Advertisement

Implementation of community sanctions and measures across Europe at the beginning of the twenty-first century

An empirical analysis focusing on supervision and community service
  • Jörg-Martin Jehle
  • Nina Palmowski
Article

Abstract

This study is based on a project aiming at a methodology to collect data on community sanctions and measures (CSM) and on a recent data collection wave by the European Sourcebook of Crime and Criminal Justice Statistics. The study evaluates the implementation of CSM across Europe and focuses on the integration of these sanctions into the criminal justice system; at the same time, it examines data availability and comparability. Since the types of available sanctions and measures and the underlying penal systems differ significantly between countries, our approach went beyond the national level and looked for a comparative European perspective. We extended the boundaries of the Council of Europe (CoE) Annual Penal Statistics [Statistiques Pénales Annuelles du Conseil de l’Europe; or SPACE II project] and collected data on CSM at three different levels: at the prosecution stage (CSM imposed on an offender as a condition for a conditional disposal), at the sentencing level (CSM ordered by the court), and CSM supervised by probation and similar agencies. By analyzing the major forms of supervision and community service, we found data availability, especially at the level of the court and probation agencies, is quite good, and the importance of CSM in the sentencing policy of countries throughout Europe differs. Despite the diversity of legal concepts, a certain degree of convergence can be observed. Based on this, the potential for better criminal justice statistics revealed by this project can be used for improving the European-wide comparability of information in this field.

Keywords

Community sanctions and measures Definitions Data and metadata Europe Supervision Community service European Sourcebook 

References

  1. Aebi, M. F. (2010). Methodological issues in the comparison of police-recorded crime rates. In S. G. Shoham, P. Knepper, & M. Kett (Eds.), International handbook of criminology (pp. 211–227). Boca Raton: CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aebi, M. F., & Chopin, J. (2014). Council of Europe Annual Penal Statistics: SPACE II. In Persons serving non-custodial sanctions and measures in 2013. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.Google Scholar
  3. Aebi, M. F., Aubusson de Cavarlay, B., Barclay, G., Gruszczyńska, B., Harrendorf, S., Heiskanen, M., Hysi, V., Jaquier, V., Jehle, J.-M., Killias, M., Shostko, O., Smit, P., & Thorisdottir, R. (2010). European Sourcebook of crime and criminal justice statistics – 2010 (4th ed.). Den Haag: Boom.Google Scholar
  4. Aebi, M. F., Akdeniz, G., Barclay, G., Campistol, C., Caneppele, S., Gruszczyńska, B., Harrendorf, S., Heiskanen, M., Hysi, V., Jehle, J.-M., Jokinen, A., Kensey, A., Killias, M., Lewis, C. G., Savona, E., Smit, P., & Thorisdottir, R. (2014). European Sourcebook of crime and criminal justice statistics – 2014 (5th ed.). Helsinki: Hakapaino Oy This article is based on the corrected version, which can be found at: unil.ch/europeansourcebook.Google Scholar
  5. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Albrecht, H.-J., & van Kalmthout, A. (2002). Community Sanctions and Measures in Europe and North America. Freiburg i.Br.: edition iuscrim.Google Scholar
  7. Canton, R. (2011). Probation: Working with offenders. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  8. Cavadino, M., & Dignan, J. (2006). Penal systems. A comparative approach. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  9. Council of the European Union. (2008). 947/JHA of 27 November 2008 on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to judgment and probation decisions with a view to the supervision of probation measures and alternative sanctions. OJ L 337/102, 16 December.Google Scholar
  10. Council of the European Union. (2009). 829/JHA of 23 October 2009 on the application, between Member States of the European Union, of the principle of mutual recognition to decisions on supervision measures as an alternative to provisional detention. OJ L 294/20, 11 November.Google Scholar
  11. Council of Europe. (1992). Recommendation no. R (92) 16 of the Committee of Ministers to member states on the European Rules on community sanctions and measures (adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 19 October 1992). Strasbourg: Council of Europe.Google Scholar
  12. Council of Europe. (1999a). European Sourcebook of crime and criminal justice statistics. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.Google Scholar
  13. Council of Europe. (1999b). Recommendation no. R (99) 22 of the Committee of Ministers to member states concerning prison overcrowding and prison population inflation (adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 30 September 1999). Strasbourg: Council of Europe.Google Scholar
  14. Council of Europe. (2000). Recommendation rec(2000)22 of the Committee of Ministers to member states on improving the implementation of the European Rules on community sanctions and measures (adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 29 November 2000). Strasbourg: Council of Europe.Google Scholar
  15. Council of Europe. (2010). Recommendation CM/rec(2010)1 of the Committee of Ministers to member states on the Council of Europe Probation Rules (adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 20 January 2010). Strasbourg: Council of Europe.Google Scholar
  16. Dünkel, F., & Pruin, I. (2009). Community sanctions and the sanctioning practice in juvenile justice Systems in Europe. In J. Junger-Tas & F. Dünkel (Eds.), Reforming juvenile justice (pp. 183–204). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Flore, D., Bosly, S., Honhon, A., & Maggio, J. (Eds.). (2012). Probation measures and alternative sanctions in the European Union. Cambridge: Intersentia.Google Scholar
  18. Gruszczynzka, B., & Heiskanen, M. (2012). Trends in police-recorded offences. European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research, 18, 83–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Heiskanen, M., van der Brugge, W., & Jehle, J.-M. (2014). Aims of the project. In M. Heiskanen, M. F. Aebi, W. van der Brugge, & J.-M. Jehle (Eds.), Recording community sanctions and measures and assessing Attrition (pp. 15–21). Hakapaino Oy: Helsinki.Google Scholar
  20. Jehle, J.-M. (2013). Crime and criminal justice in Europe. The approach of the European Sourcebook. In A. Kuhn, C. Schwarzenegger, P. Margot, A. Donatsch, M. F. Aebi, & D. Jositsch (Eds.), Criminology, criminal policy and criminal law in an international perspective, essays in honour of Martin Killias on the occasion of his 65 th birthday (pp. 191–205). Stämpfli: Zürich.Google Scholar
  21. Jehle, J.-M., & Harrendorf, S. (2014). How to record data on community sanctions and measures and the work of probation agencies across Europe: The approach of the European Sourcebook. In S. Caneppele & F. Calderoni (Eds.), Organized crime, corruption and crime prevention. Essays in honor of Ernesto U. Savona (pp. 93–101). Heidelberg: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. McIvor, G., Beyens, K., Blay, E., & Boone, M. (2010). Community service in Belgium, the Netherlands, Scotland and Spain: A comparative perspective. European Journal of Probation, 2(1), 82–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. McNeill, F., & Beyens, K. (Eds.). (2013). Offender supervision in Europe. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  24. Morgenstern, C., & Larrauri, E. (2013). European norms, policy and practice. In F. McNeill & K. Beyens (Eds.), Offender supervision in Europe (pp. 125–154). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Muncie, J. (2013). Net widening. In E. McLaughlin & J. Muncie (Eds.), The SAGE dictionary of criminology (3rd ed., pp. 282–283). London: SAGE.Google Scholar
  26. Nelken, D. (2012). Comparing criminal justice. In M. Maguire, R. Morgan, & R. Reiner (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of criminology (5th ed., pp. 138–156). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Nellis, M., Beyens, K., & Kaminski, D. (Eds.). (2013). Electronically monitored Punishment: International and critical perspectives. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  28. Palmowski, N., Campistol, C., Jehle, J.-M., & van Kalmthout, A. (2014). Community sanctions and measures and probation agencies. In M. Heiskanen, M. F. Aebi, W. van der Brugge, & J.-M. Jehle (Eds.), Recording community sanctions and measures and assessing Attrition (pp. 22–125). Hakapaino Oy: Helsinki.Google Scholar
  29. Robinson, G. (2016). The Cinderella Complex: Punishment, society and community sanctions. Punishment & Society, 18(1), 95–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Robinson, G., & McNeill, F. (Eds.). (2016). Community Punishment. European perspectives. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  31. Smit, P., van Eijk, A., & Decae, R. (2012). Trends in the reaction on crime in criminal justice Systems in Europe in 1990-2007 : A comparison of four European regions. European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research, 18, 55–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Tournier, P. V. (2002). Alternatives to detention in Europe. Penal Issues, 15–17.Google Scholar
  33. United Nations (1990). United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for Non-custodial Measures (The Tokyo Rules), General Assembly resolution 45/110 of 14 December 1990.Google Scholar
  34. Van Kalmthout, A., & Durnescu, I. (Eds.). (2008). Probation in Europe. Nijmegen: Wolf.Google Scholar
  35. Van Kalmthout, A., & Durnescu, I. (Eds.). (2014). Update of Probation in Europe; www.cep-probation.org.
  36. Von Hofer, H. (2000). Crime statistics as constructs: The case of Swedish rape statistics. European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research, 8, 77–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Georg-August-University of GöttingenGöttingenGermany

Personalised recommendations