Prevention of crime sound good, but can ‘unpleasant side effects’ have. A society where the “precautionary principle prevails comes dangerously close to a state audit. The “alarming examples” are there for the taking. Think of restraining risk youth, the Mosquito youth counterpart, the “weekend package” catering to violence, the sharing of confidential information in the Bibob process and encourage citizens navigation behavior.

In the concluding chapter of the “Trend Signalement 2010 Crime Prevention Security Center warns today an against ” over enthusiastic application of preventive measures. They probably do “more harm than good”. So the danger is that “anyone who deviates from the norm”, as citizens risk being labeled. This can lead to wrongful abduction, false family interventions, false denials, suspicion or prohibited area.

With a solid implementation of preventive measures may also according to the CCV ‘uncertainty intolerance “grow further: the unwillingness to either a” certain degree of insecurity “to accept. The public does not believe that society is doable, but when it comes to safety. Then the state must protect the citizens of all evil. The riots in Hook of Holland could thus lead to “disproportionate control” of events, the number of inspections and grows through the “intervention force” of the State are ‘excessive’ .