Assessing the resilience of ‘social rehabilitation’ as a rationale for transfer

Abstract

This article provides an analysis of the Framework Decision 2008/909/JHA on the transfer of sentenced persons in the European Union (EU). Particular emphasis is placed on the provisions in the Framework Decision which makes direct or indirect reference to the aim of ‘social rehabilitation’. While this aim of punishment is referred to as the main rationale for transferring prisoners to another member state, it can be argued that the EU instrument fails to provide adequate safeguards against a potential misuse of the procedure. In particular, due to the increased automaticity of transfer proceedings, there is a risk that national authorities may not conduct a case-by-case assessment of the sentenced person’s situation. This sits at odds with the necessity of individualization underlying the rehabilitative ideal and may give rise to fundamental rights infringements. In the conclusion, a series of policy recommendations are put forward to increase the protection of the person’s interest to social rehabilitation.

Transfer of probationers under EU law: Rehabilitation and the question of legitimacy in the Netherlands

“…From a criminological viewpoint, instead, transferring a probation measure is part of what can be referred to as a process of ‘resettlement’ (De Wree et al, 2009) with the ultimate goal of achieving desistance from crime. After all, scholars have underscored the almost complete overlap between the elements required by EU law (such as the strengthening of family and social ties) with some of the key pro-social factors studied by desistance literature (Faraldo-Cabana, 2021; Martufi, 2018; Wieczorek, 2018). The latter include employment and family relations (McNeill, 2006) as a springboard to develop/re-build social and individual capital.…”

¿Fracaso del reconocimiento mutuo de resoluciones de libertad vigilada en España? Una reflexión de la situación de los condenados extranjeros de nacionalidad comunitaria

“…En el segundo caso, de manera similar, porque, siendo el objetivo declarado del traslado de presos la rehabilitación social, es dudoso que pueda conseguirse trasladando al condenado a un país en el que no quiere estar (de Wree et al 2009, p. 118;Knapen, 2010, p. 123;Vermeulen et al, 2011, p. 15;de Bondt y Suominen, 2015, pp. 348-349;Martufi, 2018). Las consecuencias para el condenado son distintas: tratándose de expulsión administrativa o penal, no cumple la totalidad o parte de la pena de prisión impuesta, regresa a su país de residencia, donde no recibe tratamiento ni asistencia, y solo está sometido a la prohibición de regresar a España; tratándose de traslado, regresa a su país de residencia a cumplir la pena de prisión, con ingreso en un centro penitenciario.…”

Framework Decision 2008/909/JHA on the transfer of prisoners in the EU: Advances and challenges in light of the Italian experience

“…63 Territoriality and the automaticity of mutual recognition are in principle preserved, but the thick line drawn between the complementary sides of the cross-border enforcement of the same sentence has raised criticism on the actual capability of the mechanism set by the Framework Decision 2008/909/JHA to achieve its own goals. 64 The Italian legal order has been faced with the question underlying the Ognyanov II case in the aftermath of the implementation of the Framework Decision at domestic level. The first approach followed by the Italian courts was particularly beneficial to the prisoner.…”