1. The introduction of community measures into the Greek criminal justice system: critical issues on theory and practice
Maria Anagnostaki
Lawyer – criminologist
Prevention worker at the Centre for the Prevention of Substance Abuse and the Promotion of Health [KE.P.H.E.O.], Municipality of Zografou

2. Presentation outline
An overview of community measures in the Greek criminal justice system
Brief reference to the implementation of the community service order
Critical issues and contradictions b/n official rhetoric and current penal reality.
“…It is not wise to reject alternatives to prison solely on ideological grounds. The discourse on alternatives and any relevant concrete reforms are the only structural way towards a genuine perspective of de-carceration.” [Karydis, V., 2000,134].

3. Defining community measures [Rec.R(92)16 COE]
The term “community sanctions and measures” refers to sanctions and measures which maintain the offender in the community and involve some restriction of his liberty through the imposition of conditions and/or obligations, and which are implemented by bodies designated in law for that purpose.
The term designates any sanction imposed by a court or a judge, and any measure taken before or instead of a decision on a sanction as well as ways of enforcing a sentence of imprisonment outside a prison establishment.

4. I. Community measures in Greece
The following measures fall under the above definition:
The suspended sentence
The conversion of prison sentence into financial one
The conditional release
The community service order
At the pre-trial stage the prosecution service has no diversionary powers to impose alternative to prosecution measures, due to the legality principle

5. The suspended sentence
Suspension from execution of the prison sentence (art PC) is provided for
first time offenders convicted to
a prison sentence of up to 3 years.
If the convicted offender is not sentenced for a new offence during the operational period (3 – 5 years), the suspended sentence is deemed not to have been imposed. Suspended sentence with supervision for sentences between 3 and 5 years is also provided in law but not applied in practice.

6. The monetary conversion
Conversion of the prison sentence into a financial one (art. 82 PC) is provided
for all offenders convicted to
a prison sentence of up to 3 years
is legally regarded as a sentence of imprisonment
each day of prison sentence is converted into 10 € (which results in nearly 20 € with added taxes). The prison sentence is served until the offender has paid the financial equal in full.
also available for merged consecutive prison sentences none of which exceeds 3 years, up to a total of 10 years prison sentence.

7. Diversion from prison in numbers
Suspended sentence and conversion into financial one are two major institutions with penal history of one century (1911) that play central role in diverting offenders from prison:
Numbers are revealing: In 2008
Total number of convicted offenders:
Suspended sentences: , 47%
Converted sentences: , 49%
Sentences not converted (to be served): 1.184, 2,7%.
[Source: Hellenic Statistical Authority, Table 4: “Sentenced Offenders, offence type and penalties imposed”]

8. Conditional release
Conditional release (art A PC) is applied as a rule to prisoners who have served part of their sentence. The decision to grant release is taken by the judicial board. If the released prisoner does not commit another offence during a certain period the sentence is considered served.

9. The absence of supervision
All 3 community measures (suspension, conversion, conditional release) are implemented without any supervision by a relevant service.
The Greek cjs holds a line of minimum intervention in relation to treatment, rehabilitation or assistance to convicted offenders.
This lack of penal welfare culture and policy is tuned with the limited social welfare policy and the scarce resources allocated to both.

10. II. The community service order
Was introduced in 1991 but became operational on December 1997.
A new service, the Probation Service for Adults was instituted in 2006 for the implementation of the measure.
Today there are 51 probation officers in 14 Greek cities.
In the rest of the country the measure may be implemented without supervision (by the probation service).

11. The CSO in numbers
Until today its application is very limited: In the first 7 years ( ) there were 756 decisions around the country.
In 2008 there were no decisions imposing the measure in 7 out of 14 areas where probation services operate.
Today, there are around 300 orders under the supervision of the probation service. No official data is available for the rest of the country.

12. CSO: the legal provisions
The CSO is enacted as a further conversion of a prison sentence which has already been converted into a financial one.
Mainly for offenders with no means to pay conversion.
CSO is available for prison sentences:
- from 1 month to 3 years
- up to 5 years for women with children under 5 years of age (law 3772/2009)
- up to 10 years for merged consecutive sentences - if already converted into financial one.

13. legal provisions
Each day of prison sentence is converted into 4 hours community service leading to the exhausting equation of
1 year prison = hours cs
The measure is imposed following application by the convicted offender and not after individualized informed decision by the sentencing court.

14. CSO: organizational elements
According to law the local prosecutor:
- is responsible for the execution of the cso and inter alia initiates breach procedures
- is appointed as administrative chief of the local probation service
- in case there is no probation service in the area, is responsible for the implementation of the measure and supervision of responsible officers of local authorities.

15. CSO: local agencies
174 local agencies such as municipalities, prefectures, ngos are officially recognized by the Ministry of Justice as services offering work placements to offenders.
Each agency appoints the employees responsible for supervising offenders.
The legal representatives (mayor, prefect) are responsible for issuing an official document for the court stating that they are willing to accept a convicted offender for cs. This document (vevaiosi) is a necessary requirement in court for a cs order to be issued.

16. CSO: brief observations
There is an inherent contradiction between the need for individualized sentencing decisions with regard to the cso and the mechanical way applications are processed.
The role of the Probation Service is only marginal in a highly legally oriented cjs. Local prosecutors are called to lift the weight of the new measure. Legal provisions regarding the implementation of the measure and organization of relevant agencies are fragmental and do not ensure consistency and equality of treatment.
It is in fact the local authorities and their legal representatives which play a crucial role in the implementation of the measure, especially where there is no probation service. Research findings from a pilot research conducted in 2008 support this

17. Critical issues
In the last decades penal and correctional policy has been constructed around these 3 measures [used as “safety valves” of prison overcrowding with bad results]
- numerous amendments of legal provisions on conditions/eligibility
mandatory provisions ensure wide use by the judges and judicial boards
Yet overcrowding is the symptom of systemic malfunction and piecemeal ‘solutions’ do not suffice.

18. Political agenda
The Deputy Minister of Justice answering a Parliamentary question by the left coalition on the cso stated (explaining why the use of the measure is limited):
“…Many people ignore until today this possibility provided by law while there are many cases where offenders who could benefit from this institution, refuse to, choosing imprisonment because they will have the chance for early release, which is not possible at the moment for the cso.” [3/12/2009]

19. Deliberate confusion?
It is the offenders who should be informed on the measure which is a “benefit” and not a ‘real’ penal measure. It is the offenders who choose among different sanctions and they prefer imprisonment because they will be released early. The government has already gone all the way providing ad hoc conditional release for offenders serving cso.
This statement reveals the level of distortion and exploitation in the political agenda around this new measure.

20. CSO: what next?
It seems that the cso is the new institution available for communicative needs and ‘reforms’ regarding the overcrowding agenda.
And that it serves at the moment as a ‘safety valve’ for public (and prisoners’) protest and as an alibi for real reforms.
On the other hand the way the measure is implemented poses serious threats to the rights of convicted offenders as well as to the legitimacy and credibility of the measure. We need to prevent this from happening.