Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 30, 2024 Tue
Time: 12:25 am
Time: 12:25 am
Results for house arrest
1 results foundAuthor: Boone, Miranda Title: Electronic Monitoring in the Netherlands Summary: This report describes in detail the current use of electronic monitoring (EM) in the Netherlands. The research forms part of an EU-funded comparative research study involving five jurisdictions, namely: Belgium, England and Wales, Germany, the Netherlands and Scotland. The research involved a partnership between academics in five universities: University of Leeds (England and Wales), University of Stirling (Scotland), University of Greifswald (Germany), Free University Bruxelles (Belgium) and Utrecht University (the Netherlands). This comparative research focuses on the potential of electronic monitoring to provide a credible and workable alternative to imprisonment. As such, the empirical findings from the five jurisdictions will fill a significant knowledge gap about the capacity of EM to operate as an alternative to imprisonment and inform on best practices to enhance its effectiveness and ensure its legal, ethical and humane use across Europe. The report is based on observations within the organisations involved in the implementation of EM and 36 interviews with practitioners. The structure of this research report and the way in which headings are organized is a replication of a format adopted consistently across the five country reports. Before describing the results of our own research, we start with a short overview of the history of EM in the Netherlands. Van Gestel (1998) describes how the debate on electronic monitoring started in the Netherlands and how eventually the first pilot was initiated. The first Dutch media publication on the use of electronic monitoring in the United States, where it originated, came in 1987. In this period, the Dutch government was looking for solutions to ease prison overcrowding and cell shortage. Against this background, it was no surprise that the possibility of electronic monitoring was quickly picked up by politicians. In 1988, a working group was installed to explore the potential of electronic house arrest for providing an alternative to imprisonment. This working group came to be known as the 'Schalken Committee' (Shalken Committee, 1988). In its report, the committee suggested that electronic house arrest could be valuable in terms of rehabilitation, provided that it would be combined with an intensive support program and 'meaningful activities' such as schooling or work. It also stated that electronic house arrest could have an economizing effect, with the sidenote that this effect could be reduced by effects of 'net-widening', which means including people in the penal system that otherwise would have been kept out. The committee further advised giving judges the exclusive authority for imposing electronic house arrest in order to prevent arbitrariness. Some other concerns were expressed regarding the intrusiveness of the modality and how continuous control may be interpreted as a sign of distrust towards the monitored person. All in all, the committee did not take a clear position but instead pointed at the importance of a broad debate on the desirability of electronic house arrest. This debate started across a wide range of organizations and culminated in a symposium in 1990. The majority of the persons present were not enthusiastic about the implementation of electronic house arrest either in the context of custody, as an alternative to detention or towards the end of a prison sentence (Van Gestel, 1998). Following this symposium, the advice was formulated to refrain from electronic house arrest while other alternatives were being explored. Two years later, however, a new report was published in which electronic monitoring was again presented as a potential economizing instrument. Eventually, in 1994, a newly formed project group sent a recommendation to the Minister of Justice, in which it advised starting a pilot with electronic house arrest in two forms: in combination with a community service order and as an alternative to the last phase of a prison sentence in the context of detention phasing. This plan was approved and in 1995 a two-year experiment started in the north of the Netherlands. From the start, the probation service has been the responsible organization for the implementation of EM, despite the earlier resistance within the organisation (Van Gestel 1998). In 2000, an experiment started with electronic house arrest as an alternative to remand for juvenile offenders. This experiment took place in the Rotterdam region and 23 youngsters participated, which was a lot less than the expected 48. Terlouw and Kamphorst (2002) evaluated the experiment and concluded that the electronic house arrest decreased the youngster's contact with fellow offenders. Other reported benefits were the increased feeling of responsibility and the benefit of being in a trusted environment. On the other hand, the researchers state that the house arrest placed a heavy burden on the household and was labor intensive for the youth probation services (Terlouw and Kamphorst, 2002). In 2003, facing a pressing cell shortage, the modality of electronic detention or 'home detention' was introduced. Electronic detention could be imposed as a means of executing an unconditional prison sentence of up to 90 days for offenders without a 'security risk' who report themselves to the prison without coercion, so-called self reporters. As opposed to the electronic supervision modalities as described above, the sole objective of electronic detention was to reduce the shortage of prison cells. It was announced in the 2000 Green Paper 'Sanction in perspective' as an alternative for short prison sentences that could annually save the Dutch tax-payer 115 million guilders, but that did not have a rehabilitative function. Between 2003 and 2005, 2145 offenders were placed under electronic detention, of which 1998 successfully finished the detention. Contrary to the rehabilitative forms of electronic monitoring, it was not the Dutch Probation Service that was made responsible for the execution of electronic detention, but the Prison Service of the Department of Justice (DJI). The Inspection for Sentencing Implementation was rather positive about the use of the electronic dentention modality. Despite the fact that the offenders involved usually belonged to the medium risk category of offenders, actual recidivism was relatively low. It concluded in its inspection report that electronic detention was an effective alternative for a short prison sentence. However, the implementation could be improved. The Inspection observed considerable differences between the five regions and noted that, contrary to the regulations, home visits and work inspections were not always made (Inspectie voor de sanctietoepassing, 2007). With respect to the experiences of the detainees, one evaluative study found that those who had been in prison before were much more positive about electronic detention than about imprisonment (Post, Tielemans and Woldringh, 2005). Electronic detention was also heavily criticized. The Council for the Administration of Criminal Justice and the Protection of Juveniles (RSJ) emphasized that home detention should always be combined with some form of support or assistance and that the prisoner should have the opportunity to work. Furthermore, the Council stated that the principal goals of home detention in terms of retribution, deterrence and rehabilitation would have to be made explicit (RSJ, 2007). This point is also emphasized by Van Swaaningen and Uit Beijerse, who are concerned that the main rationale behind any form of electronic monitoring simply tends to be cost reduction (Van Swaaningen and Uit Beijerse, 2013). In June 2010, the Minister of Justice decided to end the practice of electronic detention awaiting new legislation that would codify EM as a principal punishment and as a condition to suspend remand (Van Swaaningen and Uit Beijerse 2013: 181). However, this bill never came into force, because the need for home detention as a substitute for prison declined in the context of a cell surplus and the new State Secretary of Security and Justice was personally a strong opponent of EM. In 2013, the master plan of the Dutch Prison Service for 2013-2018 was published. It describes the intended changes in the prison system aimed at reducing the expenditures of the Prison Service with up to 340 million euros in 2018 (DJI, 2013). Electronic detention is presented as one of the important instruments for realizing these cuts and a new Bill on Electronic Detention was proposed in the same period as the Masterplan DJI. Two modalities are mentioned. The first is the 'backdoor modality' to be applied after half of the prison sentence has been served but before conditional release. The second is the 'front-door modality' which is meant to be a substitution for any prison sentence shorter than six months, unless the possibility for electronic detention is explicitly ruled out in the verdict. It is estimated that the implementation of electronic detention will facilitate the reduction of existing prison capacity by 2033 places. For juvenile offenders, the aim is to increase the imposition of electronic monitoring as an alternative to remand (DJI, 2013). The second proposal caused a wave of criticism. In the political arena the dominant opinion was that EM was a far too mild alternative for detention. Therefore EM was not acceptable as an alternative for short prison sentences. Most Advice Committees that commented on the Bill were positive on EM as an alternative for short prison sentences, but only if it would become an autonomous sentence that could be imposed by the judge (courts). More enthusiasm existed for the 'back door modality', although several concerns were expressed in relation to this modality as well, in particular concerning the replacement of the existing system of detention phasing by electronic detention and the exclusion of certain groups of prisoners of electronic detention as a result of contraindications and conditions that would be required (Boone and Van Hattum 2014; RSJ, 2013). In September 2014, the electronic detention bill was rejected by the Upper House. Only the Labour Party (PVDA) and the People's Party for Freedom and Democracy (VVD) supported the bill, which was not sufficient for a majority in the senate. To the senate, abolishing the existing system of detention phasing was unacceptable and electronic detention did not provide a workable and legally substantiated alternative. There were concerns about the risk of recidivism for prisoners who would not qualify for electronic detention. Also, the fact that the judge would not be involved in the allocation of electronic detention was criticized (Reclassering Nederland, 2014). To summarize, EM in the Netherlands has had a bit of a slow start and has not yet been accepted as an autonomous alternative for a prison sentence in the sentencing stage. It is used, however, as an instrument to supervise the requirements added to several conditional sentences and measures, as will be described in the first section below. Details: Utrecht: Utrecht University, 2016. 108p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 12, 2018 at: http://28uzqb445tcn4c24864ahmel.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/files/2016/06/EMEU-Electronic-monitoring-in-the-Netherlands.pdf Year: 2016 Country: Netherlands URL: http://28uzqb445tcn4c24864ahmel.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/files/2016/06/EMEU-Electronic-monitoring-in-the-Netherlands.pdf Shelf Number: 150836 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationCommunity SupervisionElectronic MonitoringHouse ArrestOffender SupervisionTagging |