Comparing penal practices: the example of community service in Belgium, the Netherlands, Scotland and Spain (original) (raw)
Related papers
2003
Case 1-When the completed questionnaire explicitly indicates that the CSM does not exist in the legislation of a state, the entry in the tables is "***" meaning "question not applicable". Case 2-When the completed questionnaire explicitly indicates that the CSM exists in the legislation of a state but that it was not ordered during the reference year, the entry in the tables is "0". Case 3-When the completed questionnaire explicitly indicates that the CSM exists in the legislation of a state but that relevant statistical data are not available, the entry in the tables is …. Case 4-When the completed questionnaire indicates that there is provision for CSM but that the definition of the latter does not correspond with the definition used by SPACE, the entry in the tables is: (…). Where a country has provided figures, they are given in brackets. Case 5-When it cannot be decided whether the situation is as specified in Cases 1 to 4 "-" are entered. This is done when the questionnaire box is left blank or bears a symbol of imprecise meaning (e.g. " / ", "-"). Compensation order Community service Probation Electronic monitoring Semi-liberty ordered ab initio Conditional release Combined sanctions and measures Albania Andorra ***
Non-custodial sanctions and measures in the member states of the European Union: Comparative Report
2022
This comparative report is part of the project Promoting non-discriminatory alternatives to imprisonment across Europe (PRI Alt Eur), developed in partnership between Penal Reform International (PRI), the University of Coimbra, Portugal (UC) and the Hungarian Helsinki Committee (HHC) and funded by the European Union (JUST-JCOO-AG-2020). Guided by the ‘Council Conclusions on alternative measures to detention: the use of non-custodial sanctions and measures in the field of criminal justice’, of December 2019, the EU-funded project aims to contribute to the knowledge on and the promotion of the use of alternative sentences within the EU, through several activities, including this comparative study. The comparative study was based on national reports, provided by experts from EU Member States invited by the UC research team. The study encompasses 22 EU Member States: Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania and Sweden.
2013
The participation rate in the 2011 SPACE II Survey was satisfying: 44 out of the 52 Probation Agencies of the 47 Member States of the Council of Europe answered the questionnaire. About 80% of the Probation Agencies of the responding countries are placed under the authority of the national Ministry of Justice, even though this authority is shared with the Prison Administration in 50% of these cases. During the year 2011, 1 433 300 persons entered into supervision of the Probation Agencies, and 1 031 278 left that supervision. As a comparison, the year 2010 saw 1 387 620 (+ 3.3% in 2011) entries and 905 555 exits (+13.9% in 2011). On 31 st December 2011, there were 1 525 544 persons under the supervision or care of the Probation Agencies of the responding countries. On 31 st December 2010, this number was 1 176 852 (+ 29.6% in 2011). Although comparisons between 2010 and 2011 should be conducted cautiously as there are minor differences concerning the countries that answered both questionnaires, the trends in entries, exits, and stock of the probation population, suggest that persons are being placed under supervision for longer periods of time. The average European probation population rate was 208.6 probation clients per 100 000 inhabitants, which is slightly higher than in 2010, when there were 205.7 probation clients per 100 000 inhabitants. Non-custodial sanctions and measures are seldom used as an alternative to pre-trial detention: Roughly, only 10% of the probation population is placed under supervision before trial. Electronic Monitoring exists in around 60% of the responding countries. The device that is most commonly used is the ankle bracelet, existing in 77% of these countries. There is a great diversity in the ways of using Electronic Monitoring among the responding countries. In many cases, it is used as a way of executing home arrest as an alternative to prison or as a way of serving the remainder of a prison sentence. On average, female probation clients represented 9.1% of a responding country's total probation population on 31 st December 2011, whereas juveniles represented 7.5% of the same population, and foreigners 12.0%. On average, the responding countries count 8.6 probation staff members per 100 000 inhabitants, with great individual variation among the responding countries (min: 0.5, max: 55.7). Each probation staff member across Europe is in charge, on average, of 8.9 presentence reports.
From 'Community Service' to 'Autonomous Work Penalty' in Belgium. What's in a Name?
European Journal of Probation, 2010
In Belgium, community service (dienstverlening) for adults was introduced in 1994 as a condition of probation at the sentencing level and as a condition of mediation at the prosecution level. It became the so-called 'work penalty' (werkstraf) in 2002. This change in the terminology and the legal and penological basis, from an alternative sanction embedded in a rehabilitative approach to just another neoclassical form of punishment primarily aiming for retribution, ushered in another sentencing practice and led to a rapid increase in the number of work penalties imposed. This article describes the legal provisions governing the 'work penalty' and the peculiarities of its implementation in practice. It explores the possible explanations of the success of this sentence and the implications of that success for its execution.
2013
This is a unique and innovative series, the first of its kind dedicated entirely to prison scholarship. At a historical point in which the prison population has reached an all-time high, the series seeks to analyse the form, nature and consequences of incarceration and related forms of punishment. Palgrave Studies in Prisons and Penology provides an important forum for burgeoning prison research across the world.
Have community sanctions and measures widened the net of the European criminal justice systems?
Punishment & Society, 2015
Analysing the evolution of imprisonment and community sanctions in Europe from 1990 to 2010 this article tests whether community sanctions have been used as alternatives to imprisonment or as supplementary sanctions. The results show that both the number of persons serving community sanctions and the number of inmates have continuously increased in almost all European countries during the period studied. A comparison with the evolution of crime rates shows that the latter cannot explain such trends and suggests that, instead of being alternatives to imprisonment, community sanctions have contributed to widening the net of the European criminal justice systems. The analyses also show a wide diversity in the use of community sanctions across Europe where, in 2010, the ratio between inmates and persons serving community sanctions varied from 2:1 to 1:3. In a comparative perspective, Finland, Norway and Switzerland seem to have found a reasonable balance between the use of imprisonment ...