Proposition 51K1146

Projet de loi modifiant l'article 216ter du Code d'instruction criminelle en vue de réintroduire le travail d'intérêt général dans le cadre de la médiation pénale.

General information ¶

Authors

MR Daniel Bacquelaine, Olivier Maingain
Open Vld Alfons Borginon
PS | SP Thierry Giet, Karine Lalieux
Vooruit Hilde Claes

Submission date

May 19, 2004

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

criminal procedure

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Vooruit Ecolo LE PS | SP Open Vld MR

Abstained from voting

CD&V N-VA 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 ¶

April 28, 2005 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, despite the fact that the proposal actually contains only two articles, you will notice that my report covers 74 pages. Let me reassure you, I will not read those 74 pages.

This is not allowed by the Rules, Mr. Muls.

I will limit myself to the very essential, Mr. Speaker. Indeed, as you said, the bill was submitted by the colleagues Bacquelaine, Giet, Borginon, Maingain, Lalieux and Claes and has engaged the Justice Committee during five meetings that were very interesting. Although the bill is rather short in length, the committee found it very important to hear the field of work in it. These hearings have been reflected in the annexes to the report.

The proposal aims to allow the Prosecutor’s Office to maintain the possibility to propose the provision of services in the context of mediation in criminal matters. The criminal mediation procedure allows the public prosecution to dismiss the criminal action provided that the offender is willing to provide services or to undertake training, and provided, of course, that there is no civil proceedings with the investigation judge.

Criminal mediation is opposed to autonomous labour punishment, in the sense that autonomous labour punishment is primarily a punishment imposed by a judge while the provision of services is not. In many cases, the provision of post-criminal mediation services is a suitable way to act towards society with a recovery-oriented approach.

I can therefore conclude my report, concluding that the proposers of the bill advocate the preservation of the service as one of the possible measures that can be applied in the mediation in criminal matters.

The committee devoted five sessions to the discussion of this bill, which is ⁇ not very long but which is not less important yet. The Commission found it useful to hear in detail the points of view of the stakeholders concerned.

The proposal aims to enable the Prosecutor’s Office to offer services in the context of criminal mediation. This means that criminal instruction is waived as long as there is no civil party and the criminal is doing a service to society or is undergoing training. The difference with autonomous labour punishment is that the latter is fixed by a judge. Since criminal mediation is an adequate way to promote reintegration, the authors advocate for its maintenance.

Thank you for your brief report. It was an example.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, my speech will be brief.

We are not opposed to criminal mediation. It can be useful in a number of situations, it can be a useful tool for the parquet, especially also to prevent suspension and to avoid people who come into contact with the court for the first time being drawn immediately before a court while criminal mediation may be a more useful tool to put them on the right path. Of course, we must avoid the abuse of that system and that people do not again and again enjoy the benefit of a non-judgment and a conversation with the prosecutor and a limited task or assignment, while sometimes they could be eligible for an effective conviction by a magistrate, by a judge. Their

We have therefore submitted an amendment to give the prosecutor’s magistrates a better view of these types of measures because at the moment a prosecutor’s magistrates are confronted with a perpetrator and the magistrate offers a kind of alternative sanction — such as:

We are not opposed to criminal mediation. This can be useful, in particular to avoid unsequent rankings or to give a chance to someone who is dealing with Justice for the first time. However, we must ensure that this procedure does not constitute a source of abuse allowing perpetrators to escape a conviction each time. We therefore want prosecutors to have a better insight into the situation through the creation of an electronic register listing all sanctions, training, etc. He has no sight on the foregoing in op eventuele gelijkaardige maatregelen die in het verleden zijn getroffen, noch op de wijze waarop die zijn uitgevoerd. We will dat parketmagistraten in de gelegenheid worden gesteld om daarop een beter zicht te krijgen in ook om te zien of in het verleden for example of slachtoffers werden vergoed voor gelijkaardige of other misdrijven by the same perpetrator gepleegd. by

We therefore want to use this law to create a register, an electronic central database in which such facts, as well as the sanctions, victim relief and recovery, the remuneration, the training that is followed, and so on - are recorded, such that a prosecutor who faces the same offender three or four years later can judge with knowledge of the facts whether he will take a similar measure or bring the person concerned before the court. Their

Since our proposal is so reasonable, useful and meaningful for the parks and provides them with a very efficient tool that can hardly cost anything, I think that a very broad majority in this House, even a majority across the House, will approve this amendment. We count on this and we look forward to your support. The previous ones. Les magistrats de parquet pourront ainsi juge et connaissance de cause. Our proposition is really useful and does not generate practically any cost. Our amendment merits as soon as we have a large accession.

Mr Laeremans, thank you for your brief intervention.

I look forward to the conclusion of this proposal. We wanted to introduce in our criminal arsenal the labour punishment as an autonomous punishment. It is true that, for the sake of coherence, we had, at the time, thought that it was appropriate to make a number of arrangements so that the labour penalties, which actually correspond to a judgment, are clearly linked to the judgment and to the definition of a punishment as such.

Consulting the field actors, it emerged very quickly that the disappearance of the general interest work of criminal mediation posed a number of problems. We thus wanted to reintroduce the possibility of the work of general interest in the context of criminal mediation, as previously existed in Article 216ter, which enabled in fact to invite the offender to perform a work of general interest of a duration of not more than 120 hours within the time limit that he fixed, this period being at least one month and six months at most.

We held meetings on the evaluation of the work penalty, ⁇ in Liège. Thierry Giet and I co-organised meetings in this regard and we quickly felt, from the field actors, that this tool of the work of general interest in criminal mediation seemed to them useful and necessary.

We are pleased that, overall, the notion of penalty for work of general interest has developed very rapidly since the adoption of the law of 17 April 2002. Some figures are quite eloquent: from 7 May 2002 to 20 June 2003, 3,569 judgments imposed a labour sentence; for the whole year 2003, 4,659 labour sentences were imposed; in 2004, this figure amounted to 7,369. This growth corresponds to a number of objectives, which I will briefly recall. First, I find it useful to try to avoid imprisonment where possible, as well as the whole pathogenic nature of imprisonment.

This proposal is finally approaching its completion. We wanted to introduce labour punishment as an autonomous punishment in our criminal legal arsenal. In order to maintain the necessary coherence, we had the work penalty linked to a sentence. It soon turned out that the abolition of the provision of services in the context of mediation in criminal matters brought problems. So we wanted to reintroduce this service in its former form. Mr. Giet and I have dedicated several meetings to the assessment of the labour penalty in the context of mediation in criminal matters. Soon we realized that the actors in the field felt this instrument necessary.

We are grateful for the development of the application of the work penalty since 2002 has gekend. Vaak is the useful pathogenic effect of a prison sentence. Bovendien valt na een werkstraf minder recidive vast te stellen dan na na een gevangenisstraf. Ten slotte offers a werkstraf of prison for individuals, especially young people. Secondly, it turns out that the recurrence rate is lower when labor punishment is practiced rather than imprisonment. Finally, this allows to fight against some impunity: you know that imprisonment sentences less than six months are not executed. Working punishment makes a punishment sometimes very necessary.

However, if she had been present, I would have drawn the attention of the Minister of Justice on the fact that sufficient resources must be provided in the context of accompanying, in particular for judicial assistants, so that labour penalties can be effectively applied. The same will obviously be the case on the occasion of the reintroduction of the penalties for work of general interest. We need to provide adequate budgets. Otherwise, if there were great difficulties on the ground in applying both the labour penalty and the work of general interest in criminal mediation, judges and magistrates would be inclined to make reservations regarding this possibility because it happens that the penalties are not executed, are not applied in the absence of the necessary guidance and accompaniment.

However, I know that in its circulary on the provisional release, the Minister of Justice explicitly excluded that convicted persons who have not performed their work penalty may be exempted from subsidiary imprisonment, even if this subsidiary imprisonment is less than six months. I think the minister was right in stating this in his circular. That said, if I hear the magistrates right, many subsidiary penalties are not applied. If this habit should be confirmed, if subsidiary imprisonment penalties were applied too rarely or not applied, it could result that the tool would be less and less used, not being able to guarantee a subsidiary penalty in the event that the person convicted of a labour penalty or the person to whom a work of general interest would have been offered in the context of criminal mediation, did not perform his work penalty or his work of general interest.

Therefore, it seems to me necessary to insist once again that the subsidiary penalties are effectively executed. We strongly count on the Minister for two necessary actions: on the one hand, to provide sufficient budgets for guidance and accompaniment and, on the other hand, to provide for the effective application of subsidiary penalties, including subsidiary imprisonment penalties, so that judges and magistrates can more and more frequently practice the work of general interest in the context of criminal mediation and the work penalty when they consider it to be the best penalty for the crimes committed, always in the perspective of avoiding the development of some impunity. Impossibility of punishment without punishment against you go the ontstaat doordat straffen van minder dan six months niet langer worden uitgevoerd.

However, sufficient resources should be allocated for the effective application of the labour punishment. We urge the Minister of Justice to do this.

The press release letter on the provisional release of the Minister of Justice – rightly – does not allow detainees who have not performed their work sentence to no longer be eligible for a substitute prison sentence. Currently, according to the magistrates, many substitute penalties are not applied. This could mean that less and less of this instrument is being used. Therefore, I again urge that the substitute penalties also be implemented.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister of Justice, colleagues, in view of the advanced hour, I will be brief. Of course, this is not a new topic. In recent years, the views on this have evolved somewhat. The provision of services in criminal matters has begun. When the work penalty was introduced in 2002, there was a debate about whether or not to maintain the provision of services in criminal matters. It was then decided to keep that system in parallel until 1 May 2004, partly because there was a certain fear that the concept of labour punishment would have insufficient chances of succeeding, if the work punishment was introduced.

Opinions on the Criminal Service have evolved over the years. When the labour punishment was introduced in 2002, it was decided to maintain the criminal service only until 1 May 2004 because of fears that the system of labour punishment would be in disarray. Two systems beside each other bleven exist.

On the ground, there is a need to reinstall the service system. When we look at the labour punishments as such, it turns out that even there can be spoken of success, if one can use that word in this context. This punishment is being pronounced more and more often. In no way can there be a problem that would suddenly reduce the data of the work penalty, because we would reinstall the service. Practice shows that this is not so.

In that context, indeed, we believe that it may be useful to extend the entire range of possible penalties to the provision of services, and to reinstall them.

However, there remains an important question for us. It is also the conditio sine qua non under which we approve this text. There is one condition in which the system gives a chance of success at all, and that has to do with the capacity. If we have devoted five committee meetings to this — not only to this, but also to other topics — it is because we have taken advantage of the opportunity to get some reporting on the use of those mechanisms. An enormous increase, with some differences between one and the other districts, is seen in the use of such measures, without a clear increase in capacity, not in the level of the courts and the staff active in them. Of course, one can always work with a certain stretch and try to make people operate more efficiently, but at a certain moment there is a limit to what one can impose on additional tasks. This is also not the case with regard to the possible places where such services or labour penalties could be carried out.

There have also recently been initiatives, including in cooperation with the Minister of Defence, to release some places, but if the system that we want to reinstall today does have a good chance of succeeding, then I think we will have to work very hard to find enough new project places. Their

As stated, the VLD will approve this bill, but we indeed advocate that the capacity problem be closely monitored and effectively addressed. The various initiatives in the field of mediation in criminal matters will only have a chance of success if one can follow up on the ground. service is however necessary on the terrain. It is also stated that the service is not a threat to the system of penalties of labour which is a success.

However, if we want the system to work well, we must satisfy a sine qua non condition, namely to solve the capacity problem. We see that the use of customer service and labour penalties is increasing but the capacity does not increase. The shortage is not only at the level of the houses of justice and their staff, it also concerns the number of places that could be offered as part of this project. by

The VLD group will adopt this bill but calls on the government to address the problems of arm-body capacity.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker. and Bacquelaine. We have signed this bill. It constitutes, in a way, the sequel to the text which first provided for the punishment of self-employment and which triggered an important reflection on what should be an effective punishment in relation to recurrence.

Indeed, the observation made everywhere is that when they can be pronounced, labour penalties have a beneficial effect on recurrence.

I will seek not in herhaling you vallen. This preamble lies in zekere zin in het verlengde van de tekst die oorspronkelijk de werkstraf als autonome straf invoerde. De goedkeuring van die text has us indicated om over de aard van een zinvolle straf na te denken. De werkstraffen have a favourable effect on recidive. Is it said not it is obliged to punish? No need to be punished again. We can only rejoice at the fact that the punishment of self-employed work has seen an obvious success. It must, of course – and I fully share this desire – that the means and the capacity to frame this labour penalty be adapted to this evolution.

Per ⁇ , in this particular case, are we going backwards from the decisions taken during the previous legislature? I do not underestimate at all the debate to be held on the meaning of the punishment, on the notion of punishment, on the respective role of a judge, a court, on the one hand, and the prosecutor, on the other. You can take a position of principle and take a position of principle. What I wanted with others was, first of all, to have a very concrete reflection on the field situation. For if we should rejoice in the existence of the autonomous labour penalty and its increasing use by sitting judges, we must, in addition, give the institution of criminal mediation, from the moment we decide to maintain it, all the chances of succeeding.

Indeed, here too, the results in terms of recurrence are quite encouraging. If, at first, the possibility of recourse to works of general interest had been removed, it would have been necessary to restore these works of general interest by clarifying, I repeat, that the practitioners remain completely free. This is a possibility that we are reinserting in the law. It is therefore up to the prosecutor’s magistrates, depending on their place of work, their practice, their sensitivity, to use it or not. We do nothing but simply expand the range of measures offered to these magistrates. Of course they appreciate it! They also have to be in direct contact with the field and know, in their district, what is the offer that is made to them for works of general interest and what are the results of the works of general interest that can be organized.

Je le répète, le souci, c'est la continuuer à soutenir, d'une part, la peine de travail autonome et, d'autre part, le travail d'intérêt général, c'est-àdire d'avoir une peine autre que la prison tout et restant respectueux du terrain et des décisions que les magistrats, et définitive, sont les seuls à prendre et toute responsabilité. of a punishment? We may take a few steps backwards here. However, what has been said about the meaning of the punishment and the principle of the labour punishment as an autonomous punishment, I do not want to question in any way. What I have tried to do together with others is to think concrete about what is happening in the field. If one ⁇ ins the principle of criminal mediation, one must give it every chance to succeed. Therefore, it was necessary to reintroduce the service. Those who have to apply the penalties remain completely free. The magistrates should examine the possible forms of service in their district. Therefore, it is in no way intended to return to the autonomous labour punishment. On the contrary, we want to adapt them to the reality in the field.

Our group will abstain from this bill. This is due to the fact that attorney general Maes reminded us once again of the basic principles last Thursday at the spring concert, organized every year, Mr. the former Minister of Justice, by the Board of Trustees. In it, he again made it clear that this cannot actually be done and that this is not the task within the criminal mediation of the Prosecutor’s Office. I think that, in addition to respect for the applicants of the proposal, we should also respect the thesis that, in my opinion, is rightly defended by Attorney General Maes. Therefore, we will abstain on this point, without re-opening the debate, Mr Giet.

The CD&V will abstain at the vote because this is not part of the criminal mediation tasks of the Public Prosecutor’s Office, as recently clearly demonstrated to us by the Attorney General, Mr. and Maes.