Recall to prison in Belgium: Back-end sentencing in search of reintegration

Abstract

In recent years, the United States and England and Wales have witnessed growing re-incarceration rates. This growth is not only due to the courts sending more people to prison (‘front-end sentencing’), but also due to an increasing number of revocations of early release measures, mainly following technical violations of licence conditions (so called ‘back-end sentencing’). However, it is unclear whether the same phenomenon exists in other (European) countries. Therefore, we empirically studied prison recall decision-making processes in Belgium by file analysis, complemented with focus groups with the decision makers involved in the recall process of prisoners with a sentence of more than three years. We found that the recall process in Belgium is embedded in a strong narrative of ‘giving chances’ and that all decision makers deploy a large amount of discretion, which they use to make deliberate decisions in an attempt to facilitate parolees’ reintegration process. Non-compliance with imposed conditions does not automatically lead to recall and even when a parolee is sent back to prison, recall is framed by the decision makers as a step in the reintegration process, not the end of it.

Belgian release policies, rationales and practices

“…And although prisoners are eligible earlier for electronic monitoring in their way out (six months before the conditional release eligibility date), which can be seen as a positive aspect, it is also evident that due to the long and complex process and (institutional) delays, prisoners are released under electronic monitoring only at the time that they are eligible for parole, therefore being subject to a stricter regime, which can be considered as both widening and thinning the mesh of punishment (Cohen, 1985; see also Snacken, 2014). At the same time, we also see that the failure rates and thus recall rates for those who are put under electronic monitoring are higher than for those who are conditionally released without electronic monitoring (Beyens et al, forthcoming).…”

“…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.…”

“…During the preparatory discussions in the Commission Holsters, that prepared the Act of 2006 , the proposal to equal the probation period to the imposed sentence length was not followed (Snacken, 2014). Research with the members of the Sentence Implementation Courts on recall decision-making also found resistance to the idea of ensuring equivalency between post-custody supervisory periods and the original sentence length (Beyens et al, forthcoming). That this is not an impossible option, however, is illustrated by Scotland, where a law reform of 2015 guarantees that all long-term prisoners will be released at least six months prior to the expiry of their full sentence, thus ensuring supervision and support during the first months after release (McIvor et al, 2019).…”

“… 8. Research on recall to prison (Beyens et al, forthcoming) finds, however, that a legal conviction for a new offence is required to be able to recall a sentence modality. …”