Proposition 53K1042

Projet de loi instaurant la surveillance électronique comme peine autonome.

General information ¶

Authors

Open Vld Mathias De Clercq, Patrick Dewael, Sabien Lahaye-Battheu, Carina Van Cauter

Submission date

Jan. 17, 2011

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

criminal law release on licence

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

CD&V Vooruit LE PS | SP Open Vld MR

Voted to reject

VB

Abstained from voting

Groen Ecolo N-VA LDD

Party dissidents ¶

• Sonja Becq (CD&V) abstained from voting.
• Bernard Clerfayt (MR) abstained from voting.
• Alexandra Colen (VB) abstained from voting.
• Peter Luykx (CD&V) abstained from voting.
• Olivier Maingain (MR) abstained from voting.

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 ¶

Jan. 9, 2014 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

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, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker. This proposal was submitted by Ms. Van Cauter. There were already in January 2013 very interesting hearings with various actors from the field.

The persons we heard generally praised that a solution was sought for the overcrowding of prisons and for a diversification of the penalties. They found it positive that a different form of detention was considered than detention tout court.

However, a lot of comments were made and questions were asked. As a rapporteur, I will address the most important.

Questions were asked on the budget, both on the material and on the follow-up by judicial assistants. It was highlighted the importance of succession, including by judicial assistants. There were questions about the ranking of this punishment. Questions were also raised regarding the optional or non-optional nature of a prior civil investigation and the access to the criminal record. There was fear of just widening, and the fear was also expressed that this system would have no or little impact on the prison population. It was also asked whether there would be sufficient coherence if the two tracks continued, in particular electronic surveillance as an autonomous punishment and as a punishment modality. It also pointed to the already existing 2006 Act on the external legal status and recommended that the substitute prison sentence be kept as high as possible to be sufficiently dissuasive.

After these hearings followed a period of reflection. As a result of the comments submitted, a replacement amendment was submitted by Ms. Van Cauter and consortia, with which the applicants still want to offer a full alternative to the traditional punishment, want to engage in the fight against overpopulation and want to offer a diversification of penalties.

The proposal presented today concerns electronic surveillance within the rank below the prison sentence and above the work sentence. Electronic surveillance may be imposed on offences with a sentence of up to one year and not on all offences. No agreement is required from the family or the victim, but a consultation. The person concerned must agree. The social survey remains optional. Electronic surveillance as an autonomous penalty may be imposed for a minimum period of one month and a maximum period of one year. One day of electronic surveillance is equivalent to one day of imprisonment. The sentence must be executed within six months. A prison sentence will still be imposed as a substitute punishment. A suspension may be requested after three months. The entry into force was postponed and was made dependent on the available people and resources.

There was an interesting discussion on this issue in the committee. For its content, I refer to the report, in which all this can be read.

The proposal was accepted with seven votes in favour and five abstentions, including Mrs Becq’s abstinence.

This is my short report. Would you allow me to explain our N-VA position right now?

and yes.

Regarding the position of the N-VA group, I would like to make it clear, first and foremost, that the N-VA is ⁇ not against electronic surveillance, nor as an autonomous punishment, nor as a punishment modality. We believe that electronic surveillance can indeed lead to a more efficient or meaningful execution of penalties and that it can contribute to the reclassification. At least one sentence, with a certain limitation of liberty, will be imposed, allowing the persons concerned to retain their work, continue to provide for their families and compensate the victims. Electronic surveillance can be a means against impunity.

However, we have a concern, which we have already expressed during the discussion in the committee. Our fear is that the solution presented here today, despite all good intentions, is beautiful on paper, but in practice it will not be so unambiguous and not so effective.

Without wanting to resume the discussion in the committee meeting, I will still pause on our most important remarks.

Together with many other persons we have heard on this subject, we fear that at least a dual system will arise with on the one hand electronic surveillance as an autonomous punishment, and on the other hand still the punishment modality imposed by a criminal enforcement court. This creates an unequal system. A day of electronic surveillance is equivalent to a day of imprisonment as an autonomous punishment. Each imposed day of electronic surveillance must also be fully performed, so those who are imposed one year of electronic surveillance must spend that whole year. However, when it comes to a punishment enforcement modality, this is not the case. After all, we all know that a sentence to one year imprisonment is converted into three months of electronic surveillance. This reversal does not occur when it is an autonomous punishment. There are many other differences, but that element I would ⁇ like to emphasize. Depending on the modality, the punishment may or may not be heavier. When these two systems continue to coexist, the policy is inconsistent, as there is no coherent punishment and execution. These two systems cross each other.

There are other differences, for example in terms of deadlines. One system can be applied to all crimes, but the other cannot. The control authorities are also different.

I have recently talked about a dual system, but in addition there is still home detention and electronic surveillance within the framework of interim detention, which is again imposed and controlled by other bodies. There is also the GPS system. So there is a “wild growth in electronic surveillance,” and that is not my words, but that of Mrs. Becq. You can read that judgment in the Gazet of Antwerp of today and she is right, her judgment is correct.

Furthermore, the present system is putting the Criminal Enforcement Court out of play, which I am concerned about. At that time it was a conscious choice to set up criminal enforcement courts, including after the Commission-Dutroux. Now they are actually put out of play and their powers are reduced.

However, there is more. In fact, the present bill is not necessary in itself because a regulation has already been approved. I was not a member of the House at the time, but in 2006 the Parliament approved the law on the external legal status. Article 22 of that law perfectly defines such a regulation. Penalties under three years can therefore be easily converted, not by a prison director but through a decision. That particular article was also again postponed by the current coalition until 2015. Again, the law dates back to 2006 and will not enter into force before 2015.

We already had such a legal system. So instead of creating a new legislation, a new rule and a new system now, we might have better put Article 22 into effect, unless the majority explicitly wants to give up, which can. However, it may, where appropriate, better report this and does not have to postpone the entry into force of Article 22. In this case, it may simply repeal Article 22.

Let us now go back to the ratio of the current legislation. It stands in the memory of explanation and is regularly repeated and retrieved. The goal is noble and we can stand behind it. Indeed, it was primarily intended to address impunity and to counter the overpopulation in prisons.

We held hearings. During the hearings, it was stated that there would be little or no impact on overpopulation in prisons. After all, those who will receive electronic surveillance as an autonomous punishment are not the people who are now in prison. The opposite is true. There is a risk of net enlargement. This is not just my opinion. You can read the same in the report of the committee’s work. Mr. Brotcorne and Mr. Landuyt have also confirmed that the problem remains the same. The ratio or intention of the present bill will therefore not work. Overpopulation will not be addressed. No empty cell will be added.

This conclusion is very problematic. After all, it also immediately makes problematic the enforceability of electronic surveillance as an autonomous punishment, which has also been highlighted. In fact, the substitute prison sentence, as it exists, must be sufficiently deterrent to ensure that the convicted person complies with his or her electronic surveillance. The stick behind the door in this matter is the substitute prison sentence. However, if there are no additional places in the prison, I would like to see what the replacement prison sentence will be. If a convicted person fails to comply with and fails to comply with his or her electronic surveillance, there is therefore no stick behind the door, which is very problematic. There is no place in the cells.

Mrs. Van Cauter, Mrs. Minister, I remain with the following problem. You know that. The social survey is only optional. The person concerned must agree to it, which is obvious. The family should only be heard or consulted, but does not have to agree. When there is no social inquiry, the perpetrator of domestic violence can simply be sentenced at home. I think this is primarily a punishment for its victims, not so much for the perpetrator. Therefore, it is a missed chance that there is no decision on a mandatory social survey but only on an optional one.

A fundamental problem for this law will be the budget. The question has been asked repeatedly. Will the material be sufficient? Will there be a succession from the judicial assistants? It will be crucial, but it has been saved.

It has been very clearly stated that the entry into force of this legislation will be postponed until 2014 or 2015. Why Why ? Waiting for people and resources. This is, of course, a weak point in this legislation, despite all the good intentions.

In summary, there will be at least a dual and non-coherent system. One had to make a choice. One or the other, but not both. There is insufficient budget, there are insufficient people, there are insufficient resources. So the impact is known: nothing will change the overpopulation of prisons. However, colleagues of the PS, that was the essential condition for you to approve this proposal. Read the report afterwards. You agreed to it under a number of conditions and one of them was that something would happen in terms of overcrowding in prisons. However, this will not be the case, and that is precisely why this legislation will not be enforceable.

Of course, it is nice to take it out. I also think so. It is just an empty box. If one proposes something on the one hand, but on the other hand delays it immediately, that is not beautiful. The packaging is nice, but the content could be better.

For our group, there are enough reasons to abstain in the vote. We are not alone in this, in the committee colleague Becq has also abstained. I am looking forward to the voting behavior of the CD&V group.

We want a clear system, a closing system, in which the criminal enforcement court is not exhausted and in which electronic surveillance does not become a prison sentence light. However, this is not the case today.

I would like to conclude my speech with the words of Mrs. Becq. She says very clearly: “The proposal contains large gaps.” I refer to the relevant article, because there is much more to be read in it. And who am I to oppose that?

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, colleagues, in our current criminal law we know the electronic surveillance only as a penalty enforcement modality. With the current bill, electronic surveillance becomes an autonomous, full-fledged punishment.

As colleague De Wit has already said, we have started with a bill submitted by our group, among others by Mrs. Lahaye-Battheu. We subsequently held hearings in the committee. After these hearings, we have thoroughly revised the original proposal. For this rework, we have been able to resort to specialists in the field, people from the practice. Thanks to their comments and suggestions, we have come to the text that is currently ahead and is being put to vote today. I would like to thank all those who have contributed to the creation of this bill.

For the colleagues who have not followed the work, I am so free to give a brief, without giving the details, explanation about this new punishment system. We include electronic surveillance in the Criminal Code as a stand-alone punishment. In the hierarchy of punishments, this punishment comes second, after the prison sentence and before the work sentence. We do this because the severity of the penalty depends not only on the duration of the penalty measure, but of course also on the impact on freedom.

It is obvious that we clearly define what an electronic surveillance punishment exactly means, in which cases it can be imposed and what procedure to be applied. The strength lines are the following. This penalty is possible for acts that could be punished with a prison sentence of one year or less. A ratio of one day of imprisonment equivalent to one day under electronic surveillance is chosen. This provides clarity and avoids subsequent discussions on conversions when an electronic-monitored penalty would not be properly executed.

The substitute punishment is indeed the prison sentence, but before it is imposed, the convicted of course has the opportunity to be heard. It must be the intention – and this will be given priority – that, if a substitute penalty is to be imposed and executed, that is also effectively executed. Colleague De Wit, the shortage of prisons was effectively a big problem, but you and your group will not want to deny that in this legislature a number of additional seats have already been created and that in the course of this year a number of additional seats will follow, so that this proposal can also be effectively implemented.

The choice of imprisonment as a substitute for punishment is logical. The plan is to provide for a punishment that is one degree heavier for those cases where the punishment under electronic surveillance is not executed as it should. The prospect of having to spend some time in the cell can, of course, be an incentive to comply with the conditions of electronic surveillance.

The provision that a sentence under electronic surveillance is at least one month is motivated by practical considerations. I think it is also logical. In order to enforce such a penalty, a number of mechanisms must be effectively put in place and it would be disproportionate to do so for a penalty that is shorter than one month.

On a procedural level, a social inquiry is provided. This is effectively optional, colleague De White. We have made it clear during the discussions in the committee that this is so to save unnecessary costs. You know very well that in these files very often a morality investigation has already been conducted by the police, so that the judge can be enough to request certain concrete information without necessarily having to conduct a social investigation. The judge who is responsible for judgment, the judge on the merits, will then have all the necessary information to decide whether electronic surveillance is the most appropriate punishment. In those cases, it is really not necessary to make unnecessary expenses.

The consent of the person concerned is necessary. This is a prerequisite for imposing the penalty. That also speaks for itself. In fact, it is an obligation that the person concerned assumes and it is therefore of the utmost importance that the person concerned correctly assesses the penalty and thereby becomes aware of the conditions to which he will have to comply. This, by the way, is an usage that also applies to the work penalty and is perceived as good.

The opinion of the households is important, without them being granted a veto right. The imposition of a penalty cannot depend on the will of third parties but must be determined by the judge. This will take into account the opinions of the family members.

As in the case of labour punishment, the judge may take into account the interests of the potential victims in its decision. I will come back to that later.

For the determination of the fulfillment of the sentence under electronic surveillance was looked at what is stipulated for the work penalty. Also there was stated that the magistrates can indicate the broad lines and give directions, but that the concrete fulfillment must be arranged by the competent service. When contacting the person concerned within seven days of a definitive conviction, he may provide an explanation of his concrete work situation. At that moment, the concrete fulfillment of the individual labour punishment is regulated.

It also provided that a system of suspension of sentences under electronic surveillance would be introduced. This means, in very concrete terms, that the data subject is released from the means of electronic control, but must comply with the other conditions that may be imposed. This includes, for example, ⁇ ining employment and compensating the victim. The initiative to request the suspension lies with the convicted person himself. Finally, it was also stipulated that the convicted person who can enjoy the suspension has a trial period equal to the penalty limit. In this way, clarity is also created with regard to the calculation of the penalty end.

What you note is correct, colleague De Wit: electronic surveillance will exist as an autonomous punishment in addition to the punishment execution modality. We discussed it in the committee: this absolutely does not have to be problematic. In our legal system we have similar, parallel existing arrangements. Here we think of the autonomous labour punishment, on the one hand, and of the social service, on the other hand, which in themselves are, among other conditions, similar imposed hours of work for the benefit of the community. Both systems exist perfectly side by side.

Colleagues, the present proposal clearly concerns the punishment, not the execution of the penalty. This means that it allows the judge to choose to impose electronic surveillance as the main punishment, when the judge considers that this is effectively the most appropriate punishment. During the hearings, it was very clear that magistrates sometimes still impose severe prison sentences to ensure that a certain part of the sentence is served. Thus, one comes to an inappropriate punishment, which leads to overcrowding of the penitentiary facilities, with all related consequences for family, victims and the like. It would be much better for them to effectively have the choice, taking into account the seriousness of the facts, the person of the perpetrator and the concrete circumstances, to be able to impose an alternative punishment such as electronic surveillance in certain cases.

It is my opinion, colleagues, that by presenting this text, which hopefully will be adopted today, we contribute to the further diversification of the penalties, which, as said, is clearly needed. Punishment is never a goal in itself, but punishment must ⁇ its purpose. Therefore, the choice for electronic surveillance.

The other benefits these penalties offer to society are very logical. There is not only the cost aspect for society, but in addition there is also the fact that the person concerned can continue to work. This means that he can compensate the victims and take care of his own maintenance.

Mrs De White, I would like to contradict you on the following point, which was also clearly shown in the hearings. Electronic surveillance cannot be regarded as a favourable regime, but it is indeed a punishment which, however, imposes quite substantial restrictions on the freedom of the person concerned.

I ask you today for confidence in the adoption of this bill, which undoubtedly contributes to a further diversification of the penalties, which, of course, in this way can better pursue their purpose.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, my group welcomes this text in the sense that it fights impunity. It seems to us essential that a sentence is executed once it has been pronounced and this as soon as possible. We are also in favor of the electronic bracelet as an autonomous punishment because, if we think that a firm response must be given to crime, we are always in favor of the alternative to prison.

The prison must, for the socialist group, remain the exception and be limited to the cases where imprisonment is absolutely necessary. The electronic bracelet as an autonomous punishment offers an alternative to imprisonment that allows the convicted person not to be truly extracted from society. This punishment must enable the person to remain in his place of living, in his work and within his family. Nevertheless, my group ⁇ ins some concerns about the fact that the electronic bracelet as an autonomous punishment may have as a consequence to tighten the criminal policy carried out at the expense of other alternative punishments such as suspension, fines, work penalty, etc. It will be necessary to ensure that the mechanism does not result in the award of punishments too severe in view of the facts.

This punishment may be tempting for example or to ensure that nothing will be blamed in case of recurrence, but we do not think it is appropriate in view of the indispensable observance of the scale of punishments which, by the way, will have to be revised in the next legislature. The punishment must be fair, measured and adequate. It is only at this price that justice is made. We rely on the Minister of Justice to remind that this is a heavy punishment that must be used with parchment when it turns out to be useful to control the person and when no other punishment seems more appropriate.

An accompaniment through social workers should also be ensured in order, on the one hand, to work on improving the insertion, or even the insertion of the person in our society, and, on the other hand, in order to support the wearer of the electronic bracelet so that he can execute his entire sentence without a return by the "case prison" that should not have intervened. In fact, it is a difficult punishment to respect for the wearer of the electronic bracelet as well as for his relatives and therefore support is necessary to avoid imprisonment that could or should have been avoided. It is known that it is complex to be both free and subject to strict control.

Finally, Mr. Minister, it will be necessary to evaluate in the medium term the consistency of the subsistence of the electronic bracelet as an autonomous penalty or as a measure of execution of the penalty.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, colleagues, for all clarity, we are for the diversification of penalties, like Mrs. De Wit, and for electronic surveillance as an autonomous punishment. Therefore, we have no principled objections to the present bill. However, we have questions about the concrete application and we are concerned about the unintended effects of the text in question.

Since the colleagues have already discussed the text in detail, I will not do so. I would like to pay attention to the following concerns. For example, we have our doubts that electronic surveillance can solve the problem of overcrowding in prisons. After all, even if the short prison sentences are converted into electronic surveillance, then still the prison sentence remains as a stick behind the door, as a possible sanction if the electronic surveillance cannot be organized.

Furthermore, we are afraid of netwinding. This will make it easier to opt for electronic surveillance, even though alternative penalties, such as labour penalties, are possible. The result is only more electronic surveillance and no reduction in the prison population.

We have also repeatedly asked about the budgetary impact of electronic surveillance. We are then talking about the costs of the electronic single tyres themselves, of the possible social research and of the follow-up of the electronic surveillance. In addition, it is the Communities, together with the Chambers of Justice, which incur the costs of the latter. Unfortunately, we have not seen a serious simulation of the budgetary consequences.

Another concern of us, which has also been cited here, is that on the one hand there is the execution of penalties through electronic surveillance in various ways – through a single tape or other form of electronic surveillance – and on the other hand the electronic surveillance as an autonomous punishment.

In the hearing, it was pointed out that this could lead to confusion. We share that fear. Sometimes judges now issue heavier penalties to make sure that they cannot be converted into electronic surveillance. Will there be clarity between choosing electronic surveillance or a short prison sentence, which will then be automatically converted? It remains a difficult point for us that the two systems continue to coexist, also because the scope of electronic surveillance as an autonomous punishment differs from the scope of electronic surveillance as a punishment enforcement.

The Minister has promised that it will adapt its circulation letter to the current system of autonomous punishment. However, this has not happened at the moment, so the two systems continue to exist side by side. This remains a sensitive point for us.

At the same time, the problem of the duration of electronic surveillance as an autonomous penalty or as a penalty execution modality was also addressed, because in this way inequality can be created.

I would like to assure you that an attempt has been made to obtain an equal chain and to remove that injustice and inequality by working with a system of suspension. That will ⁇ lead to greater equality in some cases, but it does not solve the problem completely. After all, there are other possibilities.

There was also discussion about the consent of the households. It is up to the prosecutor to judge the suspension, not to the probation committee. The latter will eventually be activated later, if it would be done through probation as an autonomous punishment. We still have concerns here.

I take my speech together. We principally support electronic surveillance as an autonomous punishment. We highly appreciate the adjustments made by Ms. Van Cauter on the basis of the discussions and the hearings. After a number of questions, a serious attempt was made to modify the proposal. However, we still have questions with the two-track policy: we are for diversification, but would have preferred to see it in a coherent way, including through the SURB and the possibility of Article 22 of the Act on the external legal position.

We have said that too. Our group will support the proposal, but a group vote will abstain to give the signal that we want a clearer and more coherent arrangement. We have previously requested that there should be a clear coherence in terms of penalties and the size of penalties with a view to good criminal legislation.

Mrs Becq, we want to break the vicious circle of inappropriate punishment, which imposes long prison sentences in order to apply electronic surveillance in practice.

It is better that the court in question, who is well acquainted with the file, can take into account all aspects – the seriousness of the facts, the person of the perpetrator, the circumstances, the willingness to compensate for the damage, the possibility of serving his sentence under electronic surveillance, etc. – and can impose a sentence that is also effectively executed.

I would like to hear you advocate for the execution of the punishment to be accompanied as soon as possible with the imposed punishment. We have long insisted on this. If we want to allow electronic surveillance to exist – you agree that you find it a good punishment – then it will have to be registered in the Criminal Code not as an alternative punishment but as an autonomous punishment. That is what we do today.

That is true, Mrs. Van Cauter: not the two side by side, but one of the two to be very clear. This is the message we want to give through our abstinence. There must be clarity, not two traces side by side. Let a prison sentence be a prison sentence and electronic surveillance electronic surveillance. That clarity does not exist now.

We give a signal that work needs to be done on a coherent system with electronic surveillance as an autonomous punishment. Therefore, the group votes in favour and one party member will abstain.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, dear colleagues, thanks to the proposal of the Open Vld, electronic surveillance finally becomes an autonomous penalty. Mr, we have shared this idea for a while. Ms. Defraigne had already submitted a text in this regard. While we are well aware that electronic surveillance is not necessarily the panacea, we must still acknowledge that in some cases, it is a wise choice that could be made by the judge. In fact, electronic surveillance allows the convicted to avoid passing through the "prison house" which remains a criminal place, despite the efforts that have been made, in particular the new prisons with a slightly different framework. The convicted person will be able to continue working, if it proves possible for him, and if he can still work, he may be able to compensate victims more easily. It can also be imagined that this autonomous punishment will allow for easier reintegration because there will be no immediate isolation from life in normal society.

Finally, it is an additional way of fighting prison overpopulation but it is also a way of making sure that the sentence is effectively executed.

We may not have talked about it enough, but this proposal is made concrete thanks to the evolution of technological means, which allow to avoid technical problems of monitoring. This punishment can therefore become effective and well understood by everyone.

For the MR, this penalty is also part of a more general reflection on the scale of penalties, which will have to intervene in the next legislature. It is a broad social debate of which we cannot make the economy.

For these reasons, our group will support this text.

Thank you for the concisity of your speech.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to highlight five important points that have raised a lot of concerns within the Ecolo-Groen Group but also among other colleagues, as previous interventions have widely made such remarks.

As in the committee, our group will abstain from this text.

If the principle of electronic surveillance is very interesting and that it must be able to respond to the fact that any sanction must be able to be executed, the text that is submitted to us today is extremely unclear and risks to undermine the principle itself and completely compromise the aim sought.

A first point, of which colleagues have already talked a lot, concerns the very real risk of extending the criminal network, namely the use of electronic surveillance rather than a work penalty or a suspension of the sentence or a suspension.

The work in the committee and the hearings organized there have clearly demonstrated this.

I can only quote a member who is unfortunately absent. by Landuyt. It can be read in the report that it highlighted that the extension of the criminal network was indeed a well-present risk and that this was also the case when the labour penalty was introduced. It was noted that labour punishments were more used as punishments as such rather than as alternatives to imprisonment punishments.

This text is also revealing since the surveillance is limited to the offences sanctioned in the Criminal Code by sentences of one year. In practice, they are already executed via the electronic bracelet. That was a concern we had at the beginning. In view of the discussions and hearings, this concern is confirmed.

Second, the issue of budgetary costs. There have been many discussions on this issue in the committee. The majority, and in particular the representatives of ministers, responded that there will be a communication vessel effect between the electronic surveillance used as a mode of execution of a penalty and the one instituted as an autonomous penalty, and that there is therefore not properly speaking of additional budgetary costs to be considered.

I find this answer fairly light. Practice will provide answers. This is not a worry in the air. The risk of this budgetary cost is obviously not without consequences.

The third point is the monitoring of people under electronic bracelet. I think in particular of the work carried out by the houses of justice. As previously stated by other colleagues, this follow-up is fundamental.

A study by the INCC highlights that electronic surveillance penalties are very heavy not only for the convicted person but also, you can imagine well, for the surroundings, the family that lives at the pace of this home detention.

If the budgetary impact is too high, the risk is obviously also that this monitoring is not done properly and that the effects sought by electronic surveillance are lost. By the way, the current practice of electronic bracelet highlights that there are many failures in the application of electronic surveillance and therefore returns to prison. This is indeed an extremely heavy punishment to be endured.

So I get to the fourth point that I wanted to develop. It is one of the major arguments put forward in November 2012, when we started our work, namely the fight against prison overpopulation.

The hearings quickly highlighted the need to re-examine this ambition because it lacked realism. Gradually, my colleagues became aware of this. Let us not be fooled, this measure will not solve the prison overpopulation at all. Indeed, it will be used as an autonomous punishment, and there will always be a return to prison in case of failure. The reality shows that there are a lot of chess. Instead, it will replace other existing measures, in particular those relating to suspension and labour penalties. This will therefore not calm the screaming overpopulation in our prison establishments, which I deeply regret.

Finally, I will address the last point that was highlighted on the occasion of our work and still today, and which will lead the whole Ecolo-Groen Group to abstain, Mrs Becq, on the proposal of Mrs Van Cauter. In fact, the question arises of the difficult coexistence between electronic surveillance as an autonomous penalty and as a mode of execution of penalty. There is a very high risk of confusion between the different people who will wear this bracelet. There is a lack of coherence between the various existing tools. It is realized that for convictions for similar facts, sentences will be subject to electronic surveillance, but the number of days under electronic surveillance will be different. There is also the question of deadlines, implementation and the different institutions that will have to ensure the follow-up. There is a very high risk of misunderstanding, but also a strong sense of injustice as people will be subject to completely different punishments.

Electronic surveillance is a very important and very interesting tool that should be able to be put in place. But the text as written contains a lot of inconsistencies and raises a lot of concerns, ⁇ highlighted by field actors during hearings. We will see if, in practice, this can work and coexist.

Even though it is necessary to fight against impunity and the feeling of injustice that the malfunctioning of our justice can sometimes generate, even though we can abound in the sense that prison should be only the ultimate solution when the rest fails and when the facts are too serious, today we will abstain from this text. I regret it.

As far as I can see from the debates, we are the only principled opponent of electronic surveillance as an autonomous punishment. From what has already been discussed here, we have noticed that it is attached with heels and eyes to the criminal law, as it exists now. However, this is not our main argument.

Our main argument is that today we are moving toward the institutionalization of capitulation for the lack of cells. They are now attached to the law. We have submitted an amendment to the committee. Today we reintroduced it, because we believe that electronic surveillance should have the character of a measure to reintegrate the convicted person into society at the end of the sentence. It should not be seen as a mere substitute for imprisonment.

Someone who serves a prison sentence may, in our opinion, get a single band at the end of his sentence, but that is on the way back to society. One should not be punished at home with a single belt, as one will inscribe today in the criminal law.

For this reason, we have submitted a symbolic amendment aimed at repealing the law from 30 June 2014. At the time the amendment would come into force, if it is accepted, of course, the law might not even be in force, but we only want to emphasize that the situation is precarious and that one must move to those measures because one cannot adequately execute the prison sentences.

I leave all criticisms from other parties to their account. Here and there I could join myself, but I will not exhaust myself in commenting on what we find a correct criticism and what we find a less good criticism. Remember that the Flemish Interest is the only one against electronic surveillance as an autonomous punishment.

Agenda of the day

The agenda

Dear colleagues, I informally consulted the Minister of Justice and the various heads of groups on the last point of our agenda. by Mr. Jambon himself had come to ask me why the Conference of Presidents had decided to add Bill No. 3149. This addition clearly poses a problem to some of our colleagues. I suggest you postpone this point to the agenda for next week.

Without any objection? (Not to)

So it will be so.

Let us now return to our discussion. The word is for mr. of Lahssaini.

Mr. Speaker, I will not repeat the comments made by my colleague Juliette Boulet.

This proposal, however, leads to various misunderstandings, one of which lies at the level of writing the text.

Article 7 (new) stipulates that "when a fact is such that it must be punished with a maximum imprisonment of one year, the judge may condemn as the main penalty to an electronic surveillance penalty of a duration equal to the imprisonment penalty he would have pronounced."

Thus – and the Dutch text expresses the same idea – I understand that this is a fact punishable by a maximum sentence of imprisonment of one year, as provided by law. Nevertheless, the spirit of all the work we did on this proposal was that it was punishable punishments of 3 years or 5 years maximum.

According to this text, two assumptions are possible. The first is that this is a punishable sentence of a maximum of 5 years. In this case, the text should be corrected. Otherwise, the text will be inapplicable. The second is that the text speaks of a sentence of a maximum of 1 year according to the Code. Then, the text also loses its meaning: the law already provides that the judge can pronounce the wear of the electronic bracelet for maximum sentences of 1 year of imprisonment.

Per ⁇ it is a toilet problem. Without this, we end up with some confusion and inconsistency induced by the text. If the second hypothesis is as I understand it according to the text, it corresponds to the current situation, which already prevails, but complicated by the fact that the convicted person will have to take a step to request the removal of the electronic bracelet. This will ⁇ lead to more shortcomings to this condition. This would be the return to the starting point, i.e. the firm punishment.

Dear colleagues, I wanted to share these thoughts with you and let them be noted in the annals. My comments are meant to draw attention to the fact that tomorrow some judges will find it difficult to put the text into effect.

Thank you for your lack of attention.