1. 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

2. 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.

3. 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 !

4. 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.

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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.

9. 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

10. 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

11. 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 !

12. 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?

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