Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T17:56:06.491Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Concepts of Conditional Release in Western Europe

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 May 2009

Peter J.P. Tak
Get access

Extract

Conditional release regulations are known to the criminal law systems of all Western European States; in some States they have been in existence for more than a century. The implementation of conditional release was a considerable innovation in the legal systems and formed a definitive breach of the retributive legal philosophy that had guided classical penal law doctrine since the end of the eighteenth century under the influence of Montesquieu, Beccaria, Bentham and Von Feuerbach.

Type
Articles
Information
Netherlands International Law Review , Volume 36 , Issue 1 , May 1989 , pp. 19 - 48
Copyright
Copyright © T.M.C. Asser Press 1989

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. With the exception of Malta. See the Council of Europe's Organisation pratique des mesures de surveillance, d'assistance et d'aide post-penitentiaire pour les personnes condamnées ou liberées sous condition (Strasbourg 1970) p. 178Google Scholar.

2. See Jescheck, H.H., Die Freiheitsstrafe und ihre Surrogate im deutschen und auslän dischen Recht (Baden-Baden 1983)Google Scholar; Cartledge, C.G., Tak, P.J.P., Tomic-Malic, M., eds., Probation in Europe (1981)Google Scholar; Tak, P.J.P. and Kalmthout, A.M. van, Sanctions Systems in the Member-States of the Council of Europe, part I (Deventer 1988)Google Scholar.

3. See, for a more detailed historical survey, the contribution of the General, French Attorney, Arpaillange, P., ‘Le centenaire de la libération conditionelle (1885–1985)’, Archives de Politique Criminelle (1985) pp. 47–53Google Scholar.

4. See Ancel, M., Suspended Sentence (London 1971) pp. 9–10Google Scholar.

5. De I'amélioration de la loi criminelle (1855).

6. See Dressier, D., Practice and Theory of Probation and Parole, 2nd edn. (New York 1971) pp. 56–72Google Scholar.

7. Le Congrès Pénitentiaire Internationale de Stockholm par le Dr. Guillaume, Tome I, p. 302.

8. Holtzendorff, F. von, Die kürzungsfähigkeit der Freiheitsstrafen und die bedingte Entlassung der Sträflinge in ihrem Verhältnisse zum Strafmasse und zu dem Strafzwecken (Leipzig 1861)Google Scholar.

9. See the report of Simeon, J. in Proceedings of the XII International Penal and Penitentiary Congress (The Hague 1950) (1951) Vol. V, p. 328Google Scholar.

10. Marc, G., ‘Premières reflexions sur la reduction de peine’, Revue de science criminelle et de droit pénal comparé (1973) pp. 157–163Google Scholar.

11. See Stefani, G., Levasseur, G., Bouloc, B., Droit pénal général (Paris 1984) pp. 676–678Google Scholar.

12. Circular of 10 September 1986, Receuil Dalloz Sirrey (1986) pp. 487–491.

13. See Castejon, F., ‘Le système pénitentiaire de I'Espagne’, in Hugueney, L., Vabres, H. Donnedieu de, Ancel, M., Les grands systèmes pénitentiaires actuels (Paris 1950) p. 129Google Scholar.

14. See Samaniego, J.L. Manzanares, Individualizacion cientifica y libertad conditionai (Madrid 1984) pp. 39–49Google Scholar.

15. Section 54 of the Act of 26.7.1975 no. 354. See Grevi, V., ‘Das Italienische Strafvollzugsgesetz’, ZStW (1984) pp. 497–523Google Scholar.

16. Jackson, R.M., Enforcing the Law (Middlesex 1972) p. 212Google Scholar and Stern, V., Bricks of Shame, Britain's Prisons (Middlesex 1987) p. 114Google Scholar.

17. See the report presented by Grünhut, M. in op.cit. n.9, p. 245Google Scholar.

18. UN-Publ. A/Conf/6/1, pp. 37–38.

19. See Uusitalo, P., ‘Recidivism after Release from Closed and Open Penal Institutions’, The British Journal of Criminology (1972) pp. 211–229Google Scholar.

20. See Cartledge, et al. , eds., op.cit. n. 2, p. 350Google Scholar and Dias, J. de Figueiredo, ‘Les nouvelles tendances de la politique criminelle au Portugal’, Archives de politique criminelle (1983) pp. 193–207Google Scholar.

21. See Ipina, A. Beristain, ‘Les prison espagnoles ordinaires et militaires et leurs alternatives’, Revue de droit pinal et de criminologie (1980) p. 485Google Scholar.

22. See Bolle, P.H., ‘L'application de la liberation conditionnelle (art. 38 CP)’, in Erhaltung und Entfaltung des Rechts in der Rechtsprechung des Schweizerischen Bundesgerichts (Basel 1975) pp. 255–266Google Scholar.

23. See Ancel, , op.cit. n. 4, pp. 9–10Google Scholar.

24. See, e.g., ss. 56a–56g PC of the Federal Republic of Germany, ss. 38–40 PC of Denmark, ss 50–52 PC of Austria, ss. D 535–537 PC of France and ss. 13–16 Chapter 26 PC of Sweden.

25. See Anttila, I., ‘The Ideology of Crime Control in Scandinavia, Current Trends’, Selected Issues in Criminal Justice, HEUNI publication series no. 4 (Helsinki 1985) pp. 66–77Google Scholar; and Lahti, R., ‘Current Trends in Criminal Policy in the Scandinavian Countries’, in Bishop, N., ed., Scandinavian Policy and Criminology 1980–1985 (Copenhagen 1985) pp. 59–72Google Scholar.

26. Eliaerts, C., La révision de la loi sur la libération conditionelle: vers un droit de l'execution des peines’, Revue de droit penal et de criminologie (1980) pp. 915–930Google Scholar.

27. Schultz, H., Benefit und Vorentwurf zur Revision des allgemeinen Teils des Schweizerischen Strafgesetzbuches (Bern 1985) pp. 301–303Google Scholar.

28. See Tak, P.J.P., Alternatives to Imprisonment. A Comparative Survey of the Use of Alternatives to Imprisonment in the Member States of the Council of Europe, in Community Service as an Alternative to the Prison Sentence (Bonn, IPPF publication no. 28, 1987) pp. 101–114Google Scholar.

29. Brydensholt, H.H., ‘Crime Policy in Denmark. How we Managed to Reduce the Prison Population’, Crime and Delinquency (1980) p. 38Google Scholar.

30. Bataenkning no. 806/1977 København p. 47.

31. Straffrättskommittäéns Betänkande 1976: 72, Band I, Helsingfors 1978, p. 76.

32. Stern, , op.cit. n. 16, pp. 196–202Google Scholar.

33. See for the organization of the probation system, its tasks and functions, Cartledge, et al. , eds., op.cit. n. 2, pp. 246–298Google Scholar.

34. In op.cit. n. 9, p. 269.

35. See Tak, P.J.P., ‘Two Processes of Change in Probation Activities in a Comparative Perspective’, The Liverpool Law Review (1984) pp. 33–48Google Scholar.

36. Decision of the Arnhem Court, 24 May 1979, NJ 1977 No. 540.

37. Decision of the Arnhem Court, 24 April 1978, NJ 1978 No. 444.

38. ‘Voorwaardelijke invrijheidstelling tenzij …’, Report of the Committee on Conditional Release, Ministry of Justice, The Hague 1982Google Scholar.

39. Time spent on remand counts towards the minimum for release.

40. Under the previous regulations prisoners with sentences of between nine months and 13½ months might all be released on the same day, after serving nine months.

41. See Tulkens, J.J.J. and Verhagen, J.L.M., Een nieuwe VV en VI onder welke voorwaarden, straffen in gerechtigheid (Jonkersbundel) (Arnhem 1987) pp. 143–154Google Scholar.

42. See Wallen, P.E., Svensk straffrättshistoria, part 2 (Stockholm 1973) pp. 20–24Google Scholar.

43. See Anttila, I., ‘Conservative and Radical Criminal Policy in the Nordic Countries’, 3 Scandinavian Studies in Criminology (Oslo 1971) pp. 9–16Google Scholar; and Lahti, , loc.cit. n. 25, pp. 59–73Google Scholar.

44. The English translation of the 1965 Penal Code can be found in The Penal Code of Sweden, published by the Ministry of Justice (Stockholm 1965)Google Scholar.

45. Simson, G., Das swedische Kriminalgesetzbuch vom 21. Dezember 1962 nach dem Stand vom 1. January 1975 (Berlin 1976) p. 64Google Scholar.

46. Villkorlig frigivning, Nordisk Udredningsserie A. 1978:6.

47. Nytt straff system – Idéer och förslag (Stockholm 1977:7). An English summary was also published entitled A New Penal System: Ideas and Proposals (1978).

48. A New Penal System, op.cit. n. 47, pp. 36–39Google Scholar.

49. Villkorlig frigivning samt nämnder och lekmanna medverkan inom kriminalvárden, Delbetänkande av Fängelsestraffkommitén, Statens offentliga utredningar 1981:92 (1981).

50. See Kriminalvadotrd 1982–1983. Norrköping 1982 pp. 15–16.

51. Final report of the Committee on imprisonment entitled Paföljd för Brott, Om Strafskalor, Padotföljdsval, Straffmätning och villkorlig frigivning, Huvudbetänkande av Fängelsestraffkommittén, SOU 1986:14, part 2 Motiv p. 86.

52. Páfoljd för Brott, supra part 2 Motiv pp. 87–93.

53. See Antilla, J., ‘Neue Tendenzen der Kriminalpolitik in Skandinavien’, ZStW (1983) pp.739–748Google Scholar.

54. See n. 49 supra, p. 171.

55. See n. 49 supra, pp. 94–95 and 114, Frivardspaföljder, SOU 1981:90 pp. 97–99 and Nya alternate till frihetsstraff, SOU 1984:32 pp. 43–46.

56. See Arpaillange, P., ‘La libération conditionelle institution de politique criminelle’, Archives de politique criminelle (1986) pp. 47–53Google Scholar.

57. For further details on these figures see Pinatel, J., Traité élémentaire de science penitentiaire et de défense sociale (Paris 1950) p. 229Google Scholar.

58. See Aberkane, H., ‘La libération conditionelle comme mode de readaptation sociale des condamnes’, Revue de science criminelle et de droit pénal comparé (1957) p. 533Google Scholar; and Besancon, A., La libération conditionelle depuis le code de procédure pénal (Paris 1970) p. 29Google Scholar.

59. See Aberkane, , op.cit. p. 533Google Scholar and Ezratty, M., ‘La libération conditionelle en France depuis 1960’, Archives de politique criminelle (1986) p. 74Google Scholar.

60. See, for probation and aftercare in Cartledge, France et al. , eds., op.cit. n. 2, pp. 85–122Google Scholar.

61. For figures over the period 1955–1967, see Levasseur, G. and Doucet, J.P., Le droit pénal apptiqué (Paris 1969) p. 363Google Scholar.

62. See, for further details, Ezratty, , loc.cit. n. 59, pp. 74–78Google Scholar.

63. See Pradel, J., Droit penal general, Vol. 1, 5th edn. (Paris 1986) p. 756Google Scholar.

64. Ezratty, , loc.cit. n. 59, pp. 81–83Google Scholar provides figures for the period between 1980 and 1984. Positive release decisions by the Minister have decreased since 1972 from 79% to 43% and by the JAP from 29% to 18%. The absolute figures of positive release decisions taken by the JAP increased from 2,981 to 4,243.

65. Pradel, , op.cit. n. 63, p. 754Google Scholar.

66. Ezratty, , loc.cit. n. 59, p. 80Google Scholar.

67. See the Circurar, of 10 September 1986, in Receuil Dalloz Sirey (1986) pp. 487–491Google Scholar.

68. See Waaben, K. in Gammeltoft-Hansen, H., Gomard, B., Philip, A., eds., A, Danish Law.General Survey (Copenhagen 1982) p. 362Google Scholar.

69. See, for the parole procedure in England, section 59 Criminal Justice Act 1967 and Schedule 2 to this Act, in Archbold, , Criminal Pleading, Evidence and Practice, Paras. 659–659dGoogle Scholar; and Borrie, C.G., ‘The Prisoner's Status in Parole Decisionmaking’, in Thomas, D.A., ed., Parole. Its Implications for the Criminal, Justice and Penal Systems (Cambridge 1974) pp. 18–29Google Scholar; and for the parole procedure in Belgium, C. de Troy, ‘Les philosophies de la peine dans le champ de la libération conditionelle’, Revue de droit pénal et de criminologie (1979) pp. 107–125Google Scholar.

70. See Calewaert, W., Is de voorwaardelijke invrijheidstelling aan herziening toe? (1987)Google Scholar; Williams, J.E. Hall, ‘Natural Justice and Parole’, Criminal Law Review (1975) pp. 82–91 and 215–223Google Scholar; Hood, R.G., ‘Some Fundamental Dilemmas of the English Parole Systems and a Suggestion for an Alternative Structure’, in Thomas, D.A., ed., op.cit. n. 69, pp. 1–17Google Scholar.

71. Since 12 February 1987 known as the European Prison Rules, see Recommendation No. R(87)3, Council of Europe (1987).

72. See Hauge, R., ‘Institutional Dilemmas in Probation and Parole”, 2 Scandinavian Studies on Criminology (Oslo 1968) pp. 41–52Google Scholar.

73. See, e.g., Sparks, R.F., ‘Recherche sur l'utilisation et l'efficacité de la probation de la “parole” et des mesures d'aide post-penitentiaire', in op.cit. n. 1, pp. 263–290Google Scholar.

74. See Stern, , op.cit. n. 16, p. 202Google Scholarreferring to Review of Parole in England and Wales, HMSO (1981) paras. 39–40Google Scholar.

75. See Straffrättskommittèns Bet¨ankandes, supra, n. 31 p. 76.

76. See, e.g., Christie, N. in Strafferettslig utilregnelighet og strafferettslige saerreaksjoner, NOU 1974: 17, p. 139Google Scholar; Anttila, , loc.cit. n. 25, p. 68Google Scholar; A New Penal system supra, n. 47, p. 37; and Morris, T., ‘The Case for Abolishing Parole’, New Society (1980) pp. 282–284Google Scholar.