In the investigation, I think that the police are better able than anyone else to assess the seriousness of the threatening tweet. In assessing this, they are currently constantly balancing on the point of whether they should assess the threatening tweet as a misplaced joke, an expression of frustration, or a serious matter in which the impact of the threat could be particularly great for the victim or the environment. The question is, of course depending on the seriousness of the threat, whether the young perpetrators were not sufficiently confronted with their behavior after a visit from the police officer.
Perhaps a noble and important task is reserved for parents or teachers at this point by also delving lebanon phone number list into the online world of their children. Discussions about the use of Twitter in the classroom or at home at the kitchen table can certainly do no harm in this case. Social control will also have to extend to the online networks at this point. Although the police must take their task seriously by setting boundaries, it is certainly important to take into account the fact that a 13-year-old boy may not have been able to properly foresee the consequences of his intended joke and its impact when sentencing.
Perhaps a Halt settlement would achieve a more desirable effect for the young people than direct referral to the Public Prosecution Service. Alex Brenninkmeijer, the National Ombudsman of the Netherlands, warned in an interview with EenVandaag, and I think that was right. He emphasizes that we must be careful that the general public outrage does not cause both the Public Prosecution Service and the judiciary to take very drastic measures. “Be careful in this and take into account the fact that children are children and can unexpectedly do very strange things.”