Disengagement and exit work are increasingly gaining importance as pillars of extremism prevention. In light of this development, this article addresses various issues that arise from the intersection of deradicalization and disengagement work on the one hand, and criminal law on the other. It examines the extent to which participating in an exit program can affect sentencing. If a counseling relationship has already been established, the counseling practitioner may be called to testify as a witness. However, these witness statements could jeopardize the trust between the practitioner and the individual seeking counseling. In this context, the article discusses whether counseling professionals currently have, or should be, granted the legal right to refuse to testify. It concludes that the right to refuse to testify may be necessary from a legal policy perspective, and could significantly benefit society in the prevention of extremism. However, to align with constitutional requirements and avoid unduly impairing the administration of criminal justice, the right to refuse to testify must be carefully limited. Last, the article considers whether mandatory participation in a disengagement program, as a condition for probation or the suspension of a remaining sentence, could be an effective approach.