Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Changes in European instruments as a reflection of a shift in legal philosophies relating to community sanctions and measures

  • Published:
European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The number of persons under community sanctions and measures in the criminal justice system have grown rapidly in many European countries. In response to this phenomenon, the Council of Europe has issued several recommendations on community sanctions and measures in recent decades. The European Union has also published two framework decisions concerning community sanctions and measures that are legally binding on its member states. This article examines the shifts of the general legal philosophies of European instruments on community sanctions and measures, through a review of the subtle changes in the rhetoric of these. Results show that community sanctions and measures are increasingly promoted because of their inherent value, rather than simply because they provide the means to reduce the use of imprisonment. The European instruments assert interdependence between the two objectives of offender rehabilitation and public protection, consider the indicators related to both as the criteria for effective supervision, and understand community sanctions and measures as being not only efficiency oriented but also based on Europe’s human rights framework. However, a particular concern — risk management of dangerous offenders — leads to looser interpretations of some principles of human rights. To retain the European image of resisting punitiveness, this problem can be addressed by firmer and stricter interpretation of these principles.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Preamble, Resolution (76)10.

  2. These recommendations include Recommendation No. R (92) 16, Recommendation Rec(2003)22 ‘On Conditional Release (Parole)’, Recommendation CM/Rec(2010)1, and Recommendation CM/Rec(2017)3.

  3. Preamble and Rule 1, Recommendation No. R(99)22.

  4. Preamble and Rule 18.4, Recommendation Rec(2006)2.

  5. Rule 2b, Resolution (76)10.

  6. Rule 3d, Resolution (76)10.

  7. Recommendation No. R(99)22 should not devalue the role of fines in reducing prison population. In Scandinavia and Germany, fines serves as a dominant alternative, and contributes effectively to low short-term imprisonment rates (Dünkel 2017; Lappi-Seppala 2008).

  8. Rules 3, 14, and 15, Recommendation No. R(99)22.

  9. Rule 17, Recommendation No. R(99)22.

  10. Rule 9, Recommendation No. R(99)22.

  11. Rule 2, Recommendation Rec (2000)22; Rule 18, Recommendation CM/Rec (2017)3.

  12. Rule 3, Recommendation Rec (2000)22; Rule 19, Recommendation CM/Rec (2017)3.

  13. The imprisonment rates have declined recently. According to Dünkel (2017), it is somewhat due to decriminalising minor property offences and declining in registered crimes and convictions in Eastern European countries, and partly because of the decreasing seriousness of registered crimes in the Netherlands, Germany and Spain.

  14. Preamble b, Recommendation No. R(92)16.

  15. Preamble a, Recommendation No. R(92)16.

  16. Preamble c, Recommendation No. R(92)16.

  17. Rule 3 of the Recommendation Rec(2003)22.

  18. Rule 1, Recommendation CM/Rec(2010)1.

  19. Scope and Purpose of the Commentary to Recommendation CM/Rec(2017)3.

  20. Article 1 (1), Council Framework Decision 2008/947/JHA; Article 2(1), Council Framework Decision 2009/829/JHA.

  21. Id.

  22. Article 1, Treaty of Amsterdam amending the Treaty on European Union.

  23. Article 11, Council Framework Decision 2008/947/JHA.

  24. Article 9 (1), Council Framework Decision 2008/947/JHA.

  25. Id.

  26. Article 9 (2) of the Council Framework Decision 2008/947/JHA.

  27. Preamble of the Resolution (76)10.

  28. Rule 22, Recommendation No. R(99)22; Rule 15, Recommendation Rec2000(22).

  29. Rule 70 and 71, Recommendation No. R(92)16.

  30. Rule 32 and 33, Recommendation CM/Rec (2017) 3.

  31. Preamble, Recommendation No. R(99)22.

  32. Rule 23, Recommendation No. R(99)22.

  33. Rule 1, Recommendation Rec(2003)22.

  34. Preamble, Recommendation No. R(92)16.

  35. Rule 76 to Rule 88, Recommendation No. R(92)16.

  36. Preamble, Recommendation Rec2000(22).

  37. Rule 22, Recommendation Rec(2000)22.

  38. Rule 23, Recommendation Rec(2000)22.

  39. Rule 22, Recommendation No. R(99)22.

  40. Scope and Application of Recommendation CM/Rec (2010)1.

  41. Rule 76, Commentary to Recommendation CM/Rec(2010)1.

  42. Rules 66 and 67, Commentary to Recommendation CM/Rec(2010)1.

  43. Rule 1, Recommendation CM/Rec(2010)1.

  44. Rule 57, Commentary to Recommendation CM/Rec(2010)1.

  45. Rule 8, Recommendation CM/Rec(2014)4.

  46. Rule 6, Recommendation CM/Rec(2014)3.

  47. Rule 62 to Rule 72, Recommendation CM/Rec(2017)3.

  48. Rule 23, Recommendation Rec 2000(22); Rule 37, Commentary to Recommendation CM/Rec(2017)3.

  49. Rule 1, Recommendation CM/Rec(2010)1; Rule 31, Commentary to Recommendation CM/Rec(2017)3.

  50. Rule 90, Recommendation No. R(92)16.

  51. Rule 99, Commentary to Recommendation CM/Rec(2017)3.

  52. Id.

  53. Id.

  54. Rule 104, Commentary to Recommendation CM/Rec(2010)1.

  55. Id.

  56. Rule 98, Commentary to Recommendation CM/Rec(2017)3.

  57. Rule 5, Recommendation No. R(92)16.

  58. Appendix 1, Recommendation Rec (2000)22.

  59. Rule 23, Recommendation Rec (2017)3.

  60. Preamble b, Recommendation No. R(92)16.

  61. Rule 21, Recommendation No. R(92)16.

  62. Preamble, Recommendation Rec (2000)22.

  63. Preamble b and Rule 4, Recommendation Rec(2017)3.

  64. These instruments include Recommendation Rec(2003)22, Recommendation CM/Rec(2010)1, and Recommendation CM/Rec(2014)4.

  65. Rule 36, Recommendation Rec(2003)22; Scope and Application, and Rule 2, Recommendation CM/Rec(2010)1; Preamble, Recommendation CM/Rec(2014)4.

  66. Article 1(4), Framework Decision 2008/947/JHA; Article 5, Framework Decision 2009/829/JHA.

  67. Article 3, European Convention on Human Rights; Article 4, Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

  68. Rules 21 and 22, Recommendation No. R(92)16.

  69. Rule 8, Recommendation CM/Rec(2017)3.

  70. Article 44 of the Report to the Czech Government on the visit to the Czech Republic carried out by the CPT from 25 March to 2 April 2008 (CPT/Inf (2009) 8).

  71. Articles 26, 27 and 28, Recommendation CM/Rec(2014)4.

  72. Article 49, Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU.

  73. Preamble c and Rule 3, Recommendation No. R(92)16.

  74. Rules 4 and 5, Recommendation No. R(92)16.

  75. Appendix 1, Recommendation Rec (2000)22.

  76. Rule 11, Recommendation Rec(2003)22.

  77. Rule 23, Recommendation CM/Rec (2017)3.

  78. Rule 23, Commentary to Recommendation CM/Rec (2017)3.

  79. Rule 8, Recommendation CM/Rec(2014)3.

  80. Bouchet v. France (2001).

  81. Rule 6, Recommendation No. R(92)16.

  82. Rule 5, Recommendation CM/Rec(2010)1.

  83. Rule 22, Recommendation CM/Rec(2017)3.

  84. Rule 4, Recommendation No. R (92)17.

  85. Article 2.2, Communication (COM/2011/0573).

References

  • Aebi, M. F., & Chopin, J. (2013). SPACE II–council of europe annual penal statistics: persons serving non custodial sanctions and measures: survey.

  • Aebi, M. F., & Delgrande, N. (2013). SPACE I–council of europe annual penal statistics: prison populations: survey.

  • Aebi, M. F., Delgrande, N., & Marguet, Y. (2015). Have community sanctions and measures widened the net of the European criminal justice systems? Punishment & Society, 17(5), 575–597.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ashworth, A., & Horder, J. (2013). Principles of criminal law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Baker, E. (2013). The emerging role of the EU as a penal actor. European Penology, 77-111.

  • Beyens, K. (2016). The new generation of community penalties in Belgium: more is less. Community Punishment: European Perspectives.

  • Bottoms, A. (2001). Compliance and community penalties. Community penalties: Change and challenges, 87-116.

  • Coyle, A. (2005). Revision of the European Prison Rules. European Prison Rules.

  • De Vos, H., Gilbert, E., & Aertsen, I. (2014). Reducing prison population: overview of the legal and policy framework on alternatives to imprisonment at the European level. https://www.law.kuleuven.be/linc/english/staff/00085883.

  • De Wree, E., Vander Beken, T., & Vermeulen, G. (2009). The transfer of sentenced persons in Europe: much ado about reintegration. Punishment & society, 11(1), 111–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dünkel, F. (2017). European penology: The rise and fall of prison population rates in Europe in times of migrant crises and terrorism. European Journal of Criminology, 14(6), 629–653.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Durnescu, I., Enengl, C., & Grafl, C. (2013). Experiencing supervision. Offender supervision in Europe (pp. 19-50). London: Springer.

  • European Committee on Crime Problems. (2014). Evaluation of the Committee of Ministers recommendations in the field of execution of penal sanctions and measures. (PC-CP (2014) 16 rev 3).

  • Gallant, K. S. (2009). The Principle of Legality in International and Comparative Criminal Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graebsch, C. M., & Burkhardt, S.-U. (2014). Ambulant sanctions as an alternative to imprisonment in the European Union. Sofia: Center for the Study of Democracy.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herzog-Evans, M. (2013). What’s in a name: penological and institutional connotations of probation officers’ labelling in Europe.p. 121.

  • Holdsworth, E., & Hucklesby, A. (2014). Designed for men, but also worn by women: Ella Holdsworth and Anthea Hucklesby point at the gender gap when coping with electronic monitoring. Criminal Justice Matters, 95(1), 14–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, R. (2014). The electronic monitoring of offenders: penal moderation or penal excess. Crime, Law and Social Change, 62(4), 475–488.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lappi-Seppala, T. (2008). Crime prevention and community sanctions in Scandinavia. Helsinki: National Research Institute of Legal Policy.

    Google Scholar 

  • Long, D., & Association for the Prevention of Torture. (2002). Guide to jurisprudence on torture and ill-treatment: article 3 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights. Geneva: Association for the Prevention of Torture.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mair, G., & Canton, R. (2007). Sentencing, community penalties and the role of the Probation Service. Handbook of Probation, 248-291.

  • Martufi, A., & Slingeneyer, T. (2017). Soft law instruments of the Council of Europe and community sanctions: criminal policy issues. In A. Bernardi (Ed.), Prison Overcrowding and Alternatives to Detention. Jovene: European Sources and National Legal Systems.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGuire, J. (2004). Understanding psychology and crime: Perspectives on theory and action. London: McGraw-Hill Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • McNeill, F. (2013). Community Sanctions and European Penology. In T. Daems, D. van Zyl Smit, & S. Snacken (Eds.), European penology? London: Bloomsbury.

  • McNeill, F., & Beyens, K. (2013). Offender supervision in Europe. London: Springer.

  • Morgenstern, C. (2009). European initiatives for harmonisation and minimum standards in the field of community sanctions and measures. European Journal of Probation, 1(2), 128–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morgenstern, C. (2016). Consultation about the European Rules on Community Sanctions and Measures. http://www.offendersupervision.eu/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/CSM-Rules-Consultation-Response.pdf.

  • Morgenstern, C., & Larrauri, E. (2013). European norms, policy and practice. Offender Supervision in Europe, pp. 125-154. London: Springer.

  • Morris, N., & Tonry, M. (1991). Between prison and probation: intermediate punishments in a rational sentencing system. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nellis, M. (2015). Standards and ethics in electronic monitoring report. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.

  • Phelps, M. S. (2013). The paradox of probation: Community supervision in the age of mass incarceration. Law & Policy, 35(1-2), 51–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, G. (2008). Late-modern rehabilitation The evolution of a penal strategy. Punishment & Society, 10(4), 429–445.

  • Robinson, G. (2013). What counts? Community sanctions and the construction of compliance. What works in offender compliance (pp. 26-43). London: Springer.

  • Robinson, G. (2016). The Cinderella complex: Punishment, society and community sanctions. Punishment & Society, 18(1), 95–112.

  • Robinson, G., & Crow, I. D. (2009). Offender rehabilitation: Theory, research and practice. Newcastle upon Tyne: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, G., & McNeill, F. (2008). Exploring the dynamics of compliance with community penalties. Theoretical Criminology, 12(4), 431–449.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, G., & McNeill, F. (2015). Community punishment: European perspectives. Abingdon: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Ruggiero, V., South, N., & Taylor, I. R. (1998). The new European criminology: crime and social order in Europe. Hove: Psychology Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Rutherford, A. (1984). Prisons and the process of justice: the reductionist challenge. London: Heinemann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Snacken, S. (2006). A reductionist penal policy and European human rights standards. European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research, 12(2), 143–164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Snacken, S. (2010). Resisting punitiveness in Europe? Theoretical Criminology, 14(3), 273–292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Snacken, S., & McNeill, F. (2012). Scientific recommendations. In D. Flore, S. Bosly, A. Hohon, & J. Maggio (Eds.), Probation Meaures and Alternative Sanctions in the European Union. Cambridge: Intersentia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stefani, G. (2016). Reducing prison population: advanced tools of justice in Europe. http://www.reducingprison.eu/downloads/files/TRAINING_PACKAGE.pdf.

  • Tonry, M. (2006). Purposes and functions of sentencing. Crime and Justice, 34(1), 1–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Zyl Smit, D. (1993). Legal standards and the limits of community sanctions. European Journal of Crime, Criminal Law and Criminal Justice, 1, 309.

  • van Zyl Smit, D., & Ashworth, A. (2004). Disproportionate sentences as human rights violations. The Modern Law Review, 67(4), 541–560.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Zyl Smit, D., Snacken, S., & Hayes, D. (2015). ‘One cannot legislate kindness’: Ambiguities in European legal instruments on non-custodial sanctions. Punishment & Society-International Journal of Penology, 17(1), 3–26. https://doi.org/10.1177/1462474514560186

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vermeulen, G., & De Bondt, W. (2014). EU justice and home affairs: institutional and policy development. Antwerpen: Maklu.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whitman, J. Q. (2003). Harsh justice: Criminal punishment and the widening divide between America and Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute For International Research on Criminal Policy, Faculty of Law and Criminology, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium

    Xue Yang

Authors
  1. Xue Yang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Xue Yang.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Yang, X. Changes in European instruments as a reflection of a shift in legal philosophies relating to community sanctions and measures. Eur J Crim Policy Res 25, 153–169 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10610-018-9369-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10610-018-9369-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation