PROBATION ADVICE IN SERBIA AND THE NETHERLANDS
Keywords:
Key words: alternative sanctions, probation advice, Probation Service, personal circumstances of the defendant, sentence.Abstract
Abstract: This paper illuminates the main characteristics and results on implementation of probation advice in the Netherlands, in the Serbian legal system and in the key international documents. The Dutch probation service is an independent service, and in cooperation with the prosecution has permanent place in the judiciary system. The probation service in the Netherlands acts and cooperates with the Court and Prosecution in all phases of criminal procedure. In the Netherlands, the reports on the personal circumstances of the defendant are received from the Prosecution Service and the law allows the prosecutor or judge to use this information before deciding on the type and lengthof the criminal sanction. The Probation Service provides data in a specific format, which allows the stakeholders in the process to easily review the advisoryreport and notice the most important information.
The aim of this paper is an exchange of practical knowledge and experience between a judge from Serbian and public prosecutors from the Netherlands. The following questions will be addressed: In which cases in the Netherlands is a probation advicerequested and in which cases not? What are the indications or guidelines? For what offences and for what offenders might probation advice be used? What alternative sanctions and measures can be proposed? Who can request for an advice of the Probation Service and what is the procedure? Content and form of the report, what subjects are described? The function of the probation advice: in which way is it used and what are the advantages? The paper contains an analysis of certain cases in the Netherlands and Serbia and describes how the parties involved would deal with these cases in either Serbia and in the Netherlands. Finally, the paper contains an analysis of the possibilities and modalities of the application of the probation advice and alternative sanctions in the criminal procedure and the procedure for execution of criminal sanctions in the Republic of Serbia.
References
1. Andrews, D.A., Bonta, J. and Wormith, J.S (2011). The Risk-Need-Responsivity (RNR) Model : Does Adding the Good Lives Model Contribute to Effective Crime Prevention?. Criminal Justice and Behavior, Vol. 38(7). 735-755.
2. Bergeron, J., (2017), European Parliament Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, Report on prison systems and conditions, 6 July 2017 (2015/2062(INI)), A8-0251/2017, p.15
3. Boone, M. and M. Moerings (2007). Growing Prison Rates’ in: M. Boone and M. Moerings (eds.) Dutch Prisons, 51-76. The Hague: BJu Legal publishers.
4. Cabinet Office (2011) Modernising Commissioning: Increasing the role of charities, social enterprises, mutuals and cooperatives in public service delivery, London: Cabinet Office.
5. Corstens, G.J.M. (2009) Het Nederlandse Strafprocesrecht. Deventer: Kluwer.
6. Clobusa,F. (2018). An introduction on the Dutch probation practice. Matra Rule of Law Training Pregramme,Veenhuizen, Netherlands.
7. CPT (2008) Report to the authorities of the Kingdom of the Netherlands on the visits carried out to the Kingdom in Europe, Aruba, and the Netherlands Antilles by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) in June 2007. Strasbourg: Council of Europe. Available online at: https://www.refworld.org/docid/47a86f912.html (last accessed 19 July 2020).
8. Fox. C, Fox. A., Marsh, C. (2014). Personalisation in the criminal justice system: what is the potential?. Criminal Justice Alliance. March 2014.
9. Franklin, T.W., Franklin, C.A., Pratt, T.C., (2006) “Examining the empirical relationship between prison crowding and inmate misconduct: A meta-analysis of conflicting research results”, Journal of Criminal Justice, 34, 401-412, p.405.
10. Heard, C., Ford, М. (2015). Alternatives to prison in Europe. United Kingdom, European Prison Observatory, Alternatives to detention, Rome.
11. Jacobs, M., M. von Bergh and A.M. van Kalmthout (2006). Toepassing van Bijzondere Voorwaarden bij Voorwaardelijke Vrijheidsstraf en Schorsing van de Voorlopige Hechtenis bij Volwassenen. The Hague: WODC.
12. Junger - Tas, J (1994): Alternative sanctions: myth and reality, European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research, Vol.2.
13. Lappi-Seppälä, T., (2012). Explaining national differences in the use of imprisonment “, in: S. Snacken, E. Dumortier, (Eds.), Resisting punitiveness in Europe? Welfare, human rights and democracy, Oxon: Routledge.
14. Prison Population Projections 2014 – 2020 England and Wales. (2014). MOJ Statistics Bulletin.
15. Stevens, L. (2013). The Meaning of the Presumption of Innocence for Pre-trial Detention. An Empirical Approach “, Netherlands Journal of Legal Philosophy.
16. Stevens, L. (2009). Pre-trial detention: The presumption of innocence and Article 5 of the European convention on human rights cannot and does not limit its increasing use. 165-180. European Journal of Crime, Criminal Law and Criminal Justice.
17. Tak, P.J.P. (2008) The Dutch Criminal Justice System. Nijmegen: Wolf Legal Publishers.
18. Tigges L. (2018). The Dutch Probation in European Perspective. Matra Rule of Law Training Pregramme - Detention and Alternative Sanctions, The Hague, October 8th, 2018.
