Proposition 50K0549

Projet de loi instaurant la peine de travail comme peine autonome en matière correctionnelle et de police.

General information ¶

Authors

Ecolo Martine Dardenne
Groen Jef Tavernier
MR Daniel Bacquelaine
Open Vld Hugo Coveliers
PS | SP Thierry Giet
Vooruit Dirk Van der Maelen

Submission date

March 29, 2000

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

criminal law

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Groen CD&V Vooruit Ecolo LE PS | SP Open Vld MR

Abstained from voting

FN VB

Contact form ¶

Do you have a question or request regarding this proposition? Select the most appropriate option for your request and I will get back to you shortly.

Discussion ¶

June 7, 2001 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, it was on 12 July 2000 that the Justice Committee began the examination of the proposal submitted, at the initiative of Mr. Speaker. Bacquelaine, by all the majority parties.

This proposal aims to include in the criminal code work of general interest and training as autonomous penalties in order to avoid imprisonments whose negative effects are no longer to be demonstrated. Indeed, for all the authors it is acknowledged that the development of so-called alternative punishments allows to address in a more adequate way many crimes in the face of which the conventional criminal sanctions prove disproportionate and ineffective. by

They believe that work of general interest and training should be able to be pronounced as main penalties in order to respond to this crime. However, in the current state of Belgian law, work of general interest and training are considered only as measures that can be ordered within the framework of criminal mediation and the Act on suspension, suspension and probation.

To meet the chosen option, several force lines were planned. The first is to amend Article 7 of the Criminal Code in order to give the correctional and police judge the possibility to pronounce primarily a work or training punishment, such as imprisonment and fine. by

The second line of force: insert a new section in Chapter II of Book I of the Criminal Code, defining the principle and modalities of these new penalties.

Third force line: provide that within the limits laid down by law, the judge must automatically impose a prison sentence or a subsidiary fine which will be effective in the event of non-execution of the main sentence, in order to ensure the correct performance of the work of general interest or of the training.

Finally, fourth force line: exclude certain offences from the scope, such as hostage-taking, homicide, murder and its various species. by

The Minister approved the proposal that enters into the criminal law a pretorian practice that has the advantage of clearly reminding the offender the norm, avoiding the burdens of prison, while wishing to establish a distinction between work of general interest and training, believing that work of general interest can be considered a punishment because it is imposed on the convict a burden whose content is modified compared to traditional penalties, but not the principle of symbolic compensation for the damage caused. by

Reservations are raised with regard to training which seems to him to be more an aid to social reintegration than a real punishment.

He also drew the attention of the committee on the role and competence of the judge, in the event that the work of general interest acquires the character of punishment. In this case, the prosecutor’s office could no longer negotiate such measures and therefore the question arises of the maintenance of the work of general interest within the framework of criminal mediation and the law on suspension, suspension and probation.

Before the discussions actually began, the committee heard various university professors and Mr. Huybrechts, advisor to the Court of Cassation, experts who, by their respective competences, have provided many technical information and clarifications that have helped the final drafting of the text. I allow myself to refer to the annexes of the written report for the content of these hearings. From the initial exchanges of views, it appeared that all democratic parties were in favor of the texts, which gave rise to a very constructive and creative debate. Thus, various questions and elements were raised. by

by Mr. Coveliers highlighted a number of practical problems, such as the necessary means to make the judge available and the framework in which he must act, the risk of being sanctioned for offences that are not currently sanctioned, the type of reaction and the role of the public prosecutor in case of improper execution or non-execution of the sentence imposed. by

by Mr. Giet, for his part, recalled the importance of clearly defining the notion of labour penalty, taking into account the moral pressure that may be exercised on the perpetrator of the facts and that if the latter does not accept the labour penalty, he will be imposed a prison sentence that will not give the expected results. He insisted on the need to encourage the judge to impose labour sentences and to advocate the maintenance of the current system of criminal mediation that provides good results, even though he acknowledges that this can be a means of blackmailing the perpetrator. by

Finally, he considered it necessary to clearly define the scope of application, the duration of the labour penalty, the role of the public prosecutor, the houses of justice, while asking more specifically about the situation and the rules in case of non-execution or incorrect execution or even in case of non-execution not resulting from a bad will of the convicted. In this regard, the probationary commission could play a central role by giving indications and providing, for example, a report to the prosecutor’s office.

by Mr. Erdman highlighted the necessary accompaniment to make such punishments effective, but also the inability to force a person to execute a work penalty unlike imprisonment or fine. In case of non-execution of the sentence, it was estimated that the judge must provide for a corollary that must be applied.

by Mr. Vandeurzen raised the question of the effectiveness of the sentence proposed in the absence of the establishment of a court for the execution of the sentences.

When parliamentarians looked at the question of the means necessary for the implementation of the proposal, the Minister recalled that training was the subject of cooperation agreements and conventions with communities and regions. by

The necessary resources could be included in the 2002 budget for labour penalties, but it is different for training penalties, for which community competencies and agreements must be taken into account that cannot be compromised, while many probation projects are subsidised by the communities themselves. by

Under these conditions, he invited the commission to make a choice on whether or not to maintain training as an autonomous penalty, while knowing that it is necessary to give a clear and strong signal to a offender and to take into account the purpose of a penalty that is the reminder of the norm transgressed and the symbolic compensation of the damage caused.

The Minister recalled that, for him, work of general interest can be considered a punishment but not learning or training. The commission decided to follow the Minister’s position to provide as an alternative punishment only the work of general interest.

In addition, the minister proposed to insert electronic surveillance as a new penalty, which raised many questions and reactions.

How can electronic surveillance be analyzed as an autonomous penalty? Is this not just a way of executing the prison sentence? Is it not introducing a contradiction, a confusion by simultaneously providing for electronic surveillance as an autonomous punishment and/or as a method of enforcement? What are the social rights of detainees subject to electronic surveillance? How should electronic surveillance be considered in relation to the traditional tripartite classification of penalties?

Due to these questions, the results of the hearings of members of the administration on the procedure of electronic surveillance and especially the confusion that this surveillance as a punishment or method of execution can lead to, it was proposed to the Minister that the problem be studied as part of the consideration of the future bill on the execution of penalties that will be deposited soon in parliament.

Subsequently, the discussion focused on the scope, terms and procedure and resulted in the deposit of a new amendment signed by the authors to which the PSC and the CVP are joined. by MM. Bourgeois and Verherstraeten recalled the importance of limiting the scope and opposed the possibility of labor punishment for offences punishable by more than 5 years of imprisonment. This position has not been followed by the Commission. by

Following the debate, it appeared preferable: - to limit the exceptions to the scope of the labour penalty which will be included in a precise and limitative list; - to allow the judge to eventually take into account the interests of the victim when fixing the penalty (while insisting that this is only a possibility and not an obligation) in anticipation of a court of enforcement of the penalties; - to entrust the probation commission with the control of the execution of the labour penalty without, therefore, giving it jurisdiction. Only the public prosecutor may decide to execute the subsidiary sentence of imprisonment or fine on the basis of a reasoned report of the probation commission; - to oblige the judge to justify his judgment in case of refusal to order a labour penalty. by

Then a very rich and very dense discussion developed around the problem of ⁇ ining or not the measure of work of general interest within the framework of the Law on Criminal Mediation and that of probation. While highlighting the positive results of criminal mediation and probation, the Minister and some MEPs cannot admit that an autonomous sentence imposed by a judge at the end of a contradictory debate can also be negotiated by the public prosecutor. To avoid confusion, they advocate the abolition of public interest work within the framework of mediation and the law on suspension, suspension and probation. by

I personally insisted, like my colleague Giet, on ⁇ ining the current system. Indeed, on the one hand, it appears from successive reports from the houses of justice that magistrates are increasingly resorting to public interest work as an alternative to imprisonment. On the other hand, there may be concern that magistrates are more inclined to condemn a prison sentence that may be accompanied, in the context of probation, by a work of general interest, rather than to pronounce an autonomous sentence. by

These arguments, although very pragmatic, have led me to temporarily support the maintenance of current legislation on mediation and suspension of suspension and probation, although from an intellectual and legal coherence point of view, the removal is much more attractive. by

It was eventually concluded that work of general interest should be temporarily ⁇ ined in criminal mediation and in the suspension, probation and suspension law. The Minister shall draw up a report on the application of the labour penalty, on the basis of which the Parliament shall carry out an evaluation, in order to consider the need to amend the regime of the labour penalty, and this, before 1 September 2003. Thus, the principle of a transitional period is accepted by the Commission. by

The issue of the registration in the criminal record of the labour punishment, was also submitted to discussion. by Mr. Giet recalled that in order to ⁇ the objective of reclassification of convicted persons, information relating to convictions to labour penalties cannot be transmitted to administrations or individuals, in order to avoid the negative consequences of a conviction. by MM. Bourgeois and Verherstraeten did not share this approach. by

The Minister clarified that the criminal record and the certificate of good life and morals should not be confused and supported the thesis of non-inscription in the certificate. The text was therefore amended in this sense while also taking into account the Act of 8 August 1997 on the Central Criminal Register, which has not yet entered into force. Finally, the text, as amended, was adopted by 11 votes for, 2 against and one abstention.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, I thank the rapporteur for her excellent report.

The duty of the opposition is to oppose. If something is good, it can be said. Good wine doesn’t need a crown, but sometimes good wine can get a crown. This majority legislative proposal was a solid bill. Although we did not agree on everything from the outset, I believe that we have worked constructively together during the discussions in the committee.

In terms of idea, this proposal was not entirely new for this Chamber. In this regard, I would like to refer to the orientation note of the then Minister of Justice, Stefaan De Clerck, who already in 1996 advocated for alternative forms of response in our criminal law in addition to the traditional fine and imprisonment.

In the surrounding countries this has been done for a long time. In England, almost 10% of the punishments are work and school punishments. In the Netherlands, more than 15,000 such sentences were awarded several years ago. Our criminal arsenal is also slightly wider than just fines and prison sentences, but there was still room for other penalties.

The alternative sanctions score slightly better than the traditional punishment because they are more successful in terms of recurrence. The cost of such penalties is also smaller. In addition, a work penalty is much more human than a traditional prison penalty.

In order to impose a penalty at the head of the client, a judge must have a sufficient arsenal. The judge must be able to choose a la carte sanctions. The menu map of the punishment is a little extended with this proposal. In my view, the judge can find a balance in accordance with the seriousness of the facts, the person of the perpetrator and the victim’s interests.

This proposal is very good, but there are still possible alternatives. I mean, among other things, the school penalty, the electronic surveillance and a warning. In my introduction, I said that we did not agree with everything. We may still have some concerns regarding the victim’s position in this bill.

The law on conditional release stipulated that civil parties could be heard and asked for their opinions if a detained person was to be released conditionally. There is an appropriate procedure for this. We have not included this procedure in this bill. I had submitted an amendment, but this amendment was rejected to my surprise.

I am now submitting my amendment again. My amendment aims to ensure that a civil party who has informed the Chamber of Justice that he wishes to be kept informed of the further evolution of the execution of the sentence may be heard by the probation committee before it submits its report if the sentence is not fully executed by the convicted person. However, the victim may be informed by that probation committee.

Every human being counts, therefore also a convict. A convicted person must also be given opportunities and everyone, society as a whole, can benefit from them. If every human being counts and every condemned person counts, this principle must also be followed. This means that Mr. Van Parys and Mr. Decroly’s bill on the rights and duties of detainees, based on the study of Professor Dupont, will soon be discussed in the Justice Committee. Their

Our group will approve this bill in any case.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, the bill submitted today to the attention of the House constitutes an important evolution in our criminal law. This development was desired by all the groups of the majority. The Minister of Justice had undertaken to amend the Penal Code in this sense and you had entered this point, Mr. Minister, in the Federal Plan for Security and Penitentiary Policy.

The text presented to us today, my dear colleagues, is the result of a thorough reflection — it was, indeed, deposited about a year ago — conducted by the whole of the majority groups. But given the fundamental nature of the innovation proposed by this document, we wanted to involve the opposition groups who participated constructively in the preparation and finalisation of the text adopted by the Justice Committee.

Since 1994, public interest work has been considered only in two aspects of our repressive arsenal. It constituted either a condition of extinction of public action, or a proof condition accompanying the suspension of the pronouncement of a conviction or the suspension of the execution of a prison sentence.

At present, work of general interest is not a punishment in the proper sense of the term, but rather a measure with all the appearances of a punishment. Generally speaking, the present bill therefore aims to put an end to this language artwork established by the 1994 legislator. At the time, the Minister of Justice had acknowledged that the work of general interest constituted a real alternative punishment in addition and equal to the penalty of prison and fine.

However, the work of general interest was not erected as a substitute or as an alternative penalty to the proper sense. For what reason? The Minister believed at the time that the introduction of work of general interest within the framework of the probation law allowed to identify the practical difficulties to be solved when it was introduced as a real alternative punishment. Per ⁇ the minds were not yet mature enough to consider this type of punishment as a full-fledged punishment. These objections are no longer grounded today. The law introducing the work of general interest into our legal system has entered into force for almost seven years and the services responsible for its execution have worked hard to promote its execution, make it credible and identify difficulties that may be encountered in practice. There is a general consensus on the criminal character of work of general interest, in particular with regard to various aspects.

First of all, it can be denied only for the person concerned as for the public opinion, the work of general interest is perceived as a form of criminal reaction to crime. Then, its implementation involves not only a restriction of freedom and external control over compliance with obligations, but also the threat of a heavier penalty in case of non-compliance with obligations. Finally, the work of general interest is also part of a punitive logic and is dominated by a priority principle: punish otherwise.

Many states have recognized the criminal character of this sanction and have introduced it as a full-time punishment in their legislation. I think more about France or Ireland. In Belgium, the Commission for the Revision of the Criminal Code had declared itself in favour of the introduction of work of general interest as a penalty replacement for short prison sentences and had planned its integration as part of the revision of the Criminal Code.

It is now acknowledged that the development of alternative sanctions will adequately address new crimes in which conventional criminal sanctions are disproportionate and relatively ineffective.

By submitting this bill, we felt that the mentalities had evolved and were ready to consider that work of general interest must be conceived as a real substitute punishment that can be pronounced as the main punishment and should, as such, appear in the first book of the Criminal Code. by

From now on, when a fact appears to result in a police penalty or a correctional penalty, the judge may condemn, as the main penalty, to a labour penalty. The judge shall provide, within the limits of the penalties provided for for the offence and by law, depending on its hearing, a sentence of imprisonment which shall be effective in the event of non-execution of the labour penalty.

This provision marks an important and capital evolution in the intellectual path that the judge must accomplish in determining the sentence. This will allow it to reverse its decision-making process in some way. Indeed, currently, in the context of probation, the judge must first consider a prison sentence of which he suspends the pronounced or pronounces with suspension by accompanying it with a condition consisting in the performance of a work of general interest. by

The draft law provides for a revision in perspective. The judge may reverse his approach and consider pronouncing a work penalty as the main penalty, the non-execution of which will be punished by imprisonment or subsidiary fine. The execution of his sentence by the convicted outside the prison will therefore be privileged. by

This evolution is essential if we consider the advantages of labour punishment over the adverse effects of imprisonment punishments which, let us recall, are ⁇ costly for public finances and harmful for the offender.

Labour punishment is a constructive and economical alternative to short prison sentences that do not necessarily constitute the most adequate response to crime. by

The judiciary will have a clear legal instrument to avoid imprisonment given these deplorable consequences for the person of the offender and the constant inflation of the prison population. In fact, in the case of imprisonment, the bonds of the convicted with his family are loosed, or even deteriorated. His professional future is compromised and his socio-cultural relationships are broken. By fully organizing the life of the convicted, the prison regime also acts on his intimate personality. He ceases to be capable of initiatives and no longer feels responsible for anything.

The work penalty will allow to react in an appropriate way towards the offender and in relation to the offence committed. by

The provision of services for the benefit of the community is a means of symbolic compensation for the damage caused by any offence to the social group. But it is also part of a approach that tends to arouse in the head of the interested person a consciousness of the scope of his gesture and to make him responsible without excluding him from the social fabric. by

Rather than isolating and marginalizing the perpetrator by removing him from his family, his daily work or his social environment, labour punishment will fully contribute to the resocialization and reintegration of the perpetrator. The labour penalty will make an active role for the offender in the execution of his penalty and, therefore, will hold him accountable. by

Obviously, the prison sentence does not satisfy all of these functions. Indeed, as the doctrine regularly emphasizes, how can we re-learn to live in society in an environment that constitutes its quasi-absolute antithesis?

Given the advantages of this penalty, the authors of the bill have decided to define a relatively broad scope while providing, however, a number of exceptions. These exceptions concern most of the "correctionalizable" crimes which, in the conception of the perpetrators, deserve, when the facts are proven, a firm prison sentence. These include hostage-taking, murder and rape, murder to facilitate theft, acts of youth corruption and prostitution when committed on or with the help of minors or murder and its various species.

Initially, the original text of the bill also aimed to introduce training in Article 7 of the Criminal Code. Indeed, this measure also has considerable advantages and is, in some cases, much more effective than imprisonment. However, after reflection, and following a ⁇ interesting exchange of views with the Minister of Justice, a consensus emerged within the Justice Committee to introduce only labour punishment as an autonomous punishment in the Criminal Code. In fact, it can be estimated that training is better integrated into the probation system, which is mainly aimed at promoting the reintegration of the offender into society.

In order to promote labour punishment by the judicial authority, the text expressly provides that the judge may give indications regarding the concrete content of the labour punishment, indications which must be taken into account by the bodies responsible for determining the concrete content and controlling the execution of the punishment. It is therefore very clear that the text creates the obligation in the head of the judicial assistant and the probation commission, when determining the concrete content of the labour penalty, to take into account any indications that the judge who sentenced the penalty has given. by

In addition, the Department of the Houses of Justice will produce a monthly report on the supply of available places where a work penalty can be carried out. The Department of the Houses of Justice shall, upon a simple request, issue a copy of this report to any interested person, in any case to the President of the Court of First Instance and to the Prosecutor of the King. These provisions also aim to promote labour punishment by enabling stakeholders such as the public prosecution, courts of judgment, lawyers or accused persons, to obtain information on the possibility of execution of a labour punishment in a given district.

And always in the interest of promoting the application of the labour penalty, the text adopted by the Justice Committee creates the obligation, in the head of the judge who refuses to pronounce the penalty, to motivate his decision accordingly. by

As for the regime of control of the execution of the labour penalty, the text entrusts this task, pending the court’s execution of the penalties, to the probation commission. The convicted is thus guided by a judicial assistant from the service "houses of justice" and the execution of the sentence is controlled by the probation commission. The concrete content of the labour penalty is fixed by the assistant of justice in compliance with the instructions given by the judge of the substance and under the control of the probation commission which, by office, on request of the public prosecutor or at the request of the convicted person, can at any time clarify or adapt it.

In case of total or partial non-execution of the labour penalty, the assistant of justice shall immediately inform the probation commission, which shall summon the convicted person for examination of the penalty. The probation commission, sitting outside the presence of the public prosecutor, may draw up a summary or reasoned report, as the case may be, for the application of the subsidiary punishment. In this case, the public prosecutor may decide to execute the imprisonment sentence or the fine fixed in the judgment, taking into account the labour sentence that has already been executed by the convicted person.

In this regard, I would like to say to Mr. Verherstraeten, who introduced an amendment, that the objective that was envisaged by this bill is, in the term — that is, within two years — that the work of general interest (TIG) can no longer be pronounced only as the main punishment. Therefore, in this perspective, it does not seem to me logical to involve the civil party in the event of problems with the execution of the TIG. This is a complete punishment. It is therefore not a measure decided by an administrative court after partial execution of the sentence to which a person has been sentenced.

In the future, the ideal would obviously be to entrust the issues of the execution of the TIG to a future court of execution of penalties and I think that is a will of all the participants in the discussion. It will then be appropriate to see to what extent civil parties are involved in the process.

In so far as the work of general interest is called to become a full-time punishment, issued by a judge, it is permissible to question whether it is appropriate to maintain this measure in the context of criminal mediation and probation. This issue has been discussed and analyzed in depth in the Justice Committee. On the one hand, the doctrine agrees to recognize that the legislator has not chosen the best solution by introducing the work of general interest to two different decision-making levels. The consecration of its existence in the two laws of 10 February 1994 tends to neutralize, or even to annihilate, the alternative or substitute character it might have. On the other hand, can it be admitted that a work measure of general interest can be proposed by the public prosecutor in the context of criminal mediation, whereas if it is pronounced by a judge, it would constitute a punishment? The debate on this issue was a strong moment of the discussions.

Following a constructive debate, led by both the majority and the opposition, the text adopted by the Justice Committee provides for a transitional period during which the work of general interest pronounced as a measure in the context of mediation or probation will coexist with the labour penalty as organized by the bill. by

During this transitional period, the Minister of Justice will be tasked with drawing up an assessment report on the application of the labour penalty. On the basis of this report, the Parliament will also conduct an assessment to consider the need to change the system of labour penalty.

This transitional period will also enable the magistrates, both of the seat and of the prosecutor’s office, and the persons encompassing the execution of the works of general interest, to take the necessary measures to make this work penalty a reality on the ground.

Mr. Speaker, my colleagues, the text we are about to vote today is of paramount importance in the evolution of the various forms of criminal responses to crime. Working punishment will no longer be a favor but a real punishment. The legislature of 1994 did not clearly distinguish between probation and alternative punishment. I am truly convinced that labour punishment will be a constructive, effective and economical alternative to imprisonment.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, Colleagues, although I personally have difficulty with the idea that work is a punishment – if work is a punishment, what we have done, Mr. Speaker – , yet I can – in all seriousness now – say that my group fully supports the ideas of the bill proposed by Mr. Bacquelaine.

First of all, I would like to express my appreciation for the excellent report of Mrs. Lalieux and for the work of the colleagues who submitted this bill. For the sake of completeness, I would add that the genesis of the bill must not be forgotten. The idea grew at a time when Minister Verwilghen and the VLD wanted the highway law and a political gesture had to be made in compensation for the coalition partners. It was necessary to establish a law on what was then called "alternative punishments", but what has since become a working punishment as an autonomous punishment, as just rightly stressed.

The idea at the basis of the bill is not found in flogged concepts, but in the daily Belgian compensation policy, in what I would call the summary policy of this purple-green coalition. However, the bill has been approved in the committee. Nevertheless, the discussion showed that it was done in a rather improvisational way, which was very clear when we had the luck to meet counselor Huybrechts in the Justice Committee. In fact, he is part of the Holsters Commission, appointed by the Minister on 30 June 2000 with the responsibilities of the criminal enforcement courts, the external legal position and the punishment award.

Like many others, I have listened enthusiastically to councillor Huybrechts, because it turned out that the committee is working on new autonomous punishments with a total concept. It is not only about the work penalty, but also about the judicial pardon, the simple declaration of guilt and the mere repair of damage inflicted on the victim. I find this ⁇ intriguing thoughts and the whole concept – a recovery-oriented criminal law – fascinates me.

Mr. Minister, I think these plans take away your full approval, if you are not the co-inspirer of the ideas presented. I am also ⁇ enthusiastic about these ideas. Furthermore, I have the impression that the committee’s reports will contain a revolutionary proposal that goes far beyond what is now predicted. The Holsters Committee will also propose to include in the Criminal Code that the judge should take into account the purpose of that punishment when seeking the type of punishment. This is ⁇ interesting. It also exists in other countries and it would put the debate on labour punishment into a much broader framework. Without interfering in the individual assessment, the judge should take into account the purpose of the penalty.

Mr. Bourgeois, I will follow you. In a global concept, one could see it this way, I would almost say ideal. I will only interrupt you to say that the punishment should not only be in relation to the facts. It may have been a lapsus, but you put before the judge a link between a specific act and a specific punishment. However, there are other considerations at that moment: the perpetrator in se, the effects of the act accumulated with the perpetrator’s personality. It may only be a supplement to your approach, but one cannot without a doubt associate with facts X punishment Y. So we would end up in an automation and then we would no longer need judges, but computers.

I do not want to have any misunderstandings about this. I repeated myself afterwards because I noticed that you were distracted for a moment. I just said what Mr Huybrechts put forward in the committee. By way of general directive and of course without prejudice to the individual assessment in which the person of the perpetrator and the concrete facts play a very important and possibly even the most important role, the purpose of a punishment and the type of punishment for which type of crime is best eligible would be recorded. I found this an interesting idea. As an introduction to my approach, I regret that this bill, although supported by us in terms of concept, was pulled out of its broad context.

I think the expectations created in the explanation still require some nuance. I have listened to Mr. Bacquelaine and he has repeated a number of things which, however, in certain points were not contradicted by the minister, but were still highly relative. First, it was written in the explanatory note and repeated here that this is an alternative to the short prison sentence. The text of the law itself does not determine this. It applies to acts punishable by police penalties and correctional penalties. This can go very far, I will come back to that. In addition, I read in the explanation that it is a constructive proposal, which is cost-saving. It would be a cost-efficient alternative to the prison sentence and for the ever-increasing prison population. It is definitely a constructive alternative. However, I refer to the Minister of Justice who pointed out the French experience. He will correct me if I am wrong, but he has said that in France this has not led to a reduction in the prison population, but to a reduction in impunity. A number of less significant criminal acts now receive an appropriate and “alternative” punishment. So it is a constructive alternative, but whether it can meet the high expectations in the future, it must be clear. No one less than the Minister of Justice himself has very strongly relativized this.

Second, is it a cost-saving alternative? Questions should also be questioned here. Whether the expectation of a decline in the prison population becomes a reality is an open question. In addition, the proper execution of such penalties costs a lot. From the beginning, I asked about the resources, and I will talk about that later. One cannot impose labour punishment without serious rearrangement and without serious means.

I am speaking not only of a rearrangement of the perpetrator, but also of the accompaniment of the victims and of the workplace or the environment in which the punished person ends up, even if it is to avoid – what has already occurred in other places, though less prepared and less rearranged, – any “rejection phenomena”. Stigmatisation of certain people, which has already occurred in the past, should also be avoided.

I have heard what my colleague Bourgeois is saying at the moment. I think we need to put ourselves in a medium and long-term perspective. As you have rightly said, labour penalties will allow to fight against some form of impunity. And when we fight impunity, we make sure to reduce the number of recurrences. In the long run, the number of recidives will be reduced and ⁇ a decrease in prison overpopulation will be introduced only by this fact. The first criminal acts are often the subject of a non-follow in the execution of the case and therefore, these people do not go to prison at the moment. If they are sentenced to a work penalty, in my opinion, they will fight impunity and will partially reduce the notion of recurrence. In the long run, I think there will be a decrease in the prison population. by

More fundamentally, society makes an economy. Think of all the induced effects of imprisonment for the 20, 30, 40 years that will follow the imprisonment of these young offenders who will fall into a criminal circuit because the prison has led them on a path harmful to society. The alternative to labour punishment is the notion of economy for society. This seems to me quite important.

Mr. Bacquelaine, on this point I agree with you. As I said before, it will undoubtedly lead to certain forms of crime, which may remain impunity, being addressed not only in an adequate but also in a humane way. It is true that this could eventually result in less recurrence, precisely because those on whom the work penalty is imposed do not end up in the prison environment.

In that sense, I support your explanation and the provisions of your bill, in which you stressed that a prison sentence sometimes has irreversible repercussions on the professional level, on the private life and on the personality. Therefore, I just completely dismissed the call of Mr. Verherstraeten and I advocate that the Dupont proposal should be taken as a priority to put the prisoners in a completely different position.

The Dupont Principle is brilliant in the sense that imprisonment would contain only one – though fundamental – restriction, in particular the right to move freely, but that personality, family contacts, personal life sphere, social involvement and the like should be preserved as much as possible. Such a goal should be achieved during this legislature.

I repeat that I support the objectives of the proposal and that I consider the underlying principle to be valuable. After all, the current resocialization of prisoners leaves much to be desired, and in that regard the Dupont design creates a lot of hope.

The labour punishment is in the interests of everyone, both of society, of the perpetrator and of the victim.

Nevertheless, I would like to formulate an important reservation, in particular concerning the applicability of the labour punishment. Indeed, the labour punishment will be applicable to acts which are punishable both by police punishment and by correctional punishment. However, I believe that the principle of proportionality, both qualitative and quantitative, must always be taken into account when determining the penalty, and I fear that this is not the case in this regard. Modulation and adjustment to the severity of the crime are insufficient. A correctional punishment can be up to five years, but with this proposal and in application of Article 25 of the Criminal Code, correctional punishments can even be up to ten years. In the case of repetition and in the application of Articles 55 and 56, in theory, punishments of twenty years may even be imposed. This is ⁇ very theoretical compared to this proposal, but it is so.

When I referred to this point during the parliamentary preparation, the submissions of the proposal noted that this was by no means the intention and that a penalty of five years of imprisonment would of course be replaced — I know that I cannot use the word substitute since it is an autonomous penalty — by a maximum labour penalty, namely three hundred hours. A quick calculation teaches us that twenty weekends of fifteen hours are enough to perform three hundred hours of punishment. Well, I consider that the proportionality with regard to a penalty of five years imprisonment and ⁇ with regard to a penalty of ten years imprisonment is no longer present. After all, one of our biggest concerns is that the added suffering must be proportional.

It must be an equivalent alternative. I fear that excesses will happen, especially rulings that impose labour penalties of up to 300 hours, which will collide with the sense of justice of the population. I think I am not alone with this. I refer to the preparatory discussions. Professor Van der Beken, who has studied the Dutch system very well, suggested to start very carefully so that one can gain experience and look at what resources we need. He went to work very carefully and proposed to take the work penalty as an alternative to punishments up to 8 months. I have proposed to set the limit to 2 years.

I fear that it is a risk to take into account unlimited correctional penalties, which can amount to up to 10 years and even 20 years. I would have preferred a more cautious start. After a few years, an evaluation could then be carried out, especially because it would be possible to examine on the ground what resources are needed for the implementation of this new law.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to the comments of Mr. Bourgeois.

Of course we have to make a choice. By now approving the bill and introducing the work penalty as an autonomous penalty, we give a strong signal that the judge offers the opportunity to extend the pallet that has been made available to him with an important instrument. At the same time there is the work of the Holsters committees, in which Mr. Huybrechts chairs a sub-committee, which will undoubtedly take into account the problem you now cite.

We had to make this choice. I think we made the right choice by approving the bill first. We will let the signal leave and we will be able to make an assessment following the application of this law. Then we can further conclude the debate, which, in my opinion, must be held almost in the foulée of the current debate, but for which we must be able to dispose of the conclusion of the Holsters committee.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Bourgeois, you should not consider this only theoretically. I can assume that Professor Van der Beken wants to proportionate the work penalty to a maximum correctional penalty of 8 months or 2 years, as you have proposed. Can I be as theoretical as you?

You say that in some circumstances the correctional penalty may amount to up to 10 years, which is indeed stipulated in Article 25 of the Criminal Code. However, the proposal also states that the judge, if he imposes a work penalty, must determine the substitute prison penalty which, if the work penalty is not executed, will have to be extended.

In theory, imagine a judge facing facts that give him the possibility of sentencing up to 10 years in prison. He imposes a work sentence of 300 hours and then determines that the replacement sentence is 10 years. This is truly jurism and vase clos, which has nothing to do with the pragmatic implementation of the present text.

I would like to respond to the words of the Minister.

Mr. Minister, I agree with your view on the work of the Holsters Committee. However, I have emphasized that, by clarifying this point, the bill takes it out of a broader context. For Mr Huybrechts there are ultimately no objections but he refers to the broader context with new penalties and the new idea of "what purpose for what punishment". These points are not included in the present bill.

Mr. Erdman, also in the committee you have pointed out that with a healthy, pragmatic approach, it is difficult to imagine a judge who would apply my example. However, the legislator must, in my opinion, be consistent and ensure that this theoretical example is not possible. You never know what aberrations are possible. I know my example was extreme. I hope that a judge will never replace a five-year sentence with a working sentence of several hours. This would conflict with the principle of proportionality. However, the present legislation does not exclude this possibility. In the field – you have longer experience in it than I do – decisions are being made that can be questioned whether they are compatible with the healthy pragmatic approach as you explained. I repeat that I think it is the task of the legislator to avoid this kind of thing.

I come to the resources. I have always pointed out that the necessary resources must be made available. The workload is almost completely shifted to the courts with new judicial assistants. The courts are given a not insignificant set of tasks, including the inventory of the workshops, the concrete fulfillment of the labour penalties and the follow-up of the execution of these penalties.

The question is whether there are enough people for these tasks. You have provided numerical materials. I have read these figures in the report and do not fully understand them. You have communicated that you expect there will be about 10,000 cases. This would require 154 escorts a ratio of a bet of 1.2 million francs, increased by 300,000 francs operating costs. That is 1.5 million francs per accompanying person. If I count 154 escorts for 1.5 million francs, I get 231 million francs. The report mentions 114 million francs. Can you explain this?

You have reserved 156 million francs for the expansion of the judicial houses. I hope this will be sufficient. In the committee, I have insisted that one should examine what it costs in the Netherlands and what rearrangement one has there. I am afraid that this has not been done enough.

Will the offer be sufficient? I hope that the supply of workshops is sufficient to ensure that the principle of equality is not violated. However, it cannot be that — as an example — in the Veurne arrondissement insufficient labour penalties can be imposed in the absence of employment offer. It can be difficult to force a person from the Westhoek to execute his work sentence at a distance of 100 kilometers. The principle of equality must be respected. The supply must be sufficient and evenly distributed across all districts. Otherwise, the principle of equality will be violated.

The trial committee is involved. I remain in the opinion that there would be more safeguards if the system of criminal enforcement courts had already been implemented.

Mr. Speaker, I have submitted an amendment to Article 37ter, paragraph 1, because this article contains a manifest error in the Dutch text.

Mr Bourgeois, your amendment is a text improvement. I have discussed this with you and Mr. Erdman. I will propose your amendment as a text improvement.

The hierarchy of penalties is not built. What happens in the profession? Article 211bis of the Code of Criminal Procedure stipulates that there must be unanimity when the penalty is heightened in appeal.

If an appeal converts a work penalty into a prison penalty, is that an aggravation of the penalty? I think a response to that is not unimportant.

Mr. Bourgeois, there is a parameter available. I explain myself more closely. A labour sentence, if not executed, is immediately converted into a prison sentence of for example one year. If an appeal is made against the judgment, which without a doubt imposes a prison sentence of one year, that is a weighting, because there is no alternative offered. There is a reference framework.

Mr. Speaker of the Committee, if indeed a 150-hour work penalty is imposed and, in the case of non-execution, a one-year imprisonment, and if in the appeal an effective six-year imprisonment is imposed without an alternative work penalty, then I think that last one-half-year penalty weighs heavier than the one-year imprisonment that is actually imposed subsidiarely. However, this is not yet clear, as there is still no hierarchy. There is still confusion about this.

I decide because I do not want to be seduced to endless dialogue, even though it is a very important proposal.

You do not have to be involved in this, Mr. Bourgeois. I like such discussions.

Mr. President, Mr. Laeremans tried to add a new case. If, in appeal, a penalty is imposed for which there is no alternative and which is ipso facto depriving of liberty, this naturally implies a burden. I would almost say that such a thing is obvious.

I turn around. Especially under the impulse of Attorney General Maes, the cabinet employee of the Minister, another very important distinction was made between learning for punishment and working for punishment. I think this has already solved a serious problem in the parliamentary preparation.

Collega Verherstraeten has stated that it is the duty of the opposition to conduct opposition. I think that principle applies less to matters relating to justice. We evaluate each proposal and design on its merits. It is not because it comes from the majority or from the opposition that we are against it, or we are for it. I would have very much wanted to say that we would press the green button. However, we do not do that. You know my reservation from the beginning.

In summary, I fully agree with the principle of allowing labour penalties. However, we question, among other things, the resources and their proportionality and the fact that the measures are not taken following a total reform. For the latter, I can, by the way, give some understanding.

I do not want to weigh on the length of the discussion.

Madame Dardenne, can I ask you to express your opinion with the concision you are dear? The room will be pleased.

Ladies and gentlemen, I will be brief. I am speaking as a co-signator of the proposal. I was especially involved in the initial phase of this proposal. I will leave the floor to my colleague Vincent Decroly to give more details about him.

It is not unnecessary to recall – some have already done so – in what context this bill came into being. It was co-signed by all the heads of the majority group and found its origin in the debate on immediate appearance. For us, it was, in accordance with the government statement, to restore a balance following a measure of a marked repressive character: the immediate appearance. We wanted to introduce a measure aimed at a greater humanization of justice. It is in fact about proposing an alternative to the prison, which everyone today agrees to emphasize its criminogenic character, while retaining a punishment beneficial both for society. Bacquelaine has well demonstrated it – for the offender who is placed in a constructive approach since he must accomplish something and also for the victim. by Mr. Bacquelaine emphasized the fact that this would be a response to the concept of impunity that our society complains about today.

I would like to add, Mr. Minister, that the work of general interest is mentioned in your budget note. You were open to the proposal. by

I would like to highlight a few elements that I think are essential in this bill. What seems to me to be decisive is that the work of general interest is an autonomous punishment in itself, instead of imprisonment. The inclusion of this acquisition in our Criminal Code is a real evolution, if not a revolution. I think this is a historical breakthrough in this area. Work of general interest is therefore no longer a condition attached to suspension; it is an autonomous main punishment that appears as a constructive response involving the offender, as opposed to imprisonment which has a passive character. by

I will point out a few important elements of the system that will be implemented. Through constructive committee work, we have been able to broaden the scope of the penalty in question and to limit the exclusion. The use of this punishment can thus be extended to all crimes and crimes correctionalizable. This is much more than just a facade cleaning. by

The second element to be remembered: the non-inscription in the certificate of good life and morals, even if, as in the case of the suspension of the sentence, the information concerning the sentence remains available to the judicial authorities. by

I also point out the positive development of the work carried out in the committee regarding the subsidiary imprisonment penalty provided for in case of non-execution of the work of general interest. It has lost its character of automaticity and now requires the intervention of the probation commission.

Another positive element: for the application of the penalty of work of general interest, there is no relationship with the background. This proposition is therefore philosophically oriented towards the future, towards reinsertion and no longer towards a sometimes traumatic and heavy past of guilt. by

We can only congratulate us on the completion of this work that has been very long, ⁇ much longer than planned. Sure, as others have said, improvements still need to be made to this project but it represents a considerable advance. My party will vote for it without any backthinking.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker. Although this time limit can be considered as long, it has in any case allowed to turn around the problem and to be able to reflect on all the implications of this important problem that are alternative judicial measures.

My group has always been aware of the need to develop and encourage alternative judicial measures. Indeed, we are all — or at least many of us — convinced that imprisonment is not in itself a solution to all crime. Many of us are aware of the pernicious effects of imprisonment, especially for primary offenders. by

This is also an obvious thing that has appeared to the legislator, since the suspension — simple or probatory — or the suspension of the pronounced has long existed in our criminal law. In this context, work of general interest or training was introduced, already several years ago, in addition to the suspension or suspension of the speech. by

For several years, the legislature has also looked at the problem of alternative judicial measures. by Mr. Verherstraeten has appropriately recalled the projects recently taken by Minister De Clerck in his Penitentiary Policy Notes, where he already wanted to make efforts to support these measures. Moreover, during the previous legislature, I tried, along with others, to promote these by trying, ⁇ imperfectly, to ease the procedure that led to them. by

But beyond the procedure, it should be noted — and this is ⁇ also one of the motivations of the authors of this bill — that many magistrates do not yet spontaneously turn to alternative judicial measures. They probably have their reasons. The same goes for the bar. In fact, we must note that few lawyers have the reflection to propose to the criminal courts alternative judicial measures. by

This debate is an opportunity for me, Mr. Minister, to remind you and to emphasize, as you did in committee, the need for training and information of magistrates. Everyone who is interested in the world of justice knows magistrates who are concerned with thinking about alternative judicial measures. This is a good thing. However, it is still a minority. Therefore, it is necessary to go further, while keeping in mind — as this appears from the statements that are made today — that public interest work or training cannot constitute answers to all forms of crime. by

In this regard, I think we agree.

It is obviously regrettable that few magistrates resort to these alternative judicial measures, first, because, in many cases, they prove to be preferable to prison, or even to a simple suspension, then, because experience and statistics teach us that they are effective. To determine this, it is sufficient to refer to the examination of the figures of the recurrence. by

Therefore, our group could only support the proposal to make these alternative measures autonomous measures, i.e. full-time sentences, and therefore to create an additional modality for the magistrate, hoping obviously that he will apply it more often than before. by

The draft resulted in compromises. This means that there can be some positive points and others a little more negative. In any case, these were ⁇ interesting discussions. But this is only the beginning, Mr. President. The entire problem of the punishment, we will also have to address it when we consider the Dupont report. The bill is called Van Parys-Decroly proposal. In addition, you will return to it because sooner or later we will have to examine the problem of the penalty enforcement court.

I would like to go back a moment to the problem of the definition of training. In fact, we currently have, on the one hand, the work of general interest and, on the other hand, the training.

In this regard, the debate has been quite extensive, in particular on whether training constitutes a penalty. I would like to reiterate here my conviction that training can be regarded as a sanction, even though some do not share this opinion, but training, at least applied in the context of a judicial decision, contains the determining element of coercion which is, in my opinion, the essential point.

In this regard, the hearing of Mr. Huybrechts was ⁇ enlightening. In fact, there is a penalty as soon as an obligation is imposed to repress a reproachable fact. That is why I respect Mr. Huybrechts, that a training can be considered a punishment. Per ⁇ another terminology could be used without, however, changing anything in the principle. It follows that if it is a penalty, your competence is concerned in your capacity as Minister of Justice and not that of the communities, while acknowledging, of course, that cooperation agreements must be signed to organize the training. This poses no problem.

Training actually has a punitive character, because it is imposed on a person but it also plays — it must not be denied and it should ideally be the goal of any punishment, whatever it is — a role of social reintegration, as well as work of general interest or as prison punishment. I also believe, Mr. Minister, that you support this way of seeing things, when you speak of “restaurative” or “restaurative” justice.

This training is, in my opinion, linked to justice and is one of its means. This does not, therefore, appear in any way to any Community competence. That said, we agreed not to insert training as an autonomous penalty without adhering to the acceptance of the theories developed in commission on the notion, but ⁇ by budget realism.

I would also like to highlight the problem of non-execution of works of general interest. Indeed, the non-execution or incorrect execution of the substitute penalty may obviously result from a whole range of factors and not only from the wrong will of the convicted. In this case, what to do? Should the public prosecutor be the only person responsible for this matter? Should a proportionality criterion be included in the subsidiary penalty in the event of partial enforcement? by

It is clear, Mr. Minister, and I return to it, that all these questions would not have been raised in the same way in our debate if we knew the court of execution of sentences, because ultimately, this body would be the most competent to resolve all difficulties or try to remedy non-execution, whether partial or total. That is why I believe, but I know that you are attentive to it, that it is necessary to redouble efforts as soon as this commission has completed this work, so that the conclusions can be made. by

In the absence of this body, it appeared necessary for our group to provide for a system similar to probation and therefore to extend the powers of the probation commission in this matter. This was the solution proposed during the hearings. This probation commission will then be able to play a filter role, that is, to control the execution of the sentence, to verify whether it is appropriate to transmit a report to the public prosecution so that it evaluates or not the opportunity to apply the subsidiary penalty, but also to encourage the assistant of justice, who here sees his role again revalued, to find solutions for the labour penalty to be effectively executed. by

On another level, the text proposed to you excludes the application of the labour penalty of general interest as an autonomous penalty for certain offences. It was not our choice. Simply, I would like to clarify that if I understand well the will of those who wanted to exclude from the application of the offences which prima facie are serious offences and in any case very little sympathetic, it remains that in my opinion, we must be attentive to the fact that while in theory, offences, incriminations can appear as ⁇ severe and serious, it remains that in practice, cases from case to case can be assessed in a completely different way, and that is why in our case, it seemed to us more useful to leave the free judgment of the magistrate regardless of the offences that were the subject of prosecution. by

Finally, as regards the maintenance of work of general interest other than as an autonomous penalty, i.e. work of general interest within the framework of criminal mediation, preventive detention, the suspension, suspension and probation law, the committee decided in majority to abolish work of general interest in these hypotheses. This is not a matter of principle. Indeed, we can adhere to the principle that only a judge is competent to impose a sentence at the end of a contradictory debate and I have heard you, Mr. Minister, on this subject, or more precisely your representative during committee debates. by

That said, there is still a problem of consistency at the level of reasoning and as I specified in the committee, it will not be necessary to make the economy of an identical debate on the problem of transactions that are left to the sole assessment of the public prosecutor or even in the face of the very many administrative fines that more and more laws provide for their observance.

Following the period of reflection that we have set, we will also need to ensure that the abolition of the work of general interest in the context of mediation or probation does not sign, in the short or medium term, the death stop of these two systems which, however, also, currently give satisfaction in terms of reduction of recurrence, which, in the end, remains always our main concern when looking at the problem of sanction.

Therefore, I hope that the transitional period proposed today to the House will allow Parliament to have sufficient elements to make this choice and to reflect. By then, we may already have the Holsters Committee report.

Finally, I would like to greet those who, in their everyday profession, frame the work of general interest on the ground and thus make possible the application of such measures that constitute, fundamentally, a positive approach of society to the phenomenon of crime.

The Socialist Group will therefore approve the text of the bill proposed to you, while remaining attentive to the elements that I have highlighted.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, it will surprise few that the Flemish Bloc is not enthusiastic about that bill. Not because we are murderous against alternative punishments or against labor punishment as an autonomous punishment. However, because this bill goes too far in a number of points and is mainly intended to counter the overpopulation of prisons. Much less is it intended to place the correct or most appropriate penalty measure on the various criminal offences.

Again, I would like to emphasize that we have no problem with the existence in itself of what is called alternative punishments, more specifically for those who commit a small crime, who do it for the first time, who show repentance, and for whom it is better not to end up in prison immediately.

We ⁇ do not have a problem with the fact that one assigns that power to the criminal judge and thus extends his arm. This increases, at least in theory, the likelihood that the criminal judge will impose an effective punishment instead of a conditional sentence, instead of a suspension or instead of a very short sentence that is not extended. Our criticism of the criminal justice system was, and is, that, on the one hand, the criminal judge has too little policy space and too little relevance for the criminal judge. On the other hand, the judge is joked once the penalties have been pronounced, because everything is undertaken to not execute the penalties imposed.

With the help of the PS, the ambiguity still exists today. Instead of making a clear choice in favor of the criminal judge, let the two systems now exist side by side. You are introducing free competition, with complexity and opacity increasing. A transitional period of 18 months is introduced. There will also be no interference with the existing system. Everything is then made dependent on a law of ratification, which the King should ask us to do. Unfortunately, before the election, this law will never come into effect.

I have already said that alternative punishments are acceptable for us when it comes to minor crimes and for people who commit a crime for the first time. However, this legislation goes much further. Crimes sentenced to many years of imprisonment can now be easily sanctioned with several dozen hours of handwork. Recidivists can also be permanently confused with these types of alternative penalties, even if they have previously been sentenced to a criminal sentence or a main imprisonment sentence of twelve months or more — a limit that was still incorporated in the original proposal — and regardless of their number of precedents. For us, this is absolutely unacceptable and irresponsible.

By the way, there is an incredible disproportion between, on the one hand, the number of hours of manual work to be performed with three hundred hours as the absolute ceiling, and, on the other hand, the prison sentence for which that labour sentence is used as a substitute. Two years of effective imprisonment is equivalent to more than 17 thousand hours of cell detention. This law proposal means that a work penalty of about two hundred and fifty hours can be replaced. All reason and all reasonable proportions are sought.

We had therefore proposed that the judge would not have the obligation but the possibility to extend the labour penalties to fifteen hundred hours, which corresponds to two hundred working days of seven and a half hours. This is not even a full working year. However, our proposal was dismissed as being out of proportion. Understand who can.

Furthermore, we note that the majority parties intend to replace these alternative penalties as far as possible with effective prison sentences, and not to fight impunity or to help prevent so many criminal files from being wrongly recorded or resulting in a too light conditional sentence.

This proposal immerses itself in an atmosphere of abolitionism, of a profound aversion and aversion to the prison sentence. Not only because that prison sentence costs a lot of money, but especially because that sentence is "funest" for the offenders. This is so literally stated in the explanation, without nuance or addition. All the tens of thousands of people who once, thanks to the prison sentence, that is, thanks to the period of imprisonment, were escaped from the crime and returned to the right path, so we would better have never been locked. We seem to have wronged those people. It was terrible for them all.

Therefore, this bill aims to force the sentencing courts – in those terms it is stated – to impose as many alternative penalties as possible. If they do not do so and yet dare to impose that cursed prison sentence, then they must respond. This means that alternative punishments should become the rule and prison sentences the great exception. After all, everything is in the light of the only blissful purpose: to send as few people into the prison as possible and those who are in it must come out of it as soon as possible. It is clear that Justice will play a strong stimulating role in this regard by obliging the public prosecutor through binding directives, on the one hand, to seek as many alternative penalties as possible and, on the other hand, to refrain from executing the imposed prison sentences or, as soon as legally possible, to convert them into labour penalties.

Colleagues, today already those who actually end up in prison by all the obstacles that were raised in the past are the great exceptions. Whoever today, after a conviction, effectively ends up in prison – a single mistake, of course, not afterwards – actually belongs there and needs that punishment, that period of repentance. By further reducing the chances of imprisonment, you do not serve the rule of law. You continue to undermine people’s trust in the court.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, I will not return to the preliminaries that bring us today, after a year of fairly in-depth work on complex data both on the social, human, but also technical, legal and on-site application, to discuss this bill. Ms. Dardenne has already spoken about this. by

I would like to begin my speech by citing an important excerpt from Council of Europe Recommendation 92/16 dated 1992. “Sanctions and non-prison measures have undergone an unprecedented development in most Member States’ legislation for two decades, allowing for a more creative approach to how to address the problem of crime and punishment. This growth movement is due, among other things, to the increased intervention of criminal law as a means of combating crime, to the concern for diversifying punishment for better adequacy of responses to crime, and to the deficiencies of imprisonment which has not proven to be more effective in preventing recurrence than other sanctions or measures implemented in the community and which involve high costs. It is necessary, in particular as it is their statement, to confer on these sanctions and measures a character of full autonomy in relation to other criminal sanctions and measures. They provide qualitatively credible answers for dealing with small and medium crime. It is undeniable that these sanctions and measures must occupy a key place in the range of criminal responses because they offer certain advantages over deprivation of liberty."

It is in this perspective that the government statement and general policy notes presented by the Minister of Justice to the Justice Committee, during the examination of draft budgets, and that the bill that is submitted to us today is incorporated. by

It was appropriate to amend our Criminal Code so that these alternative measures become authentic main sentences that are therefore no longer included only as part of a proof measure. In fact, you know, on the basis of current legislation, these works of general interest and these training can only be pronounced by the judge if the offender enters into the conditions to obtain either a suspension or a suspension of the pronounced. Work of general interest and training were, until now, only one modality of the imprisonment punishment accompanied by a suspension or a suspension of the sentence. This implies that persons who have already been sentenced to more than one year of imprisonment could not be granted a job of general interest or training because they would no longer be able to obtain a suspension or a suspension of the pronounced.

We bring, with the text that will be adopted today, a modification of this practice as have already done many States that have introduced work of general interest as a penalty in their legislation. In France, the legislature recognized the possibility of the courts to condemn a person, either as a main title or as a special prescription, within the framework of a suspended prison sentence, to perform on behalf of the community, a work whose duration is between 40 and 240 hours. Ireland has, too, recognized this work of general interest as a full-time sanction imposed by the judge at the same time as a prison sentence that is not executed. by

Today we confirm the choice of a constructive and humanistic criminal justice.

The functions traditionally assigned to punishment are multiple, turning both to the past (reward function), to the present (neutralization function, disability function) and to the future (amendment function, general and individual prevention, restitution, repair, social reintegration). The purposes of the punishment are often difficult to reconcile.

Furthermore, at the same time as these functions are affirmed, we must well acknowledge that, when it comes to the penalty of deprivation of liberty, it does not serve or only serves very secondarily to correct the guilty and to intimidate his possible imitators. Durckheim, quoted by Lévy in "The Desire to Punish": "the punishment deprivation of liberty sees its effectiveness very rightly dubious and in any case mediocre. Its true function is to maintain intact social cohesion by keeping all its vitality in the common consciousness.”

Nowadays, does the rainbow majority decree some sort of generalized regime of great forgiveness? Are we confusing our country with the so kind kingdom of teletubbies where everyone is but gentleness and kindness towards their neighbor? No, but conscious of the symbolic function of punishment, we can nevertheless find no justification for a principle that would consist in systematically inflicting a harm to a guilty person, a evil that, when it consists of imprisonment, can derive to inhuman and degrading treatment.

It is necessary today to develop and promote different responses to crime. Prisoning is the only response to antisocial behavior only in certain cases and only in certain cases. The proposed alternatives will therefore be limited to certain facts and certain authors. As long as our Criminal Code and its complementary laws translate this curious blend of classical criminal doctrine and positivist thinking, the criteria for applying alternative punishments will remain artificial, subject to criticism and always partially inadequate. by

The reforms will remain imperfect until we carry out an authentic reflection on the meaning, scope and implementation of 21st century criminal law. This reflection would inevitably lead us to the conclusion of the necessary overhaul of the Criminal Code, the Criminal Procedure Code and the particular criminal laws.

That being said, this proposal is based on the following choice: preferring a restorative model of criminal justice, providing a socially and humanally constructive response to criminal behavior, not inventing an alternative punishment to prison, but making imprisonment an alternative to work of general interest. Thus, from now on, the refusal to condemn someone to a penalty of labour of general interest that would be requested by him or by his counsel should be duly motivated by the judge.

This perspective necessarily implies the avoidance as much as possible of imprisonment because it contributes to social declassing and the dehumanization of the persons who are the subject of it, not to mention the devastating effects on their surroundings and their families, of which our colleague Bacquelaine had recently mentioned sustainability in terms of decades.

Indeed, the provision of services for the benefit of the community participates in a process tending to arouse, in the head of the interested party, a consciousness of the scope of his gesture and to make him responsible without, however, excluding him, as does the prison, from the social fabric.

It is accepted that giving an active role to the offender in the execution of his sanction necessarily implies his holding accountable. By its nature, the work of general interest is carried out within civil society and it holds those who have been convicted there accountable, putting it in the presence of socially integrated persons and groups.

This encounter can result in a change in both the sometimes stereotyped social representations of crime and how to respond to it, and the way the author perceives himself as a member of the community.

We have therefore, in the proposal that is being voted today, made the choice of a diversification of the modes of criminal response. In the current state of law, it has been recalled, work of general interest and training as a criminal response can occur on a double basis. This proposal has the effect of conferring the work of general interest a third legal status, that of the main punishment.

As such, these new penalties must constitute alternatives to imprisonment and not means of extending social control.

We also have questions about the choice to be made between, on the one hand, a form of pragmatism inspired by the positive results (in terms of non-recidive) of the general interest work measures imposed in the context of criminal mediation or in the context of suspension and probation, and, on the other hand, the will for readability and consistency that would lead to the solution that has been favored. This is to limit the use of work of general interest to only one of these assumptions. by

We may see at the end of the two years of "proof" of the system we implement today what conclusions we can draw from it. Per ⁇ then there will be data that could enlighten us more about the relevance of the choices made today. by

As regards the conditions for the application of work of general interest and training as main sentences, it was appropriate to renounce conditions relating to the backgrounds of the person concerned and to reduce the taking into account of these antecedents, in order to remain in the logic of a main sentence and in the perspective of a social reintegration. As Ms Dardenne recalled, this choice comes from the will to orient the repression towards the future and no longer towards the past of the offender, while taking into account the contemporary situation of the offender, the social situation of the person, his or her trajectory on the economic, family and personal levels, his or her professional and intellectual abilities. by

I will conclude, ladies and gentlemen, by recalling that this bill also provides that in the absence of satisfactory execution of the work of general interest, the imprisonment pronounced subsidarily by the judge of the substance may become enforceable. An automatic conversion would have been related to the mechanism of revocation of the suspension or suspension and it would have greatly relativised the autonomous character of the penalty concerned. The fact that a probationary commission should, if necessary, re-examine the case of the person who would not have properly performed the work of general interest seems to us to be an excellent option.

Finally, unlike the judgment of condemnation to probatory suspension, the judgment of condemnation to work of general interest will not appear on the certificate of good conduct, life and morals of the person concerned. This seems to us to be an excellent thing, even if only in the perspective of the necessary reintegration of the person through employment. by

Let us therefore assume that the two-year transitional period that opens today will confirm, in proportions of 70 or 80%, the effectiveness of the works of general interest and will lead to the stage where the work of general interest can no longer be pronounced but as a penalty. Let us also ensure that this device of humanization and constructive management of crime is completed, under this legislature yet, by the substantive work to which the Dupont Commission has called us. It will have to look at the living conditions and the legal conditions of those who, despite the possibilities we have just created, will nevertheless have to live at least part of their sentence in prison.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, here has been said a lot. However, I would like to highlight a few points in order to situate this debate.

First, I would like to pay tribute to the only representative of the press who has realized that here we are indeed at a turning point in the penological approach.

Mr. Erdman, the fact that the press is not physically present here does not mean that it is not listening.

I hope that the press will listen. Usually the press is very quick to judge people and say that no action is taken against certain crimes. Now that we are at a turning point here, the interest of the press appears to be much less.

Second, I think we are only at the beginning of the debate, although I would like to pay tribute to the initiators. We have made a number of attempts to compile a text. There will undoubtedly be criticism of the text, and practice will surely urge us to make further adjustments. However, this text fits into a global project. On the one hand, as regards Dupont, there is the Van Parys-Decroly proposal that is yet to be submitted. On the other hand, there are the Huybrechts Commission and the Holsters Commission that will also provide certain elements.

Dear colleagues, we are going to conduct an experiment here. We must be well aware of it. This is not a finished text, not a finished product. We will depend on the application on the ground and on the basis of the experiments that will then be carried out, we will be able to examine to what extent this experiment can actually be considered a turning point.

Mr. Speaker, our group will convincingly support the proposal of colleagues Bacquelaine and Van der Maelen.

The Government cannot be absent from this debate. It is not because it is a bill that has not been granted full cooperation. Since then, the context of the creation of this bill has been explained, so that even some smaller minds dare to say that even if the procedure of the immediate appearance does not yield the results expected from it, it has at least been deserved to dust the debate on the bill that is now being discussed and to bring it to a good end. I am deeply convinced that the step we are taking now to introduce labor punishment as an autonomous punishment should be considered historical.

I would like to thank, without exception, all the members of the Justice Committee for the positive atmosphere that prevailed during the debate. Difficult nodes had to be cut through and political decisions had to be made. However, we have taken them with a great sense of reality. We have taken a first, more than shy step towards a general commemoration of what the punishment and the execution of punishment should be, in the extension of the work of the commission Dupont, in the extension of the work that also the Holsters commission is now carrying out. As Commission Chairman Erdman has said, it is a first experiment, which is considered well and for which we want to make an effort.

The judge will now have a means to prefer a sensible punishment, just because it is constructive, reparative, human and accepted, to the imprisonment of which we know all the devastating consequences for the social bond and of which we fear the criminogenic influence, knowing that of two individuals present, deprived of their liberty, the best is contaminated without the worst improving.

The provision of useful work to the community, performed with the help of that same community, will have a responsibility-making effect, both for the convicted and for society. It will not only be a symbol of reparation but the non-separation of the convicted into a microcosm must avoid boredom and will also allow him to contribute personally and actively to the compensation of his victim. by

We will have to convince the judges and the public opinion – several speakers have already said it today – that the work penalty should no longer be considered as an alternative to the established traditions of punishment, in particular the prison penalty and the fine, but that, on the contrary, detention must become the ultimate remedy and the alternative in punishment. This also means that the imposed measures must be treated with substance seriousness and that a check on compliance with the stated conditions of employment will also need to be carried out. That will cost money, but it is a useful investment. In fact, the figures from the countries that widely apply the system have shown that the likelihood of recurrence in these circumstances is much lower. There will therefore be an effort expected from the magistrates, the approval committees, the officials of the judicial houses, the civil society assistants and the frameworking staff.

The greatest challenge of this important initiative of reductionist criminal policy is to persuade magistrates and lawyers to consider, in the first place, whether, given all the values that are its own, labour punishment could not be a more appropriate response to the needs of social security and the objectives of restoration of damage caused before thinking about pronouncing, requiring or accepting the, necessarily temporary, separation of an accused outside of society. by

I have already said that the government will take responsibility for this and will make the necessary efforts. The debate also clearly demonstrated that the distinction in the role confusion that existed in the past between alternative punishments, on the one hand, specifically the labor substances, and on the other hand, the teaching punishments, has largely been eliminated.

In a policy that leads to a recovery-oriented justice, this is an important step forward. It is definitely and ⁇ not a final pillar. The end of the discussion can only be reached if the penalty enforcement court is present and if the discussion on the internal and external position of the detainees has been conducted. Under these circumstances, the bill should be given a full opportunity to develop. I have urged the government to release at least the necessary resources in the 2002 budget in order to give this bill every chance of success.

General discussion is closed. The general discussion is closed.