LATVIA IA POLAND D UK UK [ [3 jd jds] ] SPAIN IN FRANCE - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

EU STATES INVOLVED

LATVIA IA POLAND D UK UK [ [3 jd jds] ] SPAIN IN FRANCE ITALY PORTUGAL GREECE

PROJECT AIMS

• Assess c

current nt p practices a and nd r recent nt develo lopme ment nts a across a all A ll A2C: p : pre-t

• trial, a

l, as sanc nctions ns/me measures, a , and nd p post-r

• rele

lease. .

• Build

ld a a c comparative p picture, t , to i ident ntify y strategies t to end nd t the he o

• ver-u
• use o
• f p

prison. n.

OUTPUTS – 1. NATIONAL REPORTS

8 na nationa nal r l reports w with u h up t to 1 15 y years o

• f q

quant ntitative d data o

• n:

n:

• prisone

ner nu numb mbers

• use o
• f a

alt lterna natives, a , at a all t ll thr hree s stages Reports a als lso c cont ntain: n:

• verview o
• f na

nationa nal p l poli litical c l cli lima mate r re p prisone ner nu numb mbers a and nd key le y legal a l and nd p poli licy d y develo lopme ment nts i in A n A2C i in a n all 8 ll 8 s states

• detaile

led d descriptions ns o

• f ho

how A A2Cs a and nd p probation s n sys ystems ms w work i k in n practice, t , the heir a aims ms, i , impacts ( (+/-)

• ), r

, reha habili litation v n valu lue, e , effect o

• n

n eg eg w wome men, no n, non-na n-nationa nals ls, f , fami mili lies, v , victims ms. .

OUTPUTS - 2. NATIONAL WORKSHOPS

• Each p

h partne ner he held ld t two w works ksho hops w with e h experts o

• n c

n crimi mina nal ju l justice int ntervent ntions ns

• Focus w

was i int ntervent ntions ns i in A n A2C t tha hat w were mo most li likely t ly to r reduce prisone ner nu numb mbers a and nd r recourse t to p prison. n.

• Led t

to w wide r rang nge o

• f p

practical e l example les a and nd r recomme mmend ndations ns. .

• Als

lso he help lped e eli licit s set o

• f p

princ nciple les f for b better u use o

• f A

A2C. .

OUTPUTS - 3. HANDBOOK

Europea

ean h handbook o

• n Al

Alter ernatives es t to C Custody Sets o

• ut e

effective p practices a and nd p proposals ls f for r reform. m. Cont ntains ns

• the

he r recomme mmend ndations ns o

• f na

nationa nal e l experts a and nd t the heir example les o

• f g

good p practice

• the

he A ACE p partne ners’ a ’ agreed p poli licy a y and nd r reform m recomme mmend ndations ns o

• n e

n effective u use o

• f A

A2C t to r reduce t the he use o

• f p

prison a n and nd i improve o

• utcome

mes f for t tho hose i in C n CJS. .

PROJECT’S KEY FINDINGS

• Wide v

varianc nce a amo mong ng t the he 8 8 s states i in t n the he nu numb mbers s subje ject t to c commu mmuni nity y based s sanc nctions ns a and nd c cont ntrols ls, w , whi hich a h are q quite ne new i in s n some me c count ntries, , but w well-e ll-establi lishe hed i in o n othe hers

• Substant

ntial g l growth i h in t n the he u use o

• f c

commu mmuni nity s y sanc nctions ns s sinc nce 2 2000 alo long ngside hi high – h – a and nd, i , in mo n most c cases, g , growing ng – – p prisone ner nu numb mbers

• Move a

away f y from r m reha habili litative, s , supportive, i , ind ndividuali lised i int ntervent ntion n programme mmes, t , towards g greater c cont ntrol a l and nd p puni nishme hment nt

• Poli

licy e y empha hasis i inc ncreasing ngly o ly on r n risk-ma

• mana

nageme ment nt, w , with p h prison o n often t n the he automa matic s sanc nction i n if a a r requireme ment nt o

• r c

cond ndition i n is b breache hed

• A f

few e exceptions ns, b , but ma mainly i nly in t n the he f form o m of s sma mall s ll scale le p pilo lots. .

DATASETS: PRE-TRIAL

SANCTIONS: IMPACT OF CSM ON PRISONER NUMBERS

• Very li

y little le i impact – – nu numb mbers mo move i ind ndepend ndent ntly o ly of e each o h othe her i in mo n most states. . P Pola land nd

Franc nce

A la larger E European s n study r y recent ntly c ly conc nclu luded: : In Instea ead o

• f b

bei eing a alter ernatives es t to i imprisonmen ent, c , community sanctions a and m mea easures es h have c e contributed ed t to w widen ening t the n e net o

• f

the E e Europea ean c criminal ju justice s e system

• ems. T

. The s e situation i in E Europe i e is thus s similar t to t the o e one d e des escribed ed 2 20 y yea ears a ago i in t the U e United ed States es a and C Canada… [ [Thes ese m e mea easures es] h have b e bec ecome o e one o e of t the e instrumen ents o

• f a

an i increa easingly p punitive a e approach t to c crime c e control [Ae Aebi M MF, , De Delg lgrand nde N N, , Mar Margu guet Y Y, ‘H , ‘Have c commu mmuni nity s y sanc nctions ns a and nd me measures w widene ned t the he ne net o

• f t

the he E European c n crimi mina nal ju l justice sys ystems ms?’, P ’, Puni nishme hment nt & & S Society 2 y 2015, V , Vol 1 l 17(5) 5 575-5

• 597. ]

. ]

POST-RELEASE MEASURES

• Us

Use o

• f p

probation a n and nd o

• the

her c cont ntrols ls a after r rele lease ha has e expand nded, ,

• ften o

n out o

• f s

sync ync w with r h resources t to p provide r real p l practical s l support. .

• EM u

use ha has e expand nded i in mo n most s states. .

• Parole

le: g : great v varianc nce i in e n eli ligibili lity a y and nd a access a across 8 8 s states

• Home

me d detent ntion: g n: gene nerally o lly only a nly availa lable le f for le less s serious

• ffenc

nces. .

• Ge

Gene neral w l weakne kness o

• f d

data me means ns ha hard t to s see i impact o

• n o

n overall ll prisone ner nu numb

• mbers. B

. Better d data a and nd mo moni nitoring ng ne needed. .

POLITICAL CLIMATE AND POLICY SINCE 2000

• Radical r

l reforms ms r rare ( (but, L , Latvia a and nd P Portugal s l saw s some me – – discussed la later)

• State r

respons nses t to o

• vercrowded p

prisons ns a and nd hi high r h reconviction n rates, w , were b based o

• n e

n expedienc ncy no y not d deeper, e , evidenc nce-b

• based r

re- evalu luation o n of p pena nal p l poli licy y

• Mixed me

messages a around nd C CSM t the he no norm ( m (E&W a a c case i in p n point nt)

GOOD PRACTICE EXAMPLES

Nationa nal w l works ksho hops p produced e example les o

• f f

five t typ ypes. . (1) R Reconf nfiguration o n of p poli licy a y and nd p practice

• Di

Diversion f n from p m prosecution a n and nd C CJS f for t tho hose c cha harged w with d h drug possession, t n, to a allo llow v volu lunt ntary p y participation i n in t n the herapeutic t treatme ment nt a and nd

• the

her s support ( (Portugal) l) (2) S Sent ntenc ncing ng r reforms ms

• Reforms

ms t to s sent ntenc ncing ng a and nd c crimi mina nal la l law t to r reduce p prisone ner nu numb mbers (Latv Latvia) a)

• A s

statutory p y presumption a n agains nst s sho hort-t

• term i

m imprisonme nment nt ( (Scotla land nd)

GOOD PRACTICE EXAMPLES

( (3) Di

Diversion f n from c m crimi mina nal ju l justice a at t the he p pre-t

• trial s

l stage

• Early d

ly diversion f n from p m prosecution f n for y young ng d drug o

• ffend

nders ( (Gr Greece: : OKANA p pilo lot s sche heme me)

• Pre-t
• trial p

l probation, c n, capable le o

• f e

exting nguishi hing ng o

• ffenc

nce ( (It Italy: ‘ ly: ‘Me Messa ssa alla lla pr prova’) ’)

• Di

Diversion f n from c m crimi mina nal ju l justice f for t tho hose i in ne n need o

• f me

ment ntal he l healt lth h care, ha , having ng le learni ning ng d disabili lity o y or d difficult lty, o , or c commu mmuni nication n difficult lty ( y (‘L ‘Liaison a n and nd Di Diversion’: E n’: Eng ngla land nd a and nd W Wale les)

• De

Deferred s sent ntenc ncing ng, w , with o h or w witho hout p probation, a n, as a a me metho hod o

• f

diverting ng f from c m custody t y tho hose w with s h substanc nce d depend ndenc ncy ( y (Franc nce)

GOOD PRACTICE EXAMPLES

( (4) Di

Diversion/ n/support p post-c

• conviction

n

• Non-c

n-custodial p l pena nalt lty r y repla lacing ng s sho hort-t

• term c

m custody w y whe hen s n suspend nded sent ntenc nce b breache hed ( (Pola land nd)

• Di

Diverting ng w wome men f n from p m prison a n and nd s supporting ng t the hem i m in t n the he c commu mmuni nity y (‘W ‘Wome men’s n’s c cent ntres’: UK ’: UK)

• Suspend

nded s sent ntenc nce w with i h ind ndividuali lised p probation s n support ( (Franc nce: : ‘Cont ntraint nte péna nale le’) ’)

• Commu

mmuni nity-b

• based t

the herapeutic s sche heme me f for c certain d n dome mestic v viole lenc nce

• ffenc

nces ( (Portugal: ‘ l: ‘Cont ntigo’ p ’ programme mme)

• Traini

ning ng a and nd r reha habili litation p n programme mmes t to r repla lace le leng ngthy p y periods o

• f

commu mmuni nity s y service ( (Spain) n)

GOOD PRACTICE EXAMPLES

( (5) P Post-r

• rele

lease me measures Regiona nal c l counc ncils ls a aiding ng r resettle leme ment nt o

• f e

ex-p

• prisone

ners ( (Pola land nd)

POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

Do Downs nsize t the he p prison s n sys ystem: e m: end nd t the he u use o

• f c

crimi mina nal ju l justice t to deal w l with s h social p l proble lems ms (1) (1) M Mini nima mal r l resort t to p prison i n in s n sent ntenc ncing ng (2) (2) R Reduce p prison p n popula lations ns t to r reduce ha harms ms, s , save r resources a and nd enha nhanc nce c commu mmuni nity s y safety y (3) (3) R Rethi hink ho nk how w we u use c commu mmuni nity s y sanc nctions ns: c : core p princ nciple les

AL ALTERNATIVES T TO C CUSTODY: C CORE P PRINCIPLES

• Pre-t
• trial

l

• CSM

CSM

• After p

prison n

• Effects o
• f b

breach h

• Account

ntabili lity a y and nd t trans nsparenc ncy y

TO LEARN MORE

• Event

nts

• Nationa

nal r l reports a and nd d datasets

• EU H

U Hand ndbook k ht http:/ ://www.c .crime meand ndju justice.o .org.u .uk/ k/proje ject/european- n-

• bservatory-a
• alt

lterna natives-c

• custody