Most wanted list warrants caution

In spite of many failings, the new most wanted list is a welcome addition to law enforcement’s repertoire.

Earlier this week, Dutch law enforcement published its own digital most wanted list. This online inventory of sought after criminals features both convicts and suspects of serious crimes.

The publication yielded one immediate result when it was discovered that one of the suspects had already been convicted and jailed in Belgium. The slip-up proved that even the most carefully composed listing can never be entirely free of error. A status that the most wanted list nonetheless aspires to.

The list only features people (thought to be) involved in crimes carrying a jail sentence of eight years or longer and its publication needs to be personally approved by prosecution officials of the highest order.

Suspects are only included if there is a risk they might repeat their offence. Another embarrassment for law enforcement, which has been unable to apprehend some of the listed for years on end. This week the Dutch public had the pleasure of making the acquaintance of Maikel, Ephraim, Dino, Fouad, René, Sharif and Estin, when their names and likenesses were posted online for all to see.

Is this acceptable, considering the fact that five of these men have not yet been found guilty and that the rehabilitation of all seven might be made impossible now that their assumed guilt has been touted so publicly?

Or is a greater interest served by trying to apprehend these men, thus preventing them from breaking the law again? And is it in the interest of the rule of law that two of them have escaped the punishment doled out to them in court?

Before the most wanted list was published, the police did occasionally ask for the public’s assistance in apprehending wanted criminals. The media used, newspapers and television, were less permanent in nature however. This new list is permanent, and will be made part and parcel of the investigation methods commonly used by the police. Last but not least, it will be published on the internet. This makes all the difference in the world. A registry can be corrected. A call for public assistance revoked. But an internet posting is practically everlasting by nature.

This means checks and balances are urgently required. The mere mention of a name can have permanent consequences, even beyond Dutch borders, for family members for instance, or people unlucky enough to have the same name.

Criminal attorney Inez Weski has called the list a “digital pillory”. A punishment doled out by the prosecution without due process, blurring the line between those suspected of a crime and those found guilty of it.

While these objections should by no means be taken lightly, they are not deal breakers as long as the list remains the exclusive domain of convicted criminals and suspects that are evidently dangerous, and cannot be apprehended by any other means. Crime has become more international, professional and brutal over the last decades. National law enforcement agencies in small European countries lack the powers necessary to tackle the problem. Even Belgium proved beyond the Dutch law’s reach.

The prosecutor should not be denied the assistance of the online community. Check and balances must be introduced however. It is not impossible to erase erroneous postings, and the public prosecutor should be required to do all within its power to do so when necessary. Legislation regarding this investigatory tool is also required. But still, the most wanted men are most wanted for a very good reason.