The Enforcement of Offender Supervision in Europe by Miranda Boone Niamh Maguire

Author:Miranda Boone, Niamh Maguire [Miranda Boone, Niamh Maguire]
Language: eng
Format: epub
ISBN: 9780367481933
Barnesnoble:
Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Published: 2021-03-31T00:00:00+00:00

Legislation

Work penalties

Legal criteria for imposing a work penalty

Although community service has been used as a condition of penal mediation since 1994 by prosecutors, this chapter only deals with work penalties, which were introduced as a main stand-alone sentencing option in correctional and police cases by the Act of 17 April 2002 (for more information see Beyens, 2010). Judges can impose between 20 and 300 hours of work (and 600 hours in case of recidivism), though sentences of more than 300 hours are very exceptional. Work penalties can be imposed for a wide range of offences and only very serious crimes, such as kidnapping, rape, sexual offences with minors, murder and manslaughter, are excluded. To allow widespread usage of the work penalty there are no limits with regard to the criminal record of the defendant. As it is the explicit aim to avoid social stigmatisation as much as possible and to neutralise the negative impact of the conviction on the future life of the convicted person, work penalties are not mentioned on the criminal record. The judge determines the number of hours and can give indications on how these hours should be implemented (for example, the kind of work or workplace). Defendants or their solicitor have to give their consent during the court hearing. A work penalty is always imposed together with a substitute sentence to be enacted in the event of breach. The substitute sentence can be a prison sentence or a fine. There are no conversion tariffs for hours of work penalties into fines or days in prison, which in practice leads to disparities. In the event of violation of a condition, the prosecutor decides whether or not to execute the substitute sentence. In 2005, 49 per cent of the substitute sentences were prison sentences and 60 per cent were fines, resulting in 9 per cent of the cases with a combination of both sentences (which is unlawful). Judges have a strong preference for prison sentences of six and 12 months: 77 per cent of all substitute prison sentences were less than 12 months and the mean substitute prison sentence length was eight months (Dominicus, 2006; Beyens, 2010). Parys (2010) found in her research in Brussels that, if substitute sentences were (low) fines, convicted persons solicited for the substitute sentence, and subsequently increased failure rates. In addition, Caslo (2015) mentions that sometimes the implementation of the substitute sentence is requested by the defendants. With regard to the enforcement of the substitute prison sentence a ‘credible’ execution of the substitute imprisonment is emphasised. As short-term prison sentences of up to six months are not performed in Belgium due to prison overcrowding, the ministerial circular letter explicitly stipulates that substituted sentences of imprisonment for breached work penalties have to be effectively executed. However, in recent years, sentences of up to three years are no longer executed in prison, but instead with electronic monitoring. This leads to the (very confusing) situation that persons originally sentenced to a work penalty can end up with electronic monitoring if they do not comply with the conditions of the work penalty.

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.