Doing reintegration? The quest for reintegration in Belgian sentence implementation

Abstract

In this article, we aim to achieve a better understanding of reintegration in Belgian sentence implementation. In concreto, we ask the question if Belgian sentence implementation courts 'are doing reintegration'. Our analyses suggest the existence of a reintegrated-oriented decision-making process emphasising the strengthening of the social capital of the offender and enabling reintegration. Notwithstanding, we identify some barriers to reintegration. Firstly, we describe how the quest for reintegration is constantly interwoven with a more risk-based approach. As a result, 'doing reintegration' becomes subordinated by risk, wherefore the fundamental social right of reintegration is reduced to a conditional right only applicable if the offender displays certain needs, poses an acceptable risk and/or is prepared to take responsibility for this actions. Secondly, we argue how the members of the sentence implementation courts believe in 'psychological individualism' and project their middle class values and expectations of how someone should live on the offender, further narrowing the scope of this concept. We finish our analysis by identifying some external and structural aspects withholding the sentence implementation courts in 'doing reintegration', leading to a nuanced argument arguing that Belgian sentence implementation courts are not doing reintegration, although they believe they are (trying)…

Belgian release policies, rationales and practices

“…11 As the absence of prospects of reintegration are a general counter-indication for conditional release, while in prison, prisoners have to prove their perspectives and efforts to reintegrate in a social reintegration plan. Without a social reintegration plan, conditional release and also electronic monitoring or semi-detention are no options for the Sentence Implementation Courts (Scheirs, 2014, 2016). 12 Although the Sentence Implementation Courts apply the key elements of the reintegration plan, namely residence, work or daily activity and treatment, in a rather routinised and standardised way, Scheirs’ (2014) research illustrates that the assessment of the social reintegration plan gives them a large discretionary power and that there are significant differences and expectations in how reintegration plans are conceived and constructed.…”

“…This, however, was not the initial idea of the so-called ‘Commission Holsters’ 14 , who prepared the 2006 legislation (Snacken, 2004, 2014). Scheirs’s (2016) research and also research on recall (Beyens et al, forthcoming) shows that the members of the Sentence Implementation Courts see electronic monitoring as a safe form of transition to release (cf. monitoring of risks), and use it more and more often.…”

“…Three main anchor points guide the Sentence Implementation Court’s evaluation of the reintegration plan: (1) where the prisoner will reside on release; (2) how they will be occupied (work or any other day activity) and (3) whether they will be required to undergo treatment, e.g. drug treatment (Scheirs 2014, 2016).…”

“…The general conditions are stipulated by law and entail that the released person should not commit new offences 8 during his licence period, is required to have a home address, and has to respond to any questions and appointments with the justice assistant or Public Prosecutor. Typical individual conditions include an obligation to maintain meaningful daily activity and/or to follow a treatment plan, and prohibitions on drinking alcohol, on using drugs or possessing guns and/or on contacting the victim(s) of the offences that have led to the conviction (Scheirs, 2014, 2016).…”

“…criminology, psychology, sociology, law) and a minimal professional expertise of five years in matters of social reintegration or prison. Current assessors have professional expertise as prison governors, as members of the psychosocial service in prison or as justice-assistants (probation officer) (Scheirs, 2016: 86).…”