Proposition 54K3527

Projet de loi modifiant la loi du 17 mai 2006 relative au statut juridique externe des personnes condamnées à une peine privative de liberté et aux droits reconnus à la victime dans le cadre des modalités d'exécution de la peine en vue d'adapter la procédure devant le juge de l'application des peines en ce qui concerne les peines privatives de liberté de trois ans ou moins.

General information ¶

Authors

CD&V Sonja Becq, Raf Terwingen
MR Gautier Calomne, Philippe Goffin
N-VA Sophie De Wit, Sarah Smeyers
Open Vld Carina Van Cauter

Submission date

Feb. 6, 2019

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

prisoner social rehabilitation criminal procedure penalty prison system promulgation of a law carrying out of sentence release on licence

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

CD&V Vooruit Open Vld N-VA MR PP VB

Voted to reject

LE PS | SP DéFI PVDA | PTB

Abstained from voting

Groen Ecolo ∉

Party dissidents ¶

• Olivier Maingain (MR) voted to reject.

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 24, 2019 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

The rapporteurs, Ms. Onkelinx and Mr. Van Hecke, refer to the written report.

The first applicant, Ms Van Cauter, has the floor.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, in the last legislature we have talked very often about how we execute penalties in practice. Very often, however, the way we execute penalties has been quite confrontational for this Parliament and also for the citizens.

A judge has an in-depth knowledge of the file, takes into account the person of the perpetrator, as well as the circumstances of a crime and the severity of the facts, ultimately seeks an appropriate punishment and comes to a punishment award that takes into account a number of aspects, in the first place the protection of society. When we talk about prison sentences, the protection of society is obviously one of the goals. The judge has an eye for repairing the suffering inflicted on the victims. A punishment, when it comes to a prison sentence, must also be deterrent. This is one of the objectives that one seeks to ⁇ when imposing a prison sentence.

Therefore, it has long been confrontational to have to establish that penalties are executed by means of generic communications in which the imposed penalty was simply converted into several months of electronic surveillance, while the conditions for this were de facto not met. We are therefore pleased, Mr. Speaker, colleagues, that this proposal would end. From now on, the court will be able to determine the modalities of the penalty, in all cases in the same manner, at least after analysis and consideration of all elements of the file in the context of the execution of the penalty and taking into account the time conditions. In fact, the modalities of electronic surveillance and limited detention can only be obtained six months before the deadline for conditional release is reached.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, we think that in this way we do effectively what we should do, namely, effectively execute the penalties imposed by a judge, and from now on leave it to the judge to determine the modalities of the penalty.

There has been a lot of discussion, but it had little to do with the proposal itself, but with the means that Justice must have to effectively enforce penalties in a meaningful way. We fully agree with this. That is one of the reasons why we insist on passing to the vote on this proposal at the end of the legislature so that sufficient resources can be provided when the text comes into force.

In this way, we also hope to end the vicious circle in which judges impose sentences of 37 months, precisely with the intention of effectively allowing perpetrators of crimes to suffer some imprisonment. The result is that they remain in prison for too long, which is contrary to a good punishment score. This is one of the problems that we would like to address with the legislation. In this way we can also put an end to the finding that investigative judges often, in order to avoid recurrence, switch to provisional detention. The result is that 40% of people in prison are in temporary detention. If we actually carry out the short punishments, we can also break that vicious circle.

Now is the time to vote on this proposal. I hope to be able to count on many yes votes in the semiconductor.

Mr. Speaker, last week the headlines of the newspapers titled a revolution in Justice. "Every punishment will be executed." That title stands for thinking. This was also stated in the Government Agreement. It should be evidence that a punishment, regardless of its nature, is being executed. That the execution of short sentences would now also become possible is called a revolution.

In fact, it is a revolution in several phases. It all began in 2006 with the adoption of the Act on the external legal status, which was based on Ms. Onkelinx as then Minister of Justice. That important law set up the Criminal Enforcement Court and made it also competent for short sentences of less than three years. Only that last provision never entered into force, which was then solved by sending letters. The penalty enforcement arrangements were no longer granted by a judge or a penalty enforcement court. They came to lie with the executive power, especially with the Minister of Justice, resulting in a serious reorganization.

In this regard, I am reading a very interesting piece in Het Rechtskundig Weekblad, the mercuriale, which deals with the usefulness of penalties and the execution of penalties.

The second major phase of the revolution dates back to 2017. Year after year, the semi-circle in the Chamber postponed its entry into force. We also took part in this, not with pleasure, because we knew that the Justice Department did not have sufficient resources. Something was not obvious. But in 2017 we agreed that the entry into force could no longer be postponed and that in October 2019 the provision of the 2006 Act that gave the criminal enforcement court jurisdiction for short sentences would come into force.

That is also the purpose of the bill that we approve today and of which Ms. Van Cauter is the chief contender. After all, since the procedure included in the 2006 Act can be difficult, especially when it comes to shorter penalties, we have developed a solution to that difficult and time-consuming procedure by simplifying and simplifying the legislative text, making the legislative text practically also more enforceable and allowing the law to enter into force smoothly in October 2019.

The text we approve today is therefore essential for a smooth and smooth entry into force of the 2006 Law on short sentences from 2020.

This is the implementation of the government agreement. It explicitly stated that it was necessary to strengthen the credibility of the execution of penalties, that it was a priority that penalties would be executed and that the referral letter concerning short penalties would be revised.

After all those years, communications on that subject will be able to be abolished and we are working on a credible punishment execution, where the punishment, regardless of its nature, can also be a punishment and the judge’s decision can and must be respected, without it being unilaterally implemented. We know that judges today consider the conversion and therefore impose heavier penalties to ensure that the sentence is executed.

We have had a difficult debate in the Committee on Justice on the usefulness of the punishment and our group is convinced that a lik-on-piece policy is important, regardless of the nature of the punishment, even if it comes to short prison sentences. This was confirmed by prison director Hans Claus during the hearing. It is about playing briefly on the ball, as long as one is working with the detainees, they are guided and they are not simply put into the forgetfulness. That is essential.

The feasibility of that all will stand or fall with additional resources. We have facilitated the procedure with this legislation, but of course additional resources will be needed. I dare to say that the execution of punishment has never been a priority in the past. That will have to be now. This is also why the entry into force has always been postponed.

I think the approval of the text should be the beginning of a new beginning. It is an important task and a very big challenge for the next federal government. In this legislature we have reformed and codified a lot. I think it is time to connect the right resources, people and infrastructure so that the terrain can work effectively and efficiently. The proposed texts are the first step, the beginning of the work that will follow.

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. We realize that we are responding to a need, a need. We have been waiting for this text since the law of 17 May 2006 in order to allow the court of the application of sentences to know also sentences of less than three years. This is the desire of the field players.

At the same time, we realize that we are again sitting between two chairs because, between the speech, the text that will be submitted to the vote and the reality, the gap will again be big. Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, on the occasion of hearings within our committee, I rarely saw such unanimity, not on the substance of this proposal but on its inapplicability, at least in the current state of the situation of justice.

Both the representatives of the Supreme Council of Justice, the representatives of the judge of the enforcement of sentences, the representatives of the houses of justice who are charged with the concrete application of these provisions on the ground, or the representatives of the bars, everyone came to beg us: "Gracefully, do not vote this text! Do not vote this text as it is because it will be impractical. It will be so impractical that its effect will be to increase the number of cases that punishment courts will have to handle and for which they are not ready. They do not have the means, material or human, to cope with it."In addition, all the field actors told us that the prison population would increase significantly.

The calls were clear, serious, precise and objective. Nevertheless, the direction is ⁇ ined by saying that the means will be found and that the entry into force could take place in 2020, the time to see how one can turn. However, in the current situation and given the budgets, the penalties courts will not be able to cope with this additional work.

Regardless of this, we are working in reverse, as we have often done during this legislature. It would be more efficient, simple and timely to reform our Criminal Code, to revise the scale of penalties and to conduct a real reflection on the criminal sanction, on the prison sanction of which it is known that it leads not to much but to recurrence, as is often observed. It’s like you start building a house from its roof by saying that we’ll see tomorrow how to adapt the rest to the roof. We realize at the end that the house is not suitable for the roof.

To forget this situation and waiting for the reform of the Criminal Code to be implemented, given what awaits us in the coming weeks and months when it comes to considering the constitution of a government, it is illusory to think that this text can be implemented on October 1, 2020. I suggest that this implementation be delayed by one year. This is the purpose of the amendment.

Mr. Speaker, as Ms. De Wit recalled, this project is part of the great reform carried out while I was Minister of Justice. We had decided that it was obviously necessary that every sentence issued could be executed, whether it be sentences of more than three years or sentences of less than three years, with the modalities that allow for a consistent execution.

Mrs. De Wit, I am the first to regret that this has not been done. You are the mother of a text, years go by and it is not executed.

The problem is that one comes, at the end of the legislature, in a hurried way, to present a text of execution without giving itself the financial, material and human means to realize this project. I quote the Supreme Council of Justice: “The Committee of Opinion and Investigation (it was not a lost member of the Supreme Council of Justice, it was the whole) supports in its principle the idea of challenging the current system, which entrusts the executive power and its administration with the execution of imprisonment sentences of less than three years, given the risks of arbitrariness and the lack of transparency that such a system involves. The commission insists that a reform of this importance is not carried out in precipitation, at the risk of creating a system that is even more critical than the one currently in force. The Commission recommends that such substantial changes as those being considered be adopted only as part of a comprehensive and coherent reform of the execution of penalties, ideally linked to that of the reform of the Criminal Code. It warns of the dangers arising from a lack of prior analysis of the needs and means necessary for the practical implementation of the proposed reform.”

It is clear! It is strong!

What does the Supreme Council of Justice say? That you will do worse than good!

As Mr. Brotcorne recalled, all those who were heard in the committee unanimously expressed that this is impossible. We would need commitments of judges, of secretaries. New seats would be needed in prison institutions or other types of reception structures for the execution of sentences issued. In short ! This clearly does not seem possible. On the contrary!

It is a project that, if it is implemented without means being implemented, without a reform being studied regarding this implementation, risks increasing - and I have explained myself widely in the committee - the rate of recurrence that is already extremely high in our country. Therefore, it is a proposal that can cause additional insecurity in Belgium.

It is crazy! We really had the impression that some deputies sitting in the Justice Committee had the desire to get a "plume in the hat" by pretending to have succeeded in making a text vote while it is inapplicable. I sincerely regret this and will not extend further on this point after having broadly exposed all my arguments in committee.

Last Wednesday again, I explained for more than two hours why it was a heresy and I stick to this conviction. It is regrettable and unbearable that justice is treated like this! We don’t give him the necessary resources, while imposing reforms that are inapplicable. It is simply not serious!