Executing prison sentences at home with electronic monitoring - advantages and disadvantages of the Scandinavian Model CEP workshop, Frankfurt 2014.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Life sentence in Finland and other Nordic Countries
Advertisements

Prison staff and harm reduction Additional module: Foreign prisoners Training Criminal Justice Professionals in Harm Reduction Services for Vulnerable.
The Probation Service and Irish Prison Service Introduction JUST/ /JPEN/AG/2943 Release and Resettlement of High Risk Prisoners Florence December.
AB 109 Public Safety Realignment December 5, 2013.
XVII CDAP Meeting with Judges and Prosecutors on Overcrowding in Prison Rome Mauro Palma Vice- Chair European Council for Penological Co-operation Council.
Chapter 15 Sentencing Options
1 Latvia and Implementation of framework decision No.947 on transfer of community sanctions Imants Jurevičius State Probation Service of Latvia Head of.
Department of Corrections Virginia Criminal Sentencing Commission “Prison Bound Offenders” Appropriations Act Item 387 D September 8, 2008.
The Spanish Prison System Laura Negredo Research & Evaluation Center John Jay College of Criminal Justice March 8, 2014 Beyond the Bars, 4th Annual Conference.
Criminal Law and Procedure LWB 232 Week 13 - Sentencing dispositions.
The Norwegian Correctional Menu With emphasis on minor crimes Director General Marianne Vollan, Norwegian Correctional Service Seminar in Riga, 30 September.
In cooperation with the Chapter 9 The use of non-custodial measures in the administration of justice Facilitator’s Guide.
El Paso County COMMUNITY CUSTODY PROGRAM AN OVERVIEW Originally Presented to EPC Board of County Commissioners November 14, 2002 CCP.
The contribution of Probation towards the improvement of detention conditions Leo Tigges, Secretary General CEP ’Improving Detention Conditions through.
Misdemeanor Sanctions
Public Safety Realignment Local custody for non-violent, non- serious, non-sex offenders Changes to State Parole Local Post-release Supervision Local.
Community Corrections
Probation A criminal sentence mandating that an offender be placed and maintained in the community Subject to certain rules and conditions.
GPS and High Risk offenders with a 2 country perspective from the Netherlands and France Names: Anneke Trinks / Rémi Bonnard or Marie Deyts EM conference.
Conférence Permanente de la Probation An introduction by Leo Tigges, Secretary General.
Developments of Probation and Mediation Service The Czech Republic.
Agenda 4 AGENDA 4: ALTERNATIVES TO IMPRISONMENT. Canada Fiji India (Bihar, Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu) Malaysia Experiences shared by: Thailand Brunei.
Perspectives from the Council of Europe on community sanctions Rob Canton Professor in Community and Criminal Justice De Montfort University, Leicester.
Prison and probation in cooperation – possibilities for improvement Rait Kuuse Director Prison of Tallinn.
Regimantas Mikaliūnas The mission is a systematic supervision of the Probation Service and the control of penitentiary institutions.
Heads of Pacific Youth Courts Juvenile Justice Fiji Status Report.
Probation service in Norway 1. Facts about Norway Inhabitants – 4.9 mill Prison capacity inmates Total number of cases/sentences started up in.
Probation, Parole, and Intermediate Sanctions
Folie # 1 Electronic Monitoring, Human Rights and Jurisprudence Silke Eilzer, Judge at the district court, Offenbach, December 11 th 2014.
1 CRJS 4476 Lecture #2. 2 Sentencing key here is in understanding the difference key here is in understanding the difference between the conviction and.
Integrating Treatment into Sentencing/Court Orders Hon. William F. Dressel President The National Judicial College.
Community Sanctions in Croatia Neven Ricijaš, Ph.D. Department of Behavior Disorders Faculty of Education and Rehabilitation Science University of Zagreb.
Chapter 6 Postimprisonment Community Supervision.
Probation, Parole, and Community Corrections
Chapter 4 Sentencing and punishment. In this chapter, you will look at the purposes and process of sentencing and the different factors affecting a sentencing.
Welcome to unit What’s New? Announcements Questions - Concerns.
Chapter 5 Intermediate Sanctions Alternatives to incarceration Operated by probation/parole agencies No need to create new bureaucracies More punitive.
An Overview of the Prison System in Lithuania Sandra Stanytė Social worker Vilnius archdiocese CARITAS In Service Training Course "Training Teachers and.
AS Level Law Machinery of Justice Sentencing. AS Level Law What you need to know and discuss: the need for a criminal justice system the main aims of.
Professor Anthea Hucklesby Centre for Criminal Justice Studies, University of Leeds, UK Co-funded by the Criminal Justice Programme.
High-Risk Offenders under the Age of 18 The Social Services Perspective Tove Pettersson National Board of Institutional Care (SiS) Sweden
DRUG TREATMENT PROGRAM SUPERVISED BY THE COURT BERGEN Inhabitants: app Number of injecting abusers: 1000 – 2500 OSLO Inhabitants: appr
(POST – TRIAL). The Act states that the sentencing judge is obliged to consider the following when sentencing:  Maximum penalty  Current sentencing.
AJ 50 – Introduction to Administration of Justice Chapter 10 – Probation, Parole, and Community Corrections.
Early Release Schemes in Hong Kong Mr. Kenneth LEUNG Principal Officer Hong Kong Correctional Services Department.
Nonresidential Intermediate Sanctions
Why does society punish offenders?
Chapter 12 Probation and Community Corrections. JUSTIFICATION Reintegration Preparing offenders to return to the community unmarred by further criminal.
Understanding the Criminal Justice System CJUS 101 Community-Based Corrections.
Viola Läänerand & Taavi Kruus
Corrections Chapter Twelve Reading
Chapter 10 Looking Toward the Future Overcrowded Prisons, Drugs, Laws, and Race 7 million Americans under correctional supervision; 2 million in prison.
Kaplan University Online CJ101 Unit 8 Introduction to the Criminal Justice System.
IMANTS JUREVIČIUS (LATVIA) MARET MILJAN (ESTONIA) GIEDRIUS RAMANAUSKAS (LITHUANIA) Electronic Monitoring in the Baltic states.
PROF. JUDR. PAVEL ŠÁMAL, PH.D. The Supreme Court of the Czech Republic Charles University in Prague, Faculty of Law, Department of Criminal Law Comenius.
Corrections Also known as community-based corrections Community corrections: Refers to a wide range of sentences that depend on correctional resources.
Electronic Monitoring Application in Turkey Deniz ÖZYÖRÜK April, 2016 Riga, Latvia.
The Role of Probation in the Pre-trial and Penitentiary Stages in The Netherlands in International Perspective Leo Tigges Former Secretary General CEP.
Management of Community Supervision Breaches in Latvia Imants Jurevičius Project Manager Project No.LV08/1 «Increasing the Application of Alternatives.
System Map Spain 27th January 2017
The second international meeting in Prague
10 Probation, Parole, and Community Corrections.
Running EM in a rural versus urban environment in Norway
System Map Estonia 8th November 2016
Chapter 9. The use of non-custodial measures
Understanding the Criminal Justice System
CEP International Conference on “Alternatives to detention”
Schematic Map of the Probation System
10 Probation, Parole, and Community Corrections.
Presentation transcript:

Executing prison sentences at home with electronic monitoring - advantages and disadvantages of the Scandinavian Model CEP workshop, Frankfurt 2014 Presented by: Anette Esdorf, Deputy Director-General, Department of Prisons and Probation, Denmark Jan-Erik Sandlie, Deputy Director for the Directorate of Correctional Service, Norway

EM in Denmark No alternative measure sentenced by court Execution of a prison sentence at home Maximum of 6 months Electronically monitored Controlled and Supervised by Probation Service Voluntarily (application) An administrative decision

EM – Conditions Accomodation Occupation Consent from cohabitants over 18 years No alcohol or drugs No new crime ”Appropriate”

The 439 electronically monitored ”home-prisoners” in Denmark (9/12-2014) distributed by crime:

Electronically Monitored ”Home-Prisoners” in DK 2005 - 2014

Experiences till now in Denmark: 60 % of all prison sentences ≤ 6 months are executed at home with EM Replace 400 prison places A high degree of compliance (less than 10% are revoked) Much lower recidivism rate than for prison Much cheaper than prison It is considered a punishment (strict control, quick reaction to breaches) Broad acceptance by public opinion, medias, justice system and politicians

Rate of Recidivism (2013) CUSTODIAL SENTENCE: 38% SUSPENDED SENTENCE: 29% COMM. SERVICE: 20% ELECTRONIC MONITORING: 17%

EM in Norway Pilot project started in 2008 Nationwide in 2014, with 11 units and a total capacity of 342 Front door and back door, up to 4 months Administrative decision, volentary (need to apply) One nightwatch-unit and one control centre for the whole country The Correctional Services have the superior responsibility of all parts Well-qualified staff of both prison officers and social workers Close and dynamic supervision of the offender; both support and control

Offender group and conditions As a main rule, violence and sexual crimes are excluded Mainly road traffic offences and economic crime Average monitoring periode is 34 days Suitable accommodation and occupations Approval from persons in the residence over the age of 18 Zero-tolerance of drugs and alcohol Minimum of two meetings at the probation office and two personal supervision at home or occupation per week

Experiences in Norway A political controversial decision in 2007, now a broader political agreement and a positive opinion Positive media coverage, making ground for constructive discussions Evaluation reports with positive results: 4,5% revocations, 7,5% recidivism after 2 years EM effects the entire Correctional Service

The main goal for EM in Norway Maintain and advance the social and economic capabilities of the offender. Integration in society, not only house arrest Rehabilitation; our EM approach supporting the offender’s needs Lower the use of imprisonment Flexibility Cost effectiviness

Development in numbers

Common experiences Human and trustworthy alternative to prison High compliance Low recidivism Dynamic support and control Replaces prison places Cheaper than prison, still relative expensive Broad acceptance

EM recommandation from the Council of Europe: CM/Rec (2014) 4, rule no “Decisions to impose or revoke electronic monitoring shall be taken by the judiciary or allow for a judicial review” “What is important here is that in cases where a decision is taken by an administrative body, including prison and probation services, effective judicial review is available to the persons concerned. Judicial review may be undertaken by a specific judicial body, a parole board or an ombudsman ‑ where parole boards themselves make or revoke an order involving electronic monitoring, their decisions should in turn be reviewable by a judicial authority”

European Rules on Community Sanctions and Measures (R 1992) No provisions shall be made in law for the automatic conversion to imprisonment of a community sanction or measure in the case of failure to follow any condition or obligation attached to such a sanction or measure” .

EM as a way of executing a Prison Sentence Advantages: No risk of net-widening Quick reaction to breaches of conditions High compliance Flexibel Administrative decisions in Scandinavia are qualified and reviewable (in Denmark not reviewable) Disadvantages: Human right persepective? Less judicial control?

The Scandinavian EM-model - discussions!