Vrije Universiteit Brussel

Electronic Monitoring in Belgium: from a rehabilitative to a managerial approachBeyens, Kristel

Publication date:2016

Document Version:Other version

Link to publication

Citation for published version (APA):Beyens, K. (2016). Electronic Monitoring in Belgium: from a rehabilitative to a managerial approach. Paperpresented at 9th Annual Seminar , Dublin, Ireland.

General rightsCopyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright ownersand it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights.

• Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research. • You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain • You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portalTake down policyIf you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediatelyand investigate your claim.

Download date: 05. Dec. 2020

EM  in  Belgium:  from  a  rehabilita4ve  to  a  managerial  

approach  

Kristel  Beyens  Vrije  Universiteit  Brussel  

 

DUBLIN  ESC  WG  CS  &  M,  27  May  2016  

Compara4ve  research  •  Creativity and effectiveness in the use of

electronic monitoring as an alternative to imprisonment in EU member states (EU Action Grant, 2014 – 2016)

•  Belgium (Beyens), The Netherlands (Boone), Germany (Dünkel), Scotland (McIvor and Graham), England and Wales (Hucklesby)

•  Have a look at our webpage for the reports •  h#p://emeu.leeds.ac.uk

2  

Context  of  rising  prison  popula4on  

3  

5000  

6000  

7000  

8000  

9000  

10000  

11000  

12000  

1980  

1981  

1982  

1983  

1984  

1985  

1986  

1987  

1988  

1989  

1990  

1991  

1992  

1993  

1994  

1995  

1996  

1997  

1998  

1999  

2000  

2001  

2002  

2003  

2004  

2005  

2006  

2007  

2008  

2009  

2010  

2011  

2012  

2013  

2014  

2015  

 EM  :  A  story  of  growth  

0  

200  

400  

600  

800  

1000  

1200  

1400  

1600  

1800  

2000  

1999          2000          2001          2002          2003          2004          2005          2006          2007          2008          2009          2010          2011          2012          2013          2014          2015          

Expansion,  expansion,…  

•  Poli>cal  appe>te  for  EM  •  EM  as  a  panacea  for  peniten>ary  problems  

•  Extending  the  scope  of  EM  – Today:  pre-­‐trial,  front-­‐door,  back-­‐door,  post-­‐sentence  

– Future  :  sentencing  phase,  mentally  ill  

•  New  techniques  –   RF,  voice-­‐verifica>on,  GPS  

5  

From  an  integrated  to    a  ‘cold’  stand  alone  measure  2000  –  2006  

 SUPERVISORY  APPROACH  

•  Part  of  a  rehabilita>ve  peniten>ary  strategy  

•  Strict  selec>on  and  close  supervision  

•  Integrated  use  

2006  –      CONTROL  APPROACH  

•  Solving  the  prison  crisis  –  Cheap  and  quick  –fix  solu>on  for  prison  overcrowding  

•  Pressure  to  increase  poli>cal  credibility  

•  Stand  alone  measure  

6  

GPS  in  pre-­‐trial  stage  

•  Since  2014  GPS  as  an  alterna>ve  for  remand  imprisonment  

•  GPS  è  real  >me  control  •  ><  24/7  at  home  •  Stand  alone  measure      •  !  Inves>ga>on  judge  

7  

RF  for  convicted  persons:    two-­‐track  policy  

PS  ≤  3Y    STAND  ALONE  USE  CONTROL  APPROACH  

•  Full  replacement  of  PS  •  Quasi-­‐automa>c  

applica>on    •  ‘Encouraging’  policy  •  !  Electronic  control  •  Diminishing  role  of  JA  •  Li#le  flexibility  •  Passive  reintegra>on  •  Substanceless,  retribu>ve  

form  of  punishment  

PS  >  3  Y    INTEGRATED  USE  

SUPERVISORY  APPROACH  •  Between  prison  and  

conditonal  release  •  Individualised  applica>on  •  Strict  selec>on    •  !  Human  supervision  •  Important  role  of  JA  •  Flexibility  •  Ac*ve  reintegra>on  with  

supervision  

8  

Discussion  

•  Expanding  EM-­‐system  è  managerial  approach  – Dominance  of  ‘systemic’  goal  :  output  in  stead  of  outcome  driven  (quan>ta>ve  targets)  

•  Cuing  costs  through  standardisa>on,  less  flexibility  and  less  human  interven>on  

• î Social  reports  and  consent  of  cohabitants  •   î Support  ><    complex  and  administra>ve  form  of  punishment    è  reponsabilisa>on  of  EM-­‐users  for  their  own  punishment  

9  

Costs  

•  Technology  

•  Mean  total  EM  cost  per  day  :  25€  –  Proba>on  supervision  cost:  5€  

•  Total  cost  of  one  day  in  prison  :  130€  –  200€  

10  

RF   4,37€/day  Voice   5,56€/day  

GPS   8,51€/day  

Discussion  

•  Transferring  the  prison  crisis  to  the  EM-­‐system  – Organiza>onal  problems,  wai>ng  lists,  staff  turn-­‐over,  absenteeism,  ….  

•  Solving  the  penal  crisis?  •  Reduc>on  of  prison  popula>on?  

11  

Context  of  rising  prison  popula4on  

12  

5000  

6000  

7000  

8000  

9000  

10000  

11000  

12000  

1980  

1981  

1982  

1983  

1984  

1985  

1986  

1987  

1988  

1989  

1990  

1991  

1992  

1993  

1994  

1995  

1996  

1997  

1998  

1999  

2000  

2001  

2002  

2003  

2004  

2005  

2006  

2007  

2008  

2009  

2010  

2011  

2012  

2013  

2014  

2015  

 EM  :  A  story  of  growth  

0  

200  

400  

600  

800  

1000  

1200  

1400  

1600  

1800  

2000  

1999          2000          2001          2002          2003          2004          2005          2006          2007          2008          2009          2010          2011          2012          2013          2014          2015          

•  Normalisa>on  of  technology  and  monitoring  in  society  – Declining  sensibili>es  of  ‘big  brother’ aspect  

•  Quid  privacy/involvement  household  members  – Risk  of  downplaying  the  intrusive  aspect  of  EM  

•  Fascina>on  with  and  trust  in  technological  innova>ons    –  !  Lower  costs  of  GPS  è  risk  of  overuse    – Poli>cians  see  the  poten>als  but  not  the  dangers/risk  –  ‘plug  and  play’,  biometric  desks  

14  

Drivers  of  acceptance  of  EM  

Conclusion  •  From  a  means  to  achieve  rehabilita>ve  goals  to  an  end  in  

itself  

•  Transforma>on  of  rehabilita>on  –  ì responsabilisa>on  of  monitored  persons  and  cohabitants  –  Diminishing  and  changing  role  of  jus>ce  assistants  

•  System  needs  versus  user  needs  

•  Minimal  expecta>ons  è  îpuni>ve  bite?  

•  Different  uses  serve  different  aims  –  Rehabilita>on,  retribu>on,  incapacita>on  (?),  protec>on  of  society  (?)  

 15