The consternation is great. The Pole who drove a grandfather, grandmother and their granddaughter to death in Meijel on May 19, 2013, has recently been released even though he has not yet fully served the 15-month prison sentence imposed on him (a sentence many consider far too low anyway). Politicians, PVV at the forefront, are screaming blue murder, the bereaved are violently emotional and social media are exploding with unsubstantiated expressions of anger and incomprehension. Time for a legal answer to the most frequently asked question on Facebook "How can this be? "

If a Dutch citizen is sentenced to 15 months' imprisonment, he must serve 13 months of that sentence. He does not have to serve the remaining 2 months as long as during the probationary period of, in this case, 2 months he complies with any special conditions that the justice system attaches to his release and if he does not commit any new offenses for 1 year. However, convicted foreign nationals without lawful residence in the Netherlands are not eligible for this so-called conditional release because they are not allowed to remain in the Netherlands after their release. This makes monitoring compliance with the conditions impossible. So far, then, the Polish death row inmate would have to serve his sentence in full were it not for the fact that article 40 of the Regulation on Temporary Release from the Institution has a similar regulation specifically for aliens without lawful residence in the Netherlands. This regulation means, in this case, that after serving 7.5 months of imprisonment, the Pole can be given a break in his sentence on the condition that he does not return to the Netherlands. This regulation was introduced in April 2012 to eliminate the inequality between Dutch nationals and foreigners in terms of early release and to create an additional incentive for foreigners not to show up in the Netherlands after their release. If they do so, the sentence is revived. For the Pole, this means that he will still have to serve the other half of his prison sentence.

The Pole has appealed to a regulation that has been in place for 5 years now and which, until this month, had barely a murmur because the general tenor is that the Netherlands would prefer to see criminal aliens leave as soon as possible without their long-term stay in a Dutch cell costing a lot of taxpayers' money. If there is some guarantee that we won't see them again in the Netherlands, that is of course only a bonus. In the present case, however, this is different now that society has been seriously shaken by the fact that the Pole has put an end to three lives and, in the eyes of many, "only" received a 15-month prison sentence for it, and now it appears that he does not even have to serve this sentence in full. So it is the still existing dissatisfaction with the amount of the sentence in itself rather than just the fact that he is now free.

In the decision of April 13, 2017, which is misunderstood by many, the RSJ (the body that ultimately decides on a request for punishment interruption as made by the Pole) considers that, in its opinion, the interest of the next of kin does not outweigh the Pole's interest in being able to be at the birth of his child. Of course, everyone is allowed to think differently about this, but this balancing of interests is done daily by all kinds of legal colleges. This weighing of interests is more than often in favor of detainees and their families, since a birth is a one-time event that can never be repeated. It is further considered that the fact that the serious degree to which the rule of law has been shaken is not explained by the fact that the Pole was convicted of causing an accident due to his fault. Thus, he was convicted of a culpable crime and not a deliberate crime. This legal argument stands. It has not been established in law that the Pole intentionally took the cyclists' lives, nor that he drove in such a way that he accepted the substantial likelihood of their deaths. It was proven that he caused an accident due to his fault. From a legal point of view, I believe the RSJ's decision is correct.

The average Dutchman will disregard what he sees as legal hullabaloo and react purely from emotion. However, a democratic society with a sound rule of law is served by a legally correct application of the laws and rules we have agreed upon together in the Netherlands even though it may feel different in a specific case.