Conditional Release (Parole) in Slovenia

Abstract

In Slovenia (as well as throughout Europe), conditional release (parole) is becoming an increasingly important means of obtaining early release from prison. The authors consider the Slovenian legal regime for conditional release from the perspective of European prison law and policy. They argue that the Slovenian parole system, which has remained practically unchanged since the 1950s, needs certain improvements, especially regarding procedural safeguards in the decision-making process. Deciding whether to grant parole remains, for the time being, an administrative procedure without real possibilities for the prisoner to appeal when parole is refused. As there is hardly any decision of greater importance to imprisoned persons than that which determines the date of their release, the authors argue that the safeguards to the procedure by which prisoners "get out" should in principle be taken as seriously as those which govern the manner in which they "get in." Good practices derived from comparative law are also discussed and taken into consideration in the authors' proposals for possible improvements to the Slovenian parole system de lege ferenda.

Recalling Conditionally Released Prisoners in Slovenia

“…On the other side, reasons for the low Slovenian rate of recall can also be explained by the system"s weakness when it comes to managing prisoners after release (Ambrož, Šugman Stubbs 2011). In prison there is a special post-release plan (in collaboration with local Centres for social work, health services, social security services, schools etc.)…”

Waiving Away the Chance of Freedom

“…321 some variant of the system include, but are not limited to, France, Ireland, Slovenia, Canada, New Zealand, Belgium, England, Wales, and South Africa (Ambroz & Stubbs, 2011;New Zealand Parole Board, 2012;Parole Board of Canada, 2008;Tournier, 2006). It is regarded by many as the most effective and constructive sentencing measure for planning the inmate's eventual return to the community (Motiuk & Cousineau, 2006;Tournier, 2006).…”