the period between the wrongful act and the sanctions imposed were on
3
average 9 months. ZSM aims to shorten this period to a couple of days and by doing so showing
the community and the victim that offenders are punished directly for the crime they committed.
In order to realize this ZSM utilizes a communicative and administrative method of processing
offenders through a system of information that results into a sanction or a referral. ZSM serves a
different purpose for each of the different partner organizations, but access to the offender file
and information at an early stage is what all partner organizations benefit from.
The public prosecutor’s office is part of the judiciary and operates nationwide with branches
in all police regions. Its responsibility lies not only with prosecution but also with investigation.
The public prosecutor’s office benefits from ZSM because it increases their capacity to process
and close cases. At the selective coordination center the public prosecutors and their assistants
have direct access to representatives of the partner organizations. This speeds up the process of
both the cases that are referred to the court system, as the cases that have been decided on by the
public prosecutor present at the selective coordination center. According to the ministry of
interior and kingdom relations the public prosecutor’s service represents the community in their
quest for justice. In the brochure “Policing in the Netherlands” they suggest that, “The public
prosecutor voices public displeasure in his demand for sentence, which should do justice to both
perpetrator and victim.” (Policing in the Netherlands, 2009). ZSM allows the public prosecutors’
office to punish swiftly yet appropriately. Through ZSM, the public prosecutor’s office is able to
represent the community’s demand for justice while upholding the interest of the offender and
victim. ZSM focusses on justice while at the same time increases the capacity for processing
criminal cases.
The National Police uses ZSM as a way to communicate between those who are responsible
for the intake, questioning, and investigation, and those who process the case administratively
4
through the ZSM network. ZSM is used as a central point where cases are collected, selected and
decided on. ZSM Deventer for example has jurisdiction over a large area. The work that is now
done in Deventer does not have to be done locally per police station and or region. With these
efforts to create a uniform national police force there could be more attention given to an
increase of patrol units and community policing. This increase in community policing and police
presence on the street was a key goal of the recent reorganization of the police in the
Netherlands. ZSM also allows for police employees to recognize the result of their hard work.
VAT-unit employees, those who interrogate offenders and investigate cases, send information
and files to the ZSM department in Deventer. When ZSM decides on a case through the speedy
process the VAT-employees will be notified on the decision made by the public prosecutor.
Before ZSM, those who would deal with the interrogation and intake of offenders would have to
wait months before they would know what happened to the suspect and sometimes they wouldn’t
even be notified at all. ZSM attempts to motivate police employees by making the positive
consequences of their work more visible and transparent. Additionally, ZSM serves a purpose of
smooth communication between the police and the public prosecutor’s office. VAT-units can
contact public prosecutors to provide information on suspects at a more central location. Since
there are several police representatives present at the Selective coordination center (Deventer)
the gap between the public prosecutor and the police has been narrowed. Through ZSM the
communication between the enforcement and the judiciary has been more constructive. The
offender-based crime control model on which ZSM functions is based on close cooperation with
partner organizations.
One of these partner organizations is the Child care and protection Board. The board is part
of the ministry of security and justice and they are involved with all affairs regarding juveniles,
5
both civil and criminal. The child care and protection board has four major tasks identified in
their brochure. These tasks are protection, authority & contract agreements, punishment, and
ASAA (affairs regarding adoption and origin). The tasks; authority & contract agreements and
the ASAA are civil in nature, they often involve divorce disputes and custody rights issues.
Punishment however applies to criminal cases and this is where the board cooperates with the
ZSM selective coordination center. The interest of the juvenile is the central concern for the
board. When a juvenile suspect has been submitted to the ZSM process the child care and
protection board will make an assessment of the case and the juvenile in order to decide whether
a formal investigation is necessary. Through ZSM the board has quick and easy access to the
juvenile’s file and the information needed to assess the case. The central role of ZSM also allows
the public prosecutor’s office and the child care and protection board to work simultaneously on
cases while physically communicating. The public prosecutor might refer a juvenile to a judge;
in that case an investigation by the board is automatically started. If the punishment comes from
the public prosecutor at ZSM then the juvenile will meet with an assistant public prosecutor for a
proposed punishment settlement. Depending on the decision of the board whether to investigate
or not, this meeting will be either four or seven weeks after the sanction decision. One of the
benefits of the investigation is that the board can give the public prosecutor’s office a
recommendation of suitable punishment. The board’s recommendation of punishment is what
they believe is best for the future of the child. Because rehabilitation is the punishment ideology
of the juvenile system in the Netherlands, reintegration is a main focus of the recommendation
given by the board. The board will look at social and environmental factors that surround the
juvenile and their advice can range anywhere between small hours of community service to close
supervision in a locked juvenile detention center. The public prosecutor and the court, are
6
sovereign entities in the decision making process, the recommendation is not binding and does
not need to be implemented.
An organization that also has an investigative purpose within the ZSM framework is the
office of probation. The office of probation makes recommendation to the judiciary. Within ZSM
they inform the public prosecutor on the suspect’s criminal history and they recommend certain
conditions that could help find a suitable sanction that is appropriate for the suspect and the
crime. ZSM offers a set of advantages to the office of probation. Firstly, suspects are submitted
to ZSM right after their arrest, there for the office of probation can start their work right away.
Previously the office of probation had to wait until the suspect had been completely processed by
the police and VAT-units. Another purpose of ZSM is that at the selective coordination center a
representative of the office of probation has direct contact with the public prosecutor. This way
the office of probation can provide recommendations in the form of actual dialogue rather than
formal paperwork. ZSM also allows for the office of probation to understand the decision that
was made by the public prosecutor’s office. If a person is referred to a judge than the office of
probation will start an investigation on the suspect and submit a probation advice. In this advice
they will outline the circumstances that surround the suspect. Part of this advice is a RISC
assessment. This scientific assessment tool uses variables such as substance abuse, financial
status, and home-situation to make inferences as to how likely the suspect is to engage in
criminal recidivism and whether he or she needs specific programs that could help rehabilitate
the suspect. The RISC assessment results into a status of 1, 2 or 3, with 3 being the highest risk
level. The level of supervision that is sanctioned is often influenced by the RISC status of an
offender. Additionally the office of probation supervises community service punishment and
they facilitate probationary period for offenders who are serving a conditional punishment. Some
7
suspects need behavioral interventions. These interventions are considered by the office of
probation when giving their recommendation to the public prosecutor. The selective coordination
center at ZSM creates opportunity for better communication between the office of probation and
the public prosecutor’s office which means that the interest of both the offender and the
community is better served.
Lastly, victim services works together with ZSM to uphold the interest of the victim. ZSM
needs to know if there are any physical damages that the offender should repay. Victim services
helps the victims access the resources that are available after victimization. Through ZSM,
victim services can present the public prosecutor with an overview of the damages in a timely
manner so that the public prosecutor can incorporate restitution in his decision of criminal
sanction. Sometimes the situation of the victim can change over time. What appeared to be a
bruised arm after an assault could be a broken arm. Victim services checks up with the victim
and through ZSM they can immediately relay information to the public prosecutor. Because
ZSM if an offender-based program victim services balances the efforts in such a way that the
victim is not forgotten in the process. In order to successfully apply meaningful intervention to
offenders, the victim’s damages and harm must be recognized to transmit a message based on
morals and ethics. Victim services not only gives victims a voice in the ZSM process, but also
provide victims with information on the case and the decision of the public prosecutor.
The selective coordination center in Deventer centralizes administrative communication and
realizes direct contact between partner organizations. The ZSM method shows the larger
community that crime is directly dealt with through pro-active offender-based policing. The
creative yet repressive message that ZSM sends is that high-volume crime is not tolerated and
8
that punishment is swift. Success through ZSM could lead to safer communities and a decline in
high-volume crime rates.
3. The Structure and Culture of ZSM
ZSM is a collaboration of several independent organizations. Although the organizations are
all concerned with creating a safer society they still have separate agendas and goals. In order for
ZSM to be effective there must be focus on communication, information, and responsibility. All
partner organizations are responsible for their unique tasks in regards to the ZSM process.
Although there is no strict hierarchy within ZSM, it is the public prosecutor who fulfills a central
role. If the public prosecutor feels that more information is needed he or she will direct the
appropriate representative of the police or partner organization to find that information. ZSM
cannot close a case until the public prosecutor has made a decision. Because this decision
depends on the information that is submitted by the police, probation, child care and protection
board, and victim services it is important that those organizations take responsibility for their
part of the process. Within the selective coordination center communication is vital. Not only do
the partner organizations and the public prosecutor have to communicate with the VAT-units
who submitted the case, but also internal communication is important for a high capacity of
processed cases. The fact that the selective coordination center allows for all involved parties to
be in the same room is a key component of the ZSM method. Direct communication does not
only limit administrative efforts but it also allows the partner organizations to be directly
involved in the process of decision making. Within ZSM there is also a Chain-Process
Coordinator (KPC). The chain-process coordinator delegates tasks to the partner organizations
after a case is submitted to ZSM. When the public prosecutor has made a decision on the case the
9
chain-process coordinator finalizes the file and notifies all appropriate parties. He or she them
removes the suspect from the suspect monitor. It is important to have somebody who can
overview the whole process and steer where necessary. It is the chain-process coordinator’s job
to make sure everybody is on the same page. In order to do so all representatives of the partner
organizations, the public prosecutor, and the chain-process coordinator meet twice a day (at
11am and at 4pm) to go over the suspect monitor. In these meetings the situations of the suspects
submitted to ZSM are discussed and the public prosecutor can consider whether he or she needs
more specific information from any of the partner organizations. ZSM is most effective when the
police and all partner organizations fulfill their independent purpose as soon as possible. The
public prosecutor can make the best decision when he or she receives the appropriate information
from the partner organizations early on.
4. Criminal variables & opportunity
The tendency to engage in criminal behavior finds it foundation in sociological factors and
variables. Crime is often the result of societal strain and deprivation, and one’s environment
influences one’s actions. The suspect monitor at ZSM displayed all sorts of people. Old, young,
male, female, etc... There are however significant factors that contribute to the propensity and
prevalence of crime. As the social learning theory suggests crime is often learned through
experience. Family structure and home situations are very important for a child’s socialization
process. Family factors that are associated with delinquency, such as marital distress & conflict,
and childhood neglect are indicators of little attachment to family values which in turn can lead
to low self-control and antisocial behavior. It is no surprise that the many chronic offenders
known to the office of probation have been committing crimes since their juvenile years. This
10
continuity of crime suggests that much adult deviant behavior has its roots in childhood
development. It is therefore important that the criminal intervention placed on juveniles through
ZSM has a primary purpose of rehabilitation and a secondary purpose of punishment. There also
seems to be an increase in youth violence in the Netherlands. It is not uncommon to see young
teenagers that are being processed through ZSM for violent deviance. The emergence of a
subculture of violence is something that deserves special attention. Both at the courthouse in
Almelo and at ZSM Deventer I have seen fourteen and fifteen year old offenders who committed
crimes of physical violence. It is clear that the dominant culture of the Netherlands does not
tolerate overt acts of violence, yet it seems that the youth subculture is becoming more
permissive of violent behavior and stands directly in conflict with the dominant culture. Through
ZSM, violent behavior by juveniles requires attention from the board of child care and protection
in order to find appropriate sanctions that intervene with the embracement of a pro-violent
subculture. Other factors that can contribute to anti-social behavior and crime are educational
underachievement and unemployment. According to a representative of the office of probation
many people commit crimes out of boredom and lack of routine. School and work provide
structure in one’s life. The less time one spends on the streets the less likely he or she is to
commit high-volume crimes. Lastly, one of the most important variables that is associated with
criminal behavior is alcohol and drug dependency. The office of probation utilizes behavioral
interventions based on aggression and alcohol. Many offenders that are processed through ZSM
for violent crimes were under the influence of alcohol or drugs. Chemical dependency within
families is also a strong indicator of domestic violence and family abuse. At the VAT-unit in
Arnhem I interrogated an older male who had threatened his family and had a history of violent
behavior. His teenage sons both testified that the man was a nice father until he started drinking.
11
According to the National Council on Alcoholism and Drug Dependence two-thirds of the
victims of crimes committed by intimates reported that alcohol had been involved (NCADD,
2012).
On the other side, some of the high-volume crimes that ZSM deals with are simply crimes of
opportunity. The routine activity theory suggests that crime happens when there is a motivated
offender, a suitable target, and a lack of capable guardianship. Some of first time offenders that
are submitted to ZSM are people who saw an opportunity to commit a crime that they would
normally not commit. What separates primary from secondary deviance for some people is
simply the presence of opportunity. First time offenders might have just made a mistake of moral
judgment and their ZSM sanctions are often lesser than chronic offenders. Through ZSM we can
learn more about prevalence of crime in regards to certain variables. By understanding the
importance of opportunity within the criminal element we can pro-actively counter crime
through environment design. The physical environment of communities contributes to the
prevalence of crime. Neighborhood safety can be increased by designing the physical
environment in such a way that crime opportunity decreases.
5. Book knowledge and ZSM
After studying Criminal justice for a couple of years now I have come to learn that
sociological factors have great impact on one’s development and predictions of criminal
tendencies. My learning experience at ZSM confirmed and contradicted some of the theoretical
knowledge that I have received from my education at Loras College and California State
University in Los Angeles. ZSM is a method of processing criminal intervention. I have learned
that criminal interventions serve four possible purposes; punishment, deterrence, rehabilitation,
12
and restitution. ZSM incorporates all four of these purposes through meaningful intervention.
Punishment ensures that the societal rules that we have created are binding. Rightful punishment
can only be imposed by an authority that holds that power. Within ZSM the public prosecutor’s
office punishes suspects for the crimes they committed. This punishment can either be a fine or
community service. ZSM also attempts to ensure deterrence. The specific deterrence is realized
when the offender decides not to commit similar crimes again because the punishment was
effective. General deterrence might arise when other people notice the punishment that followed
the act and are discouraged to commit crimes. The quick response of ZSM to high volume crime
serves the purpose of deterrence in both specific and general terms.
Rehabilitation is also a big part of the ZSM method. By attempting to avoid incarceration ZSM
finds creative ways to punish the offender. Through close cooperation with probation and the
board of child care and protection behavioral interventions and therapeutic programs are
sanctioned. ZSM is not only there to increase the capacity of the public prosecutor’s office but
also to prevent habitual offending. Especially the office of probation concerns themselves with
recidivism patterns and ways to re-integrate offenders into society.
Lastly, ZSM utilizes restitution wherever possible. When ZSM processes crimes that resulted
into tangible damages, the public prosecutor will most likely order the offender to pay for the
damages that the victim suffered. This form of restorative justice is not only practical but it also
gives the role of the victim a place within this offender-based project. Restitution also suggests
that the wrongdoing of the offender has to be set right with the victim. Formal apologies are not
uncommon within ZSM. By giving the offenders the change to repair the harm they have done
they are forced to take responsibility for their actions, which in turn serves a rehabilitative
purpose.
13
Additional to purposes of intervention the ZSM approach can also be explained through two
criminological theories. Firstly, ZSM’s focus on meaningful and personalized criminal
intervention is a practical response to the life course theory. The life course theory explains
criminality as a dynamic process, influenced by many characteristics, experiences, and
behavioral changes accordingly for the better or the worse. One’s criminal decisions depend on
the events in their life course. ZSM attempts to find creative yet appropriate sanctions that allow
for offenders to change their life course into a positive and constructive direction. Especially for
juvenile suspects the sanctions have to reflect the ideology of rehabilitation. Events that happen
in the life-course of a minor often have significant impact on their socialization and maturing
process. ZSM attempts to limit incarceration where possible because it disrupts employment,
education, and family life. The second criminological theory that applies to ZSM is the rational
choice theory. This theory, which builds of off the classical theory, suggests that crime is the
result of a rational thinking. The rational choice theory proposes that offenders weigh the costs
and the benefits of the crime and decide based on that principle. Since ZSM provides a form of
certain and immediate punishment it should deter offenders by raising the weight of the costs.
The general deterrence towards high volume crime, that ZSM attempts to generate, directly plays
in on the rational choice principle. Offenders who are processed through ZSM have experienced
the consequences of their actions shortly after the crime. Rational choice theorists would suggest
that direct and quick punishment will influence the free willed choice to commit a crime.
6. Delimitation, Implications, and Future Research
6.1 Delimitations of ZSM
The ZSM project as a response to a changing society is necessary and appropriate. Criticism
14
however identifies that ZSM might display a quantity over quality focus. The criminal justice
process requires detailed evaluation of facts and exhaustive discussion on options and actions.
The fear that exists within the ZSM debate is that during the speedy process and application of
criminal law there is not enough room and time for valuable in-depth analyses of certain cases.
Nico Kwakman (2012), a professor at the University of Groningen Graduate Law School, writes
in regards to the ZSM initiative, “any criminal settlement requires a careful assessment of the
evidence available and a precise offender orientated criminal intervention that is based on the
circumstances of the case.” (p. 9). Kwakman suggests that some characteristics of the ZSM
method seem to be conflicting with the requirements that cases and offenders deserve full
devotion of efforts by those presenting the case. Especially cases involving juveniles require a
thorough evaluation of the social environment of the offender before any formal sanctions are
proposed. Although organizations such as the National Instrument of Juvenile Crime (LIJ)
provide assessments on risk factors regarding juveniles, there is still the question as to whether
ZSM focuses too much on quantity over quality.
Another issue that is being mentioned as a limitation of the ZSM method is that it would not
allow the suspect’s defense to be as prepared as they could. According to Sikkema & Kristen
(2012), “The position of the defense deserves special attention. The quick decision of the case
could lead to fewer options for the suspect and his attorney to set up an effective defense.” (p.
191). When it comes to prosecution, the suspect has a central role in ZSM. ZSM could benefit
however, from discussion on the availability of resources for the defense within the ZSM
process. Fairness has to be a primary concern in criminal law, ZSM’s tendency to speed up the
judicial process should never interfere with the ability to create a proper defense.
15
6. 2 Implications: The Netherlands vs. the United States
ZSM has been installed in the Netherlands since its pilot-stages in 2011, but how would an
initiative such as ZSM manage in the United States? There are some clear differences between
the two countries that would have to be discussed before speculating about the implementation of
ZSM in America. First of all the division of judicial power and responsibility in the Netherlands
is different than that in the United States. In the Netherlands the public prosecutor’s office enjoys
much greater discretion and authority when it comes to judicial decision making. The role of the
public prosecutors’ service in the Netherlands is more typical of an inquisitorial system opposed
to the United States’ strong adversarial system. The role of the prosecutor in the United States is
that of presenting the case while serving the interest of the community and the victim. An
impartial representation of the court, either a judge or a jury, than decides on actual criminal
sanctions. Although the prosecution may make recommendations on punishment options, they
are not the one who place judgment on the defendant. Similarly, the United States’ trial by jury
allows for an impartial judgment provided by the people of the United States themselves. ZSM
highly relies on the discretion of the public prosecutor who decided whether or not a suspect
should be referred to court. In the United States however, this decision is made by a grand jury.
It is clear that the ZSM process leaves no room for civilian participation in the justice process.
Taking away that element from the United States’ court system would ask for major legislative
and structural changes. Not to mention the right to a trial by a jury is outlined in the 6th
amendment and is part of the Constitution of the United States’ bill of rights.
Another significant complication would be area and jurisdiction. ZSM is part of an effort to
create a national police who enforces the law in uniform fashion. The United States sees much
16
bigger issues in regards to jurisdiction and federal vs. state conflicts. Not only is there the
divisions of state and federal courts and jurisdiction, but even counties and states among
themselves have strict jurisdictional guidelines. ZSM can only work without conflict of
jurisdiction within its region. Additionally to jurisdiction we must also consider legislation.
While law is binding, law is not universal. ZSM targets the so called “high-volume crimes”,
crimes that are prevalent and common. The significant legislative differences between the United
States and the Netherlands however, create unique characteristics of high-volume crimes. When
thinking of the United States, some high-volume crimes that come into mind are possession or
use of marijuana and prostitution. According to the Uniform Crime report about half of the 1.5
million drug arrests made in 2011 in the United States were for marijuana (UCR, 2011). Some of
these victimless or public order crimes however are tolerated in the Netherlands, which allows
ZSM to target more property and violent crimes. The fact that the Netherlands has chosen to
apply non-enforcement to certain public order crimes allows law enforcement to shift efforts to
crimes with significant victimization and a clear mens rea. The United States does address issues
such as possession of cannabis through specialized criminal justice programs. Drug court could
be compared to ZSM because it is selective in its cases, yet it does not incorporate many partner
organizations nor does it focus on quick and swift sanctions following the crime.
Another requirement of ZSM is that the structure and legislation in regards to punishment has
to be uniform within the region where ZSM operates. Legislation based on criminal intervention
such as the three strikes law in California is an example of significant differences in legal
enforcement within the American criminal justice system. Similarly, the role of plea bargain
within the American criminal justice system has to be considered. Although ZSM and plea
bargaining might share similar elements, the public prosecutor at ZSM is confident they have a
17
solid case. The offer that is extended to offenders through ZSM is not a plea bargain. The
sanction is often not lesser than the sanction that would be ordered through court. It is simply a
decision made by the public prosecutors that considers the social circumstances of the offender.
ZSM could be implemented in the United States however, but only at a local level. Either a city
or a district could implement ZSM or similar projects, as long as there are no conflicts of
jurisdiction, legislation or judicial authority. There would have to be changes in the authority of
the public prosecutor and there would be less civilian participation in the criminal justice
process.
6.3 Future Research: ZSM & Recidivism
ZSM has been implemented for over 2 years now (pilot stages in 2011). Although there is no
doubt that the capacity of processed cases by the public prosecutors’ office has increased, it is
also important to consider the long term results of the ZSM method. ZSM, which primarily
focusses on the direct situation of criminal cases, also aims to realize positive long-term
consequences in respect to the community and recidivism. ZSM would greatly benefit from
research aimed at studying recidivism rates of offenders processed through ZSM. If criminal
intervention through ZSM is truly meaningful and personalized than recidivism amongst those
offenders should be low. The research could take a group of offender that were processed
through ZSM and offenders that did not. Ideally the samples would consist of offenders with
similar characteristics and similar criminal records. It is for example not appropriate to have one
group consist mostly of drug abusers as drug abuse has significant influence on recidivism. It is
also important to properly examine the relationship between ZSM and recidivism. Nomothetic
explanation examines several criteria of causality. Firstly the cause (ZSM) must precede the
18
effect (decline in recidivism) in time. If recidivism was in decline before the start of ZSM then
we must first examine previous patterns before making any inferences. Additionally, if ZSM
truly deters future crime, than there must be an empirical correlation between ZSM and
recidivism rates. The decline in recidivism, either generally or specific to one person, must occur
together with the ZSM initiative and the relationship must be scientifically measured. Lastly,
future research must consider the influence of a third extraneous variable. The relationship
between ZSM and recidivism decline must be exclusive. If there is a third variable such as new
legislation or shifts in crime waves than those variables must be included in the evaluation of
ZSM as the cause for recidivism decline. Future research must also consider threats to validity
such as generalizability and mono-operation bias. It is possible that ZSM in one region is more
effective as a deterrent than in another region. Research should ultimately be done at several
ZSM locations and the sample groups must be large in numbers, before the generalizations and
conclusions can truly reflect the population and the effectiveness of ZSM.
7. Summary of most valuable learning experiences
Through this internship I had the opportunity to witness the complete criminal justice
process. From the report of a crime and the arrest of a suspect to the decision made by the judge
or public prosecutor. The internship at ZSM has taught me how a criminal case gets processed
from beginning to end. Patrol units either see criminal activity or are responding to a call by
dispatch. If the situation requires an arrest the suspect is brought in to the police station where
the arresting officers transfer the suspect to the intake team. The patrol officers then make a
report of the arrest, outlining the important information in regards to the crime, the arrest, and the
suspect. The intake team takes fingerprints, searches the suspect and places him/her in a holding
19
cell. At this point the VAT-unit at the police station starts their investigation. When the suspect is
placed in official custody, either the arresting officer or a VAT-unit employee submits the case to
the ZSM selective coordination center (SCC). At this point multiple parties will work
simultaneously to process the case in a timely manner. The VAT-unit will interrogate the suspect
and witnesses. If necessary they will also communicate with forensics about possible traces.
They will take this information and add it to the suspect’s file. This information is then sent to
the SCC. At this point probation, victim services, the board of child care and protection have
done their research in regards to the suspect and possible victim(s). All this information is
combined into a digital folder which is then evaluated by the public prosecutor. If the public
prosecutor needs additional information he or she will direct the partner organizations or the
VAT-units. When the public prosecutor is confident he or she has all the information they need,
they will make a decision on the case. This decision is either a fine, community service, or a
referral to a judge. This decision is then offered to the suspect who can either accept of refuse, if
the suspect refuses the offer than he or she will have to appear before a judge. In the case of a
fine (restitution) or community service, the offender can pay or start his punishment right away.
In the case of a referral to a judge, a court date is planned often about a month from the date of
arrest.
The internship at ZSM has not only given me knowledge on how the Dutch criminal justice
system works but also how an offender-based policing program affects suspects, victims, lawenforcement employees, and the larger community. During my internship I have experienced
direct contact with offenders. At the VAT-unit in Arnhem I learned how interrogation is an
important resource in gaining information on offenders and the crime and during my ride-along I
saw how officers should communicate with offenders. During my internship I also gained
20
knowledge on juvenile delinquency within the Dutch criminal justice system. Similar to the
United States, juveniles in Holland are a unique group of offenders. I have learned that the
limitations and complications that arise when a minor commits a crime ask for a subtle approach
to the situation. Additionally, I have directly experienced the approach of rehabilitation and the
philosophy of Parens Patriae through the Juvenile Court in Almelo, the Netherlands. ZSM gave
me great insight on the functions of the several partner organizations involved with the criminal
justice system. During this internship I was able to apply the knowledge that I have gained in
fields of victimology, juvenile delinquency, criminal law, and criminology to real-life settings.
The internship has helped me narrow the gap between theory and practice and by directly
experiencing criminal justice settings I was able to visualize the concepts that I have previously
only read and written about. Most importantly, the broad perspective of criminal justice that I
have received at ZSM will help me make academic and professional decisions later on in life.
21
REFERENCES
Cachet, L. & Marks, P. (2009). Police Reform in the Netherlands: A Dance Between National
Steering and Local Performing. German Policy Studies, Vol.5, No.2, 91-115
Kwakman, N. J. M. (2012). Snelrecht en de ZSM-aanpak [Quicklaw and the ZSM-Approach].
Delikt and Delinkwent, Ep.3, March, 188-205. Retrieved from
http://irs.ub.rug.nl/ppn/343024942
National Council on Alcoholism and Drug Dependence. (2012). Retrieved from
http://www.ncadd.org/index.php/learn-about-alcohol/alcohol-and-crime
Openbaar Ministerie (Public Prosecutor’s office). (2012). Retrieved from
http://www.om.nl/vast_menu_blok/english/
Opstelten, I. (2012). Prestaties in de Strafrechtketen. [Performances in the chain of criminal
law]. Kamerstuk: Kamerbrief. Retrieved from http://www.rijksoverheid.nl/documentenen- publicaties/kamerstukken/2012/02/29/reactie-op-rapport-algemene-rekenkamerprestaties-in-de-strafrechtketen.html
Sikkema, E. & Kristen, F. G. H. (2012). Strafbeschikking en ZSM: verschuivingen binnen de
strafrechtshandhaving [Punishment and ZSM: shifts within the criminal law procedure].
Relaties van gezag en verantwoordelijkheid: strafrechtelijke ontwikkelingen. 179-205.
Toorman, A. (2009). Policing in the Netherlands. [Brochure]. Den Haag: Police and Safety
Regions Department.
Uniform Crime Report. (2011). Retrieved from http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-inthe-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/persons-arrested
World Bank. (2013). Retrieved from http://data.worldbank.org/country/netherlands
22