Have community sanctions and measures widened the net of the European criminal justice systems?

Abstract

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 and community sanctions.

Mass probation: Toward a more robust theory of state variation in punishment

“…Aebi and colleagues (2015) find that some low-imprisonment European counties have comparatively very large probation populations. …”

“…Although probation is routinely described as an “alternative” sanction designed to divert cases down from prison, research suggests that it often functions as a “net-widener,” diverting cases up from fines and other non-supervisory punishments (Aebi, Delgrande, & Marguet, 2015; Blomberg, 2003; Morris & Tonry, 1991). Further, probationers experience supervision as a punitive intervention with its own pains, including deprivations of autonomy, family life, and time—and the very real fear of revocation, or return to jail or prison for violating the terms of supervision (Doherty, 2016; Durnescu, 2010).…”

“…While probation is defined as an “alternative” to prison, research suggests that it serves as a “net-widener” that increases overall supervision (Aebi, Delgrande, & Marguet, 2015; Phelps, 2013). Probation also imposes substantial harms on supervisees (Durnescu, 2010), including onerous conditions that give probation officers tremendous power and discretion (Doherty, 2016).…”

Mass supervision, misrecognition and the ‘Malopticon’

“…Similar penal trends are apparent in many other European jurisdictions. Aebi, Delgrande and Marguet, (2015) suggest that the expansion of these forms of sanction has led to widening of the net, sweeping more European citizens into diversifying forms of penal control.…”

Discourses of Mass Probation: From Managing Risk to Ending Human Warehousing in Michigan

“…Consistent with this narrative, corrections departments in both the US and UK increasingly adopted many of the “tough” innovations associated with the new penology, including electronic monitoring, frequent drug testing, partnerships with the police, and “intensive” supervision programs, making compliance more difficult and increasing revocation rates (Robinson, McNeill, & Maruna 2012). Together with a massively expanding population, this led to probation increasingly serving as a “net-widener” that expanded the total number under supervision and increased prison growth (Aebi, Delgrande, & Marguet 2015; Klingele 2013; Phelps 2013). …”