This morning, A.J.R. appeared before the Judge to hear his sentence. The case was heard in April 2026, during which the Prosecutor demanded 6 years in prison for A.J.R. along with mandatory treatment (TBS).
It was understood that the Judge, in his ruling, emphasized the need to protect the community from A.J.R. He confirmed the Prosecutor’s demand but imposed additional conditions.
Attempted murder not proven
The Judge stated it has been legally proven that on August 12, 2025, A.J.R. attempted to kill K.v.d.B. by stabbing him 8 times with a knife. However, the Judge acquitted A.J.R. of the charge of attempted murder (moordpoging), which the Prosecutor believed was proven. The Judge found insufficient evidence to classify the act as attempted murder. In the Judge’s opinion, the messages referred to by the Prosecutor do not clearly indicate when they were sent and are not enough to qualify the act as premeditated attempted murder.
Self-defense rejected
The Judge rejected the defense attorney’s argument that A.J.R. acted in self-defense. The Judge found that A.J.R. actively went looking for K.v.d.B. Furthermore, the Judge pointed out that security camera footage clearly showed A.J.R. aggressively approaching K.v.d.B., drawing a knife, and stabbing him.
Previous punishment did not help
Regarding the sentencing, the Judge highlighted that A.J.R. stabbed K.v.d.B. 8 times, and K.v.d.B. could have died. The Judge also noted that K.v.d.B.’s young son was present during the stabbing and even walked up to his father.
The Judge expressed deep concern over the fact that A.J.R. had been released from KIA (Aruba’s prison) for only 2 weeks—after serving a 10-year sentence for attempted manslaughter—before committing the exact same act. The Judge concluded that the previous 10-year prison sentence did not help deter A.J.R.
Mandatory treatment needed
The Judge stated he took into account the reports from the psychologist and psychiatrist, as well as the Probation Service (Reclasering) report. The psychological and psychiatric evaluations show that A.J.R. possesses an antisocial and paranoid personality. The experts concluded that A.J.R. was experiencing a paranoid state during the incident, making him less responsible (verminderd toerekeningsvatbaar) for his actions. Both the psychologist and psychiatrist fear that A.J.R. will repeat the offense.
The experts recommended that A.J.R. receive mandatory treatment (TBS) under special conditions. This treatment does not mean A.J.R. must be institutionalized full-time; they indicated that A.J.R. could attend daytime treatment sessions at Respaldo and return home afterward. They believe the Probation Service can help guide and supervise A.J.R.
During the court proceedings in April 2026, A.J.R. stated that he agreed to the treatment. The psychologist and psychiatrist noted that sending A.J.R. to the Netherlands would not be appropriate. They emphasized that A.J.R. must comply with all directives from the Probation Service, including monthly check-ins. Additionally, it was stated that as soon as A.J.R. is released from KIA, he must immediately begin an aggression replacement training course.
The Judge also issued a restraining order, prohibiting A.J.R. from having any contact with his ex-girlfriend and the victim.
Sentence
The Judge upheld the Prosecutor’s demand of 6 years in prison, minus the time already spent in pre-trial detention at KIA. In the Judge’s opinion, a lesser sentence would not do justice to A.J.R.’s actions. The Judge emphasized that this sentence is meant to protect the community. He added that A.J.R.’s development must be monitored and that the mandatory treatment program does not have a fixed time limit. Normally, a treatment period of 2 years is set, but in this specific case, no end date was established.