European Journal of Probation

Publisher:: Sage Publications, Inc.
Publication date:: 2021-09-06

ISBN:: 2066-2203

Issue Number

No. 16-1, April 2024

Latest documents

Foreigners in the probation system in Italy: Substantial discrimination and challenges
Foreigners in prison and probation are formally protected by the same rights that are applicable to Italian citizens but official statistics actually offer a different panorama. In fact, no social bonding, scarce or no financial resources, the lack of a permanent domicile and of any regular work activity, heavily affect the access of foreigners to probation regimes. The most evident and direct consequence is that more foreigners are kept inside prison walls than in the probation regime, while an indirect and still understudied aspect is the high percentage of suicides among foreigners in prison. The authors, after presenting the main difficulties experienced by foreigners in accessing the Italian probation system, consider the possible link with the suicide rate, and underline the need for further specific research into this worrying topic.
Underuse of Framework Decision 2008/947/JHA in the Spanish legal system: The case of conditional release. A forthcoming change in trend!
The enactment of Framework Decision 2008/947/JHA encounters numerous impediments, with Spain representing a particularly instructive case. Although transposed into Spanish legislation in December 2014, the utilisation of this instrument remains notably infrequent. This scarcity in application is, in part, due to its omission in cases of conditional release, where there is a marked preference for pre-transposition statutes in affording such benefits to EU citizens. Nonetheless, insights from the annual meeting of Penitentiary Surveillance Prosecutors herald a pivot towards a mandatory engagement with Framework Decision 2008/947/JHA. This anticipated shift portends a broader adoption of this legal mechanism in the coming years, especially concerning conditional release. This paper delves into the challenges inherent in implementing Framework Decision 2008/947/JHA, with a particular focus on the Spanish jurisdiction. Following a thorough examination of relevant data and scholarly discourse, this study proposes a suite of recommendations aimed at enhancing the utility of this legal tool.
Enforcement of alternative measures to detention in EU countries: The Italian situation
With Framework Decision 2008/947/JHA, about the application of the ‘principle of mutual recognition to sentences and probation decisions with a view to the supervision of probation measures and alternative sanctions’, the European legislator intervened on the matter of criminal enforcement in order to coordinate those cases in which an ‘alternative sanction’ is issued in one country and executed in a foreign country. This regulatory act, in addition to allowing the implementation of some founding principles of the European Union – in particular the mutual recognition of judicial decisions as well as the freedom of residence and movement in the various member countries – also pursues the express aim of ‘strengthen the possibility of social reintegration of the convicted person, allowing him to maintain, among other things, family, linguistic and cultural ties, but also to improve the control of compliance with the probation measures and alternative sanctions with the aim of preventing recidivism, taking therefore consideration to the protection of victims and to the public, generally’.
Preface to the special edition on the application of the principle of mutual trust in matters of prison and probation
Navigating criminal justice cooperation: A French perspective on EU framework decisions
This article provides a nuanced exploration of the implications of EU criminal justice cooperation, particularly within French probation and judicial services. Focusing on EU Framework Decisions 2008/947/JAI and 2009/829/JAI, the article delves into their impact and adaptation in France, offering insights into challenges, adaptations, and practical considerations from the French standpoint. The article contextualises the implications of EU Framework Decisions by integrating valuable insights from the French probation and judicial services. Statistical data and case analyses illustrate practical challenges and applications within the French criminal justice landscape. The article highlights specific challenges faced within the French criminal justice system, such as prison overcrowding and the treatment of foreign nationals. It emphasises enhanced communication, trust, and collaboration among stakeholders within the European criminal justice system. Addressing the adaptation of EU Framework Decisions in France, the article navigates the complexities involved in aligning European law with national legislation and the delicate balance required to maintain sovereignty while embracing cooperative legal frameworks. The nuanced cultural perspectives permeating the French criminal justice landscape are examined to comprehensively understand the unique challenges and adaptations within the French context. The article also discusses the paradox between establishing European probation standards and the challenges in building trust among probation officers and stakeholders across European nations, offering potential strategies for improvement in European criminal justice cooperation. In conclusion, this article provides valuable insights into the complexities and challenges within European criminal law, offering directives for enhanced collaboration and effectiveness within the European legal landscape. It is a pivotal analysis contributing to informed discussions and policy decision-making within European criminal justice cooperation.
Positive harmonisation of national criminal law: Necessary or essential for mutual recognition?
Positive harmonisation of criminal law should only be a subsidiary means of implementing the principle of mutual recognition. Regarding criminal procedural law, this is laid down in Art. 67 TFEU (‘if necessary’) and in Art. 82(2) TFEU (‘to the extent necessary’). However, the effectiveness of the principle of mutual trust depends on the harmonisation of the national laws of the Member States, especially in cases when the national law of the executing State does not regulate at all aspects that may affect the nature or aggravate the sentence which is to be recognised. In this context, we will try to show that, if the alternative execution modality of a custodial sentence is not at all regulated in the national law of the executing State, its recognition and enforcement, with the consequent continuous deprivation of liberty of the sentenced person, could be considered an aggravation of the sentence and thus a violation of Article 8(4) of FD 2008/909. The paper thus highlights not only the differences between the legal frameworks of some Member States, but also how the lack of regulation on alternative execution modalities to custodial sentences or probation measures and alternative sanctions could stand in the way of reaching the purposes of Framework Decisions 2008/909 and 2008/947. On the other hand, we will show that although the framework decisions cannot have a direct effect, when applying national law, the national authorities are therefore required to interpret it, to the greatest extent possible, in light of the text and the purpose of the framework decision in order to achieve the result sought by that decision.
Book review: Routledge Handbook of Evidence-Based Criminal Justice Practices
Transfer of probationers under EU law: Rehabilitation and the question of legitimacy in the Netherlands
This article analyses the thorniest issues raised by the implementation in the Netherlands of Framework Decision 2008/947/JHA, often referred to as ‘European Probation Order’. It delves into Dutch law and practice regarding mutual recognition of probation measures and alternative sanctions and analyses how the Netherlands deals with principled questions with respect to the legitimacy of the transfer of probationers, both as a mechanism in itself and with respect to the ultimate goal of promoting social rehabilitation. The analysis focuses on (i) the basic tenets of the Dutch implementation (goals, competent authorities and application in Dutch legal practice); (ii) challenging issues regarding the types of probation measures and alternative sanctions eligible for recognition and the implementation of refusal grounds and (iii) how procedural rights and informed consent of the sentenced person are dealt with in relation to social rehabilitation.
Book Review: Punishment
‘Challenging’ doesn’t sum it up: Exploring probation practitioners’ experiences managing high-risk individuals during the COVID-19 pandemic
The COVID-19 pandemic has been, and still is, a worldwide health crisis. Despite the surge of literature on this phenomenon, little research has been conducted with the Probation Service during this time. The aim of this research was to explore Probation Practitioners’ (PPs’) experiences of the COVID-19 restrictions with a specific focus on those who access the Psychologically Informed Consultation Service (PICS). Further, to explore the experiences of key aspects of the COVID-19 pandemic through the lens of the Community Offender Personality Disorder Service. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 9 PPs who represented a broad cross-section in terms of age and years of experience in the role. Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis was used to explore the experiences of PPs and revealed 5 main themes: unmet support needs, problematic working environments, an emotionally distressing time, the use of PICS, and a silver lining. These findings are discussed with implications for further research.