Les juges belges face à l'(in)exécution des peines

Self Cite

Belgium has a two-track policy towards prison release: a quasiautomatic administrative release system for those with a prison sentence of up to three years, and a discretionary system operated by multidisciplinary Sentence Implementation Courts for persons with a prison term of more than three years. This article describes, discusses and compares both release systems, with a particular focus on their rationales and consequences and provides updated figures on the use of the different forms of release in Belgium. The principle of relative autonomy will be described as an important legitimation strategy of conditional release. The article explains how the sentence implementation rationale of reintegration is put forward as an important aim of sentence implementation in the law and how it is pursued in practice. The consequences of the increasing use of the ‘gradual system’ of release on the detention trajectory of long-term prisoners will be illustrated.

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Belgian release policies, rationales and practices

Beyens

2019

Self Cite

“…41 Cf. prison sentences between six months and up to eight months through home detention length in the execution phase (Beyens, Françoise & Scheirs, 2010;Beyens, Snacken & van Zyl Smit, 2013). With the announced introduction of EM as an autonomous sanction in the sentencing phase and of GPS in the pre-trial phase, the risk of net-widening becomes however more likely.…”

Section: Conclusion: Expansion Rationalization and Differentiationmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…However, we do not know to what extent judges anticipate the quasi-automatic conversion of prison sentences of up to three years into EM. With regard to the quasi-automatic application of provisional release we know that sentencing judges admit that they do anticipate this by imposing longer prison sentences to compensate for the alleged reduction of the sentence length in the execution phase (Beyens, Françoise & Scheirs, 2010;Beyens, Snacken & van Zyl Smit, 2013). With the announced introduction of EM as an autonomous sanction in the sentencing phase and of GPS in the pre-trial phase, the risk of net-widening becomes however more likely.…”

Section: Conclusion: Expansion Rationalization and Differentiationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Electronic Monitoring in Belgium: A Penological Analysis of Current and Future Orientations

Beyens¹,

Roosen²

2013

Self Cite

Electronic monitoring was introduced nationwide in Belgium in 2000 and has expanded ever since. Currently important changes are taking place, radically transforming its operation and nature. The aim of this article is to describe and critically discuss the current shift in EM discourses and practices in Belgium from a penological perspective. We start with a brief sketch of the historical evolution of EM, explaining the penal and political context in which EM emerged and was further established, what goals it was supposed to meet and how these goals and practices shifted. With the new regulations of 2012 and 2013, both the rationale and the technology of EM have further evolved. These recent evolutions will be illustrated and situated in a consideration of the wider transformation of punishment in the community.

“…In 2000 a decree extended this maximum to one year. The six month 'myth' may well have originated in the older rule.14 The research actually showed that penal courts were also changing their sentencing practice and were, like in Belgium(Beyens and al., 2010), clearly pronouncing sentences slightly in excess of two years (as opposed to one year previously) in order to make sure that serious offences would not fall into the 'management' threshold of two years.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Six Month Limit to Community Measures ‘Under Prison Registry’: A Study of Professional Perception

Herzog‐Evans

2012

This paper deals with the sentence feasibility with a special focus on electronic monitoring. The purposes of this research were first to test the "six month limit" idea amongst practitioners, before the Prison Law was implemented; second to determine whether they tailored their decisions accordingly; third, how they initially welcomed the reform and in particular whether they thought that a two years "mesure sous écrou" was feasible; lastly, whether they had actually implemented the new two year limit and whether this had had an effect on how they perceived the six month absolute maximum. The conclusions put forward some reasons for this limit from the professional"s point of view.