Conditions and obligations during supervision time ESC Working Group on Community Sanctions, May 18-19, 2017 Anette Storgaard, Professor in Criminology and Penology, Department of Law, BSS, University of Aarhus, Denmark

Plan System-theory Seminars for practitioners in 3 countries confirm theory and indicate new method for cooperation & research Considerations on parole in the light of equality, suitability, goals, decisive and discretionary power etc.

Niklas Luhmann Modern society is composed of different ‘sub-systems’, like the justice system, the social welfare system or the health system. Those ‘sub-systems’ have their own approach to the ‘target group’(often single individuals in a unique (weak) position). The ‘sub-systems’ have their own task, identity, purpose and measure of success. Their own logic !

Luhmann Based on for instance tradition, power and suitability the ‘subsystems are differently organized. The competency is differently distributed regarding for instance decision-making and economy. The ‘sub-systems’ are independent and autonomous. But they are also interrelated. Self-identity based on delimitation.

Practitioners confirm theory National seminars in Sweden, Norway and Denmark Social welfare staff from prisons, probation staff, ‘half-way-houses’, municipal social welfare. 15 persons, mainly with identical educational background

The seminars Paid by NSfK as a kind of ”constructed field work” with the aim to understand how decisions on parole (or not) are made in practice Interactive program Design what they saw as realistic cases Work with a case created by another group

Initial field study became lesson of method In spite of – same nationality, same profession, professional experience, common clients: Every prof actor miss information about the options, aims and limitations of ‘the others’ The seminars broke down the “walls” between sub-systems for a day! see the report: NSFK.org

What characterizes a good plan ? Statement: The good plan for release is created by the citizen! but Limited or no information on the needs and interests according to the citizen himself is available/included in files. so In fact the plans are not written by the citizen, sometimes they are written for the citizen, but most often they are written about the citizen.

Does system theory apply on release on parole ? Citizens are in many cases involved with more than one ‘sub-system’ The weaker position the more ‘sub-systems’ The more ‘sub-systems’ the more complicated to navigate

When does the penalty end for a parolee ? When leaving the prison ? By the end of the length of the sentence ? By the end of the parole-time ? Ex: Sentence 9 months Parole after 6 months Parole time 2 years from parole

Individual conditions – based on ….. “business as usual”! What kind of conditions are used in release on parole, how often and what are arguments for them? Is a relationship between length of sentence and number/type/duration of conditions to be expected ? Is a relationship between length of unserved sentence and number/type/duration of conditions to be expected? Is a relationship between type of condition and type of committed crime to be expected? What are the consequences of not following the conditions? Discretionary power !

Current discussions on parole many suggestions – little knowledge Release on parole (or full time) ? Shortening of sentence ? Extension of sentence ? Aims of parole (conditions) Secure ”punishment enough” Prevent recidivism Eliminate or repair negative after-effects from prison Who decides? After what rules/guidelines? What is the perspective? does parole make a positive/negative difference - for whom and how?

Release on parole Single-sided gift or mutual binding “contract” between unequal parties?