Reflections on alternatives to imprisonment - examples from the Danish penalty system

In the previous issue of this Journal a very rough overview of different sorts of punishments and sentencing practise in Denmark was presented. Focus was community sanctions, how they are regulated in the law, how they are used in practise and the experiences.

In this article criminological and legal reflections on alternatives to imprisonment will be presented. Starting point will be an attempt to differ between alternative punishments in general and alternatives to imprisonment. It will be argued that a clear differentiation is important. Secondly the concept of netwidening will be introduced and the two main alternatives to imprisonment in Denmark, namely Community Sanction Orders and the electronic anklet will be considered in the light of this concept. Finally other reflections on these two punishments will be presented.

However, from the very beginning it must be stated clearly that even if this article points at critical and problematic aspects of the alternatives, im- prisonmentmust always be looked upon and used as the absolutely last resort. Imprisonment always creates much more problems for the citizens and therefor also for the society than an alternative. And further, imprisonment is leading to much more recidivism than the alternatives and is always much moreexpensive for the society than any alternative!

Alternative punishments and alternatives to imprisonment

In my daily job I teach students at different educational levels in criminal law and criminology. Very often the students do not reflect on the difference between the categories of alternative punishments and alternatives to imprisonment. However, if we do not differentiate we create a risk of missing the overview over practise in sentencing and consequently we bring two important general principles namely a) the principle of proportionality between crime and punishment and b) the principle of equal punishment for equal crime at risk, too.

From a linguistic point of view if the “ordinary” punishment is impri s- onment all punishments that are different from imprisonment are alternative. In that sense for instance fines (financial penalties), which are in most countries used for quite different offences, are alternatives. But in criminal law and sentencing it is important to be clear about whether imprisonment actually is an option in a specific case or not. If an offence is of a type or of so little gravity that it would not lead to imprisonment according to sentencing practice, another punishment, for instant a fine will be used. This is an alternative - but not an alternative to imprisonment (because imprisonment was not an option).

If, however, an offence would lead to imprisonment according to the national Criminal Law and sentencing practice but there are other options and the court chooses the other option, then an alternative to imprisonment is chosen. Such options are normally described as more lenient than imprisonment and meant for offenders who, based on more or less certain criteria, “deserves” another chance.

If we do not make this distinction and therefor miss the clarity about when imprisonment is the “right” choice then we are easily mislead into unclear and stricter sentencing practice than the legislator intended and the practitioners think.

This is often described as a netwidening function of alternatives to imprisonment.

Netwidening

In Denmark the community service orders have been debated in the light of netwidening. Community service orders are initially defined as alternatives to unconditional imprisonment but it was for technical reasons included in the Criminal Law as a condition in a conditional prison sentence. In Denmark the traditional “sentencing ladder” from the most lenient end (if a fine is not an option) is:

1) Conditional sentence without a definition of the length of the possible prison sentence

2) Conditional sentence with a clear definition of the length of the possible prisonsentence

3) Conditional sentence with or without a definition of the length of the possible prison sentence and a community service order

4) Unconditional imprisonment

The intention was that unconditional imprisonment should be “deserved” before community service was brought into use. But over time many different arguments are used for community service orders. There are politicians, professionals and also judges, who argue that community service would be of big pedagogical value in a specific case even if the case - according to the “ladder” is on step one. These are not evil persons who want the penalty level stricter in the society. But the consequences are that the sentenced person is looked upon as an offender who has committed a more serious crime than he has. And if he comes before the court another time his way to unconditional imprisonment is markedly shorter than it would have been had those people not wanted to do the “best” for him.

Likewise there are good reasons to be aware of the electronic anklet. The electronic anklet is implemented differently. It is not part of the Criminal Law but included in the Corrections Act and therefor is the anklet not an option in the hands of the courts but of the prison administration. The consequence of this is that after an unconditional prison sentence is imposed the offender in certain cases may apply for electronic anklet. In this case there should be no risk that an unconditional sentence is not “deserved” in the actual cases. But in practice as well judges as defense lawyers sometimes argue that an unconditional sentence will be good because an electronic anklet probably will help the offender keeping a constructive and fruitful daily schedule for a period. This means that in order to do “the best” for a client/accused we jump directly to step 4 without the case actually being suitable for it according to sentencing practices.

Community service orders and electronic anklet

In the first article from Denmark it was mentioned that there is a long general tradition of political consensus in the country. This tradition was very strong in criminal policy and still there is a strong “give-and-take” practice in this political field. This means that many decisions are based on different political standpoints.

The decision of introducing community service orders in the 1980'ies was a very good example. One political party argued that this was a good chance of making offenders have sweat on their brow; another party argued that community service would be of great pedagogical value and the big Social Democratic Party argued that this would be a very cheap way of punishing offenders. All of them voted for community service orders to be implemented in the criminal law.

After some time with community service orders the demands for prove for the effects came up. Initially the reconviction rate after community service orders and imprisonment were compared. But of course this was not trustworthy as we could not be sure that the prognoses were comparable because the offender in some cases would not have ended up in prison if the community service had not been an option. Over time more sophisticated methods have been used but there is always a tiny seed of doubt in relation to the results.

Another critical point in relation to community service orders is the social disparity. Before an offender can be sentenced to community service order the Probation Service must find him suitable and he must give his consent. And the chances to be found suitable is (of course) much better if the person has a job, housing and do not have drug-problems. This has been debated very much but is very complicated to avoid because it is seen as being a “risk” for the society if he is not taken behind bars and we cannot accept “big risks” by keeping those with the biggest problems in the society.

The critical reflections on the electronic anklet are a bit different. In order to be allowed to serve a prison sentence with an electronic anklet instead of going to prison the offender must be evaluated by certain decentralized “anklet-units” in the probation service. The staff here is composed by police officers, prison officers and a few social workers. It is steadily questioned if this secures sufficient qualified practice of discretionary power. Like in the case of the community service orders there is an obvious risk of social disparity. For instance it is impossible to demand from a homeless that he stays at home after work (which a homeless most probably doesnot have anyway).

Some debaters also raise the question of the influence of the alternatives on the prisons. If we steadily keep those offenders who have most personal resources and to the largest degree are able to fit into the society out of prison, then we create prisons for those of our citizens who are closest to the bottom of the society. And that implicates a risk that nobody cares because nobody will learn what it is to be in prison and for the politicians there will be no votes to go for. So finally the society will create big social and ethical problems for itself.

And to finalize the circle of arguments: of course the problem of dumping the weakest into prison is only a realistic risk to that degree that those who receive the alternatives really would go to prison and are not victims of the netwidening.

Closing remarks

To end up the same way as we started: this article is not meant to argue that alternatives to imprisonment should be removed or not be introduced. On the contrary: the intention has been to inspire to solid preparation and awareness of obvious challenges in order to constantly develop the penalty system as a whole. We must be aware of the fact that imprisonment is an expensive form for punishment which in many countries is used much more often than necessary and much more often than it is appropriate if we want a society with less crime and fewer victims.

This was number three of a series of brief introductions to the Danish penalty system. More will follow in following issues of this Journal.

If somebody has critical remarks, questions or suggestions please turn directly to me and I will try to include the aspects.

Анотація

Шторгард А. Роздуми про альтернативи тюремного ув'язнення - приклади із пенітенціарної системи Данії

В попередніх випусках журналу «Публічне право» був представлений дуже загальний огляд різних видів покарань та оголошення вироків, які застосовуються у практиці Данії. Особлива увага надавалась покаранням у вигляді громадських робіт: як вони регулюються в законі та як використовуються на практиці.

В даній статті представлені кримінологічні та загальноправові роздуми про альтернативи тюремного ув'язнення. Для початку ми спробуємо розрізнити альтернативне покарання (умовний термін із громадськими роботами) в цілому та альтернативи тюремного ув'язнення. Обговоримо концепцію розширення кримінальної відповідальності (посилення покарання) та два основних типи альтернатив ув'язнення в Данії, а саме: сукупність громадських робіт та електронний браслет.

Тюремне ув'язнення завжди створює набагато більше проблем для громадян і всього суспільства, ніж альтернатива. Крім того, позбавлення волі частіше призводить до рецидиву, ніж альтернативні варіанти.

Якщо ми не розрізняємо категорії альтернативних покарань та альтернативного ув'язнення, то створюємо ризик у правильності обрання вироку, дотримуючись двох принципів, це - принцип пропорційності між злочином і покаранням, а також принцип еквівалентності злочину до еквівалентності небезпеки злочину.

З лінгвістичної точки зору всі покарання, крім тюремного ув'язнення, - це альтернативні покарання. У цьому розумінні штрафи, які застосовуються у більшості країнах до різних видів злочинів, є також альтернативами. Але в кримінальному праві при винесенні вироку важливо мати чітке уявлення про те, чи дійсно потрібно застосовувати позбавлення волі, чи ні.

- У Данії існують традиційні етапи вироків від найбільш м'якого до більш тяжкого:умовне покарання без визначення терміну можливого тюремного ув'язнення;

- умовне покарання із чітким визначенням терміну можливого тюремного ув'язнення;

- умовне покарання з або без визначення терміну можливого тюремного ув'язнення разом із громадськими роботами;

- позбавлення волі.

Є політики, фахівці, а також судді, які стверджують, що громадські роботи матимуть велику педагогічну цінність в кожному конкретному випадку. Крім того, якщо злочинець потрапляє до суду не вперше, то шлях його до останнього етапу - позбавлення волі - буде помітно коротшим.

Також є вагомі причини в Данії застосовувати електронний браслет, який реалізовується по-різному. Він не є частиною кримінального права, але включений до закону про виправні роботи, тому браслет застосовується тюремною адміністрацією. Наслідком цього є те, що після тюремного ув'язнення до злочинця в деяких випадках може застосовуватися електронний браслет.

Важливим моментом у застосуванні громадських робіт є соціальна нерівність. Перед тим, як злочинець має бути засудженим до громадських робіт, служба пробації повинна знайти для нього належний вид робіт, на який злочинець має дати згоду. І шанс отримати кращий вид громадських робіт мають особи, у яких є робота, житло, які не мають проблем з наркотиками. Соціальна нерівність проявляється і у випадках із застосуванням електронних браслетів. Наприклад, не можливо вимагати у безпритульної особи, щоб він після роботи залишався вдома.

Отже, стаття не присвячена твердженням про введення чи виведення альтернатив тюремного ув'язнення. Ми повинні знати те, що тюремне ув'язнення є досить дорогим видом покарання, який у багатьох країнах застосовується частіше, ніж це необхідно.

Ключові слова: особливості санкцій; розширення кримінальної відповідальності (посилення покарання); альтернативне покарання; альтернатива тюремного ув'язнення; умовне покарання; позбавлення волі; соціальна нерівність;електронний браслет; служба пробації.

Анотація

Шторгард А. Размышления об альтернативах тюремному заключению - примеры из пенитенциарной системы Дании

В данной статье представлены криминологические и общеправовые размышления об альтернативах тюремному заключению. Для начала мы попробуем различить альтернативное наказание (условный срок с общественными работами) в целом и альтернативы тюремному заключению. Обсудим концепцію расширения уголовной ответственности (усиление наказания) и два основных типа альтернатив заключения в Дании, а именно: совокупность общественных работ и электронный браслет.

Ключевые слова: особенности санкций; расширение уголовной ответственности (усиление наказания); альтернативное наказание; альтернатива тюремному заключению; условное наказание; лишение свободы; социальное неравенство, электронный браслет; служба пробации.

Annotation

criminological penalty imprisonment responsibility

Storgaard A. Reflections on alternatives to imprisonment - examples from the Danish penalty system

This paper presents criminological and general legal thinking about alternatives to imprisonment. First we try to discern alternatives entence (suspended sentence of community service) in general and alternative prison. Discuss the concept of expansion of criminal responsibility (greater sanctions) and two main types of alternatives to imprisonment in of Denmark, namely a set of public works and electronic bracelet.

Key words: Community sanction; netwidening; alternative punishment; alternative to imprisonment; conditional sentence; imprisonment; social disparity; electronic anklet; the Probation Service.

Размещено на Allbest.ru