Dealing effectively with offenders requires more than just punishment

On Friday 5 June 2026, Fischer delivered her inaugural lecture, formally accepting her post as Professor of Empirical Criminology Offender-Focused Interventions at the Erasmus School of Law. Family members, friends, (former) students and colleagues were present in large numbers as the procession of professors, dressed in academic robes, entered the auditorium to the strains of Frédérique Spigt’s ‘Rotterdam’. 

Penalties alone are not the solution  

For twenty years now, the Netherlands has been committed to a so-called offender-centred approach: a tailored approach in which interventions are tailored to the specific characteristics and circumstances of the offender. This approach initially seemed promising. Research from 2014 showed that recidivism, the commission of a further criminal offence, fell by ten per cent between 2002 and 2010. However, the decline proved not to be sustainable; it levelled off, and in recent years a slight increase has been observed among certain groups. Furthermore, evaluations of specific interventions show only very limited evidence of effectiveness.  

Before Fischer sets out her own perspective, she outlines the scientific basis underpinning the offender-centred approach. The ‘What Works’ philosophy, which emerged in the 1990s in the United States, introduced evidence-based interventions into criminology. Interventions are more effective when they are tailored to the offender’s risks, criminogenic needs and capabilities. 

The Good Lives Model, which emerged at the start of this century, added an important insight. “Offenders pursue the same life goals as everyone else. Think of inner peace, friendship, autonomy and a sense of community. Their ability to achieve these goals is thwarted by internal or external obstacles, leading them to try to achieve them through illegal means. Interventions should therefore be aimed at helping people achieve those goals through legal means. Criminologists refer to this process, gradually moving away from criminal behaviour, as ‘desistance’,” says Fischer. 

The institutional context: what goes wrong behind the scenes 

In her speech, Fischer introduces two types of context which, both individually and in combination, influence the effectiveness of interventions. The first is the institutional context: all the agencies involved with the offender throughout their criminal career. Evaluation studies show that what actually happens within these processes is often a ‘black box’. Frequently cited bottlenecks include capacity issues within the criminal justice system, slow communication between partners, and a strong focus on risk management that overshadows the development of positive relationships with offenders.  

A concrete example is probation supervision. Every year, over 13,500 offenders are under supervision. Probation officers must simultaneously support and monitor them, whilst also fulfilling a networking role: organising debt counselling, housing and daytime activities. This is precisely where the problem lies. Access to such services proves to be structurally much more difficult for offenders than for others, partly due to screening and rejections when looking for work. Fischer argues that there is hardly any research into how these bottlenecks specifically undermine the effectiveness of supervision. 

A broader pattern is emerging: in practice, the integration of care and punishment often leads to greater control and repression, and only to a limited extent to better support. Fischer recognises in this the mechanisms that sociologist Stanley Cohen described as far back as 1979: the ever-expanding and increasingly intricate web of interventions ensures that offenders, once they come to the attention of the authorities, are punished much more quickly for offences for which others would not be punished. “As a result, their criminal careers increasingly become a self-fulfilling prophecy.”   

The socio-cultural context: stigma, exclusion and belonging  

The second context is wider society. Cultural norms, stigmatisation and exclusion influence the desistance process at least as strongly as the institutional environment. Stigmatisation of offenders demonstrably increases the risk of reoffending and reduces the chances of reintegration. This has long been known, but that knowledge does not automatically lead to less stigmatisation. 

Fischer uses the concept of ‘belonging’ as a key concept: the sense of belonging in society is a crucial prerequisite for sustainable behavioural change. Reintegration is a two-way process. “People need to change. But if the society around them refuses to change and is unwilling to give people genuine opportunities, then that change stagnates.” This applies not only to offenders, but also to victims, who often feel misunderstood or overlooked.  

Two examples from her own research illustrate this point. Her research into sexual street harassment shows that the phenomenon is an expression of a normalised gender imbalance in society. This is evident in a variety of contexts, from the workplace to student societies. Criminalisation sets a social standard, but victims appear to benefit more from raising awareness, the safe design of public spaces, and practical guidance for bystanders than from a criminal justice approach targeting perpetrators alone.  

Another example is the COSA intervention, aimed at sex offenders who are nearing the end of their sentences and want further support to prevent reoffending. Volunteers help to break through social isolation and, in doing so, learn for themselves how shame, exclusion and stigma prevent people from abandoning harmful behaviour. 

Her broader ambition is a society that better recognises and addresses the obstructive impact of institutional, political and cultural factors on the desistance process. It is a message with a long tradition in Rotterdam; Fischer explicitly links her work to that of previous Erasmus School of Law professors such as Louk Hulsman, John Blad and René van Swaaningen. In her acceptance speech, Fischer emphasised that one cannot become a professor without support: “it also takes a country to become a professor”.