In the Dutch court of justice, judges judge threats based on the ‘Wetboek van Strafrecht, art. 285’. Jurisprudence shows that three criteria need to be met in order for a threat to be prosecutable....Show moreIn the Dutch court of justice, judges judge threats based on the ‘Wetboek van Strafrecht, art. 285’. Jurisprudence shows that three criteria need to be met in order for a threat to be prosecutable. The hearer of the threat must have knowledge of the threat, the perpetrator must have had the intention to threaten and the hearer must have experienced a reasonable amount of fear. Analysis of jurisprudence concerning threats shows that judges do not apply these criteria systematically, sometimes resulting in disputable judgements. By using the speech act theory and pragma-dialectics, we can discern two types of threats: expressive threats, wherein the speaker expresses an emotional state and instrumental threats. The speaker uses these threats to force the hearer to do something. Corpus study of cases with threats and the jurisprudence shows that expressive threats pose the greatest challenge in the Dutch legal system. These threats are often similar to speech acts like challenges and insults, making it difficult for judges to apply the criteria to determine if a threat is prosecutable or not. By using the speech act theory and pragma-dialectics, judges can become more aware of the similarity of threats to other speech acts and thus judge them more objectively and in a more systematic way.Show less
