Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Decision-Making and Offender Supervision

  • Chapter
Offender Supervision in Europe

Abstract

A probation officer sits by his fax machine or telephone in the morning and receives information from the police about offenders who have been arrested the night before. He has to decide whom he will visit that day, have a talk with, probably write a report about and about whom he will advise the investigating judge or the courts on a sentence or an alternative to pre-trial detention. Who is it going to be? How is he going to decide? Another probation officer has a client fail to show up for supervision — not for the first time. When does she decide to start the breach procedure? What influences her decision? Who else is involved in the final decision? A judge or committee has to ponder whether to release an offender who has served half his sentence. What are the criteria that guide this person or body, and by which agencies and by whose advice are they influenced?

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Ashcroft, J., Daniels, D.J., and Herraiz, D.S. (1997) Defining Drug Courts: The Key Components. The National Association of Drug Court Professionals, published by the Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Assistance, US Department of Justice. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ashworth, A. (2010) Sentencing and Criminal Justice, 5th edn. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baratta, A., Morali, A., and Halleguen, O. (2012) ‘La vérité sur l’expertise post-sentencielle: évaluation clinique contre échelle actuarielle’ [The truth about post-sentence experts’ testimonies: clinical risk assessment versus actuarial risk assessment]. Annales Médico-Psychologiques, 170(2), 96–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barry, M., Malloch, M., Moodie, K., Nellis, M., Knapp, M., Romeo, R., and Dhanasiri, S. (2007) An Evaluation of the Use of Electronic Monitoring as a Condition of Bail in Scotland. Edinburgh: Scottish Executive Social Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bauwens, A. (2011) The Transformation of Offender Rehabilitation, PhD thesis, Department ol Criminology, Vrije Universiteit Brüssel, Brussels.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beyens, K. (2000) Straffen als sociale praktijk: Een penologisch onderzoek naar straftoemeting [Sentencing as a social practice: a penological study ol sentencing]. Brussels: VUBPress.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beyens, K. (2010) ‘La diversité ethnique et le système penal’ [Ethnie diversity and the penal system]. In M. Herzog-Evans (ed.) Transnational Criminology Manual (Vol. 2, pp.377–395). Nijmegen: Woll Legal Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beyens, K., Françoise, C, and Scheirs, V. (2010) ‘Les juges lace à l’(in)exécu-tion des peines’ [Judges conlronted with the (non)execution ol sentences]. Déviance et Société, 34(3),401–424.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beyens, K., andScheirs, V. (2010) ‘Encountersoladillerentkind: social enquiry and sentencing in Belgium’. Punishment and Society, 12(3), 309–328.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boone, M. (2002) Leren diversifïéren: Reclassering en culturele diversiteit [Learning diversity: the Probation Service and ethnic diversity]. Utrecht: Willem Pompe Instituut.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boone, M. (2012) Our Own Rascals Pirst: Inclusion and Exclusion in the Use of Sanctions. The Hague: Eleven International Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boone, M., Beijer, A., Franken, A.A., and Kelk, C. (2009) De tenuitvoerlegging van sancties: Maatwerk door de rechter? [Implementation ol sentences: tailor-made decisions by the Court?]. Pompe reeks deel 53. The Hague: Boom Juridische Uitgevers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boone, M., and Korl, D.J. (2010) ‘Bestralling van cocaïnesmokke-laars: Richtlijnen, rechters, rechtbanken en de persoon van de dader’ [Punishment ol cocaine smugglers: sentencing guidelines, judges, courts and the offender]. Tijdschrift voor Criminologie, 52(3), 239–258.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brizais, R. (2006) Enquête sociale rapide [Fast pre-sentence reports]. Mission de Recherche pour l’Évaluation des Mesures Socio-Judiciaires, report for the charity Citoyens et Justice, Bordeaux.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brizais, R., Danet, J., Gautron, V., et al. (forthcoming) Une évaluation de l’administration de la justice pénale: Les nouveaux modes de traitement des délits [An evaluation of the administration of Criminal Justice: changes in the management of felonies]. Conference presentations available at http://www.droitl.univnantes.fr/1362060824954/0/fiche actualité/

  • Brown, K., Duff, P., and Leverick, F. (2004) A Preliminary Analysis of the Bail/ Custody Decision in relation to Temale Accused. Edinburgh: Scottish Executive Social Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cario, R. (2003) ‘La place de la victime dans l’exécution des peines’ [Victims and sentencing implementation]. Recueil Dalloz,145–151.

    Google Scholar 

  • Casey, P., Burke, K., and Leben, S. (2012) Minding the Court: Enhancing the Decision-Making Process, white paper. American Judges Association. Retrieved from: http://aja.ncsc.dni.us/pdfs/AJA%20White%20Paper%20 10-l-2012.pdf

  • Center for Court Innovation (2005) Problem-Solving Justice in the United States: Common Principles, fact sheet. Retrieved from: http://www.courtinnova-tion.org/sites/default/files/documents/problem_solving.pdf

  • Cid, J., and Larrauri, E. (2002) Jueces Pénales y penas en Espana [Criminal ustice and sentencing in Spain]. Valencia: Tirant Lo Blanch, Colecciâon Los Delitos.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cid, J., and Tebar, B. (2012) ‘Revoking early conditional release measures in Spain’. European Journal of Probation, 4(1), 112–114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Conseil d’Etat (1991) De la sécurité juridique [Legal safety]. Paris: La Documentation Française, no. 43.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crawford, A., and Hucklesby A. (2012) Legitimacy and Compliance in Criminal Justice. Abingdon: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Pauw, W. (2009) Justitie onder invloed: Beigen en vreemdelingen voor de correc-tionele Rechtbank in Brüssel: 28 jaar straftoemeting in drugszaken [Influence on justice: nationals and non-nationals in front of the correctional court in Brussels]. Brussels: VUBPress.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Ridder, S., Beyens, K., and Snacken, S. (2012) ‘Does reintegration need REHAB? Early release procedures for prisoners without a legal permit of residence in Belgium’, European Journal of Probation, 4(3), 21–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deane, H. (2000) ‘The influence of pre-sentence reports on sentencing in a district court in New Zealand’. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 33,91–106.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dominey J. (2012) A mixed market for probation services: can lessons from the recent past help shape the near future?’ Probation Journal, 59(4), 339–354.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doobs, A.N., and Marinos, V. (2000) ‘Judicial attitudes to conditional sentencing’. In J.V. Roberts and C. LaPrairie (eds) Conditional Sentencing in Canada: An Overview of Research Findings, Research Report (pp.4–15). Department of Justice, Division of Research and Statistics, Canada.

    Google Scholar 

  • Drenkhahn, K., Morgenstern, C, and van Zyl Smit, D. (2012) ‘What is in a name? Preventive detention in Germany in the shadow of European human rights law’. Criminal Law Review, 3,167–187.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eliott, M. (2007) ‘The parole board and the changing face of public law’. In N. Padfield (ed.) Who to Release? Parole, Fairness and Criminal Justice (pp. 43–62). Cullompton: Willan.

    Google Scholar 

  • English, B., Mussweiler, T., and Strack, F. (2006) ‘Playing dice with criminal sentences: the influence of irrelevant anchors on experts’ judicial decision making’. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32(2), 188–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Farrell, M. (2002, October) Evaluation of the Pilot Drug Court. Dublin: Farrell Grant Sparks Consulting.

    Google Scholar 

  • Field, S., and Tata, C. (2010) ‘Connecting legal and social justice in the neoliberal world? The construction, interpretation and use of pre-sentence reports’. Punishment and Society, 12(3), 235–238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, S. (2007) ‘The life and times of young people on remand: recommendations for future policy in Ireland’. In K. Lalor, F. Ryan, M. Seymour and C. Hamilton (eds) Young People and Crime: Research, Policy and Practice Conference Proceedings (pp. 110–120). Dublin: Centre for Social and Educational Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, S. (2008) ‘The experience of young people remanded in custody: a case for bail support and supervision schemes’. Irish Probation Journal, 5,91–102.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gelsthorpe, L., and Padfield, N. (2003) Exercising Discretion: Decision-Making in the Criminal Justice System and Beyond. Cullompton: Willan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garland, D. (1997) ‘Governmentality and the problem of crime: Foucault, criminology, sociology’. Theoretical Criminology, 1(2), 173–214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giacopelli, M. (2007) ‘Victimes et application des peines’ [Victims and implementation of sentences]. Revue pénitentiaire et de droit pénal, 4,789–801.

    Google Scholar 

  • Godson, D., and Mitchell, C. (1991) Bail Information Schemes in English Magistrates’ Courts: A Review of the Data. London: Inner London Probation Service.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grunvald, S., and Danet, J. (2004) La composition pénale: Une première évaluation [Penal transaction: a first evaluation]. Paris: l’Harmattan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall, M. (2010) Victims and Policy Making: A Comparative Perspective. Cullompton: Willan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hannah-Moffat, K., and Maurutto, P. (2010) ‘Recontextualizing pre-sentence reports: risk and race’. Punishment and Society, 12(3), 262–286.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hedderman, C. (2004) ‘Why are more women being sentenced to custody?’ In G. Mclvor (ed.) Women Who Offend (pp. 82–98). London: Jessica Kingsley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Helyar-Cardwell, V. (ed.) (2012) Delivering Justice: The Role of the Public, Private and Voluntary Sectors in Prisons and Probation. London: Criminal Justice Alliance.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herman, S., and Wasserman, C. (2001) ‘A role for victims in offender re-entry’. Crime and Delinquency, 47(3), 428–445.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herzog-Evans, M. (2010) ‘Safety measures in France’. In M. Herzog-Evans (ed.) Transnational Criminology Manual (Vol. 3, pp.423–438). Nijmegen: Wolf Legal Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herzog-Evans, M. (2012a) ‘La bataille des juges et du parquet dans l’exécution des peines’ [Prosecutors versus judges in the implementation of sentences]. Inj. Boudon (ed.) Concurrence des contrôles et rivalités des juges [Competing controls and competing judges] (pp. 199–224). Paris: Mare et Martin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herzog-Evans, M. (2012b) ‘Non-compliance in France: a human approach and a hair splitting legal system’. European Journal of Probation, 4(1), 46–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herzog-Evans, M. (2012–2013) Droit de l’exécution des peines [Sentencing implementation law]. Paris: Dalloz.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herzog-Evans, M. (2013) Le juge de l’application des peines et la réinsertion: Monsieur Jourdain de la désistance. Paris: l’Harmattan. Also published in English: Fretted Reentry Courts and Rehabilitation: Mister Jourdain ofDesistance. Paris: l’Harmattan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herzog-Evans, M. (ed.) (forthcoming a) Offender Release and Supervision: The Role of Courts and the Use of Discretion in Probation and Re-entry. Nijmegen: Wolf Legal Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herzog-Evans, M. (forthcoming b) ‘Sanctions for non-compliance in France: the practice of sentences implementation courts’. In P. Raynor and P. Ugwudige (eds) What Works in Offender Compliance: International Perspectives and Evidence-Based Practice. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hogarth, J. (1971) Sentencing as a Human Process. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hucklesby A. (2007) ‘Court culture: an explanation of variations in the use of bail by magistrates’courts’. The Howard Journal, 36(2), 129–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hucklesby, A. (2009) ‘Keeping the lid on the prison remand population: the experience in England & Wales’. Current Issues in Criminal Justice, 21(1), 3–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hucklesby, A. (2011) ‘The working life of electronic monitoring officers’. Criminology and Criminal Justice, 11(1), 59–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hutton, N. (1995) ‘Sentencing, rationality, and computer technology’. Journal of Law and Society, 22(4), 549–570.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hutton, N. (2002) ‘Reflections’. In C. Tata and N. Hutton (eds) Sentencing and Society: International Perspectives (pp. 575–589). Aldershot: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hutton, N. (2006) ‘Sentencing as a social practice’. In S. Armstrong and L. McAra (eds) Perspectives on Punishment: The Contours of Control (pp. 155–174). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hutton, N. (2014) ‘Sentencing as a cultural practice’. In G. Bruinsma and D. Weisburd (eds) Encyclopedia of Criminology and Criminal Justice (pp. 4724–4733). New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, J., Bradford, B., Hough, M., Kuha, J., Stares, S., Widdop, S., Fitzgerald, R., Yordanova, M., and Galev, T. (2011) ‘Developing European indicators of trust in justice’. European Journal of Criminology, 8(4), 267–285.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacobs, J.B., and Larrauri, E. (2012) Are criminal convictions a public matter? The USA and Spain’. Punishment and Society, 14(1), 3–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacobs, M.J.G., van Kalmthout, A.M., and von Bergh, M.Y.W. (2006) Toepassing van bijzondere voorwaarden hi) voorwaardelijke straffen en schorsing van de voorlopige hechtenis hi) volwassenen [Applying special conditions in case of conditional sentences and suspension of pre-trial detention]. Tilburg: IVA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jonckheere, A., and Maes, E. (2011) A la recherche de mesures juridiques susceptibles de réduire la détention préventive’ [In search of legal measures which would reduce pre-trial detention]. In A. Jonckheere and E. Maes (eds) La detention preventive et ses alternatives [Pre-trial detention and alternative measures] (pp. 1–21). Ghent: Academia Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Karstedt, S. (2002) ‘Emotions and criminal justice’. Theoretical Criminology, 6(3), 299–317.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klein, D., and Mitchell, G. (eds) (2010) The Psychology of Judicial Decision Making. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kuziemko, I. (2007) Going OffParole: How the Elimination of Discretionary Prison Release Affects the Social Cost of Crime, Ph.D. thesis, Harvard University, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuziemko, I. (2012) ‘How should inmates be released from prison? An assessment of parole versus fixed-sentence regimes’. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 128(1), 371–424.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lange, B. (2002) ‘The emotional dimension of legal regulation’. Journal of Law and Society, 29(1), 197–225.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leifker, D., and Sample, L.L. (2011) ‘Probation recommendations and sentences received: the association between the two and the factors that affect recommendations’. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 22(4), 494–517.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ligue des droits de l’homme de Toulouse (2012) Comparutions immédiates: quelle justice? [Speedy trials: is this justice?]. Toulouse: Eres.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maguire, M., and Raynor, P. (1997) ‘The revival of throughcare’. British Journal of Criminology, 37(1), 1–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mawby R.C., and Worrall, A. (2004) ‘“Polibation” revisited: policing, probation and prolific offender projects’. International Journal of Police Science and Management, 6(2), 63–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mawby, R.C., and Worrall, A. (2013) Doing Probation Work: Identity in a Criminal Justice Occupation. Abingdon: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mbanzoulou, P. (2004) La mediation pénale [Mediation in criminal justice]. Paris: l’Harmattan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mclvor, G. (2009) ‘Therapeutic jurisprudence and procedural justice in Scottish drug courts’. Criminology and Criminal Justice, 9(1), 29–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mclvor, G. (2010) ‘Beyond supervision: judicial involvement in offender management’. In F. McNeill, P. Raynor and C. Trotter (eds) Offender Supervision: New Directions in Theory, Research and Practice (pp. 215–238). Cullompton: Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mclvor, G., Beyens, K., Blay E., and Boone, M. (2010) ‘Community service in Belgium, the Netherlands, Scotland and Spain: a comparative perspective’. European Journal of Probation, 2(1), 82–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mclvor, G., and Burman, M. (2011) Understanding the Drivers of Female Imprisonment in Scotland. Report 02/2011. Glasgow: Scottish Centre for Crime and Justice Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mclvor, G., and Warner, S. (1996) Bail Services in Scotland. Aldershot: Avebury.

    Google Scholar 

  • McNeill, F. (2013) ‘Community sanctions and European penology’. In T. Daems, D. van Zyl Smit and S. Snacken (eds) European Penology? (pp. 171–192). Oxford: Hart.

    Google Scholar 

  • Milburn, P., Benec’h-Leroux, P., Besnier, C, Cardoso, M., Champetier, B., and Lameyre, X. (2007) Les procureurs de la République: de la compétence personnelle à l’identité collective [Prosecutors: personal skills and professional identity], report to the Mission Droit et Justice. Paris: GIP Justice.

    Google Scholar 

  • Milburn, P., Benec’h-Leroux, P., Besnier, C, Cardoso, M., Champetier, B., and Lameyre, X. (2010) Les procureurs: entre vocation judiciaire et fonctions politiques [Prosecutors: between a judicial vocation and political functions]. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.

    Google Scholar 

  • Millie, A., Tombs, J., and Hough, M. (2007) ‘Borderline sentencing: a comparison of sentencers’ decision making in England and Wales, and Scotland’. Criminology and Criminal Justice, 7(3), 243–267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, K., and Smith, B. (2005) ‘Victims, punishment and parole: the effect of victim participation on parole hearings’. Criminology and Public Policy, 4(2), 333–360.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morgenstern, C. (forthcoming) ‘Alternatives to pre-trial detention’. In G.J.N. Bruinsma and D.L. Weisburd (eds) Encyclopedia of Criminology and Criminal Justice. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mouhanna, C. (2011) La coordination des politiques judiciaires et pénitentiaires: Une analyse des relations entre monde judiciaire et administration pénitentiaire [The coordination of judicial and prison policies: an analysis of the relationships between the judiciary and the prison services]. Guyancourt: CESDIP.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nash, M. (1999) ‘Enter the “polibation officer”’. International Journal of Police Science and Management, 1(4), 360–368.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Open Society Justice Initiative (2008) The Socioeconomic Impact of Pretrial Detention. New York: Open Society Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ostendorf, H. (2010) ‘Kommentierungen von §§ 56 ff. StGB’ [Commentary on Articles 56ff of the Criminal Code]. In U. Kindhäuser, U. Neumann and H.-U. Paeffgen (eds) Nomos Kommentar zum StGB [Legal commentary on the Criminal Code], 3rd edn (pp. 1888–1938). Baden-Baden: Nomos.

    Google Scholar 

  • Padfield, N. (2012) ‘Recalling conditionally released prisoners in England and Wales’. European Journal of Probation, 4(1), 34–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Padfield, N., Dünkel, F., and van Zyl Smit, D. (eds) (2010) Release from Prison. Cullompton: Willan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Padfield, N., and Maruna, S. (2006) ‘The revolving door at the prison gate: exploring the dramatic increase in recalls to prison’. Criminology and Criminal Justice, 6(3), 329–352.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Padfield, N., and Roberts, J.V. (2010) ‘Victim impact at parole: probative or prej-udicial?’ In A. Bottoms and J.V. Roberts (eds) Hearing the Victim: Adversarial Justice, Crime Victims and the State (pp. 255–284). Cullompton: Willan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paparozzi, M., and Guy R. (2009) ‘The giant that never woke: authorities as the lynchpin of evidence-based practices and prisoner re-entry’. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 25(4), 397–411.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parrot, O. (2013) ‘Manque-t-il un métier’ [Is there a missing profession?], presentation made at the Nantes University conference on the management of felonies (Le traitement des délits), 7 February.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parsonage, W.H., Bernât, F.P., and Helfgott, J. (1994) ‘Victim impact testimony and Pennsylvania’s parole decision making process: a pilot study’. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 6,187–206.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paterson, F., and Whitaker, C. (1994) Operating Bail: Decision-Making under the Bail Etc. (Scotland) Act 1980. Edinburgh: HMSO.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pawson, R., and Tilley N. (1997) Realistic Evaluation. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Persson, A., and Svensson, K. (2010) ‘Shades of Professionalism: Risk Assessment in Pre-sentence Reports in Sweden’. Punishment and Society, 9(2), 176–190.

    Google Scholar 

  • Persson, A., and Svensson, K. (2011) ‘Signs of resistance? Probation officers’ attitudes towards risk-assessments’. European Journal of Probation, 3(3), 95–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Petersilia, J. (2003) When Prisoners Come Home: Parole and Prisoner Reentry. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Phillips, C, and Bowling, B. (2003) ‘Racism, ethnicity and criminology: developing minority perspectives’. British Journal of Criminology, 43(2), 269–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Power, C. (2003) ‘Irish travellers: ethnicity, racism and pre-sentence reports’. Probation Journal, 50(3), 252–266.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pruin, I. (2012) ‘Recalling conditionally released prisoners in Germany’. European Journal of Probation, 4(1), 63–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raes, A., and Snacken, S. (2004) ‘The future of remand custody and its alternatives in Belgium’. The Howard Journal of Criminal Justice, 43(5), 506–517.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raynor, P. (2012) ‘Is probation still possible?’ The Howard Journal of Criminal Justice, 51(2), 173–189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reinmann, M., and Zimmermann, R. (2008) The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, G. (2002) ‘Exploring risk management in probation practice: contemporary developments in England and Wales’. Punishment and Society, 4(5), 5–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, G., and McNeill, F. (2008) ‘Exploring the dynamics of compliance with community penalties’. Theoretical Criminology, 12,431–449.

    Google Scholar 

  • RSJ (Raad voor Strafrechtstoepassing en Jeugdbescherming) (2011) Voorlopige hechtenis — maar dan anders: Verkenning van alternatieven in het kader van schorsing en tenuitvoerlegging [Remand detention — but different: exploration of alternatives regarding suspension and implementation]. The Hague: RSJ.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salas, D., and Milburn, P. (2007) ‘Les procureurs de la République: De la compétence personnelle a l’identité collective’ [Prosecutors: personal skills and professional identity]. Archives de politique criminelle, 1(29), 95–115.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scheirs, V. (2013) De strafuitvoeringsrechtbank aan het werk: Ten etnografisch onderzoek naar haar interacties, beslissingsprocessen en-praktijken. [The sentencing implementation judge at work: an ethnographic research on the interactions, decision processes and practices], Ph.D. thesis, Vrije Universiteit Brüssel, Belgium.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, D.J. (1997) ‘Ethnic origins, crime and criminal justice’. In M. Maguire, R. Morgan and R. Reiner (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Criminology, 2nd edn (pp. 703–759). Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Snacken, S. (2011) ‘Conclusion: why and how to resist punitiveness in Europe’. In S. Snacken and E. Durmentier (eds) Resisting punitiveness in Europe? Welfare, human rights and democracy (pp. 247–260). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stevens, L. (2010) ‘Voorlopige hechtenis en vrijheidsstraf: De strafrechter voor voldongen feiten?’ [Remand detention and imprisonment: does the sentencing judge have a real choice?]. Nederlands Juristenblad, 85(24), 1520–1525.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stubbs, K.S., and Ambroz, M. (2012) ‘Recalling conditionally released prisoners in Slovenia’. European Journal of Probation, 4(1), 99–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tata, C. (2010) ‘A sense of justice: the role of pre-sentence reports in the production (and disruption) of guilt and guilty pleas’. Punishment and Society, 12(3), 239–261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tata, C, Burns, N., Halliday, S., Hutton, N., and McNeill, F. (2008) ‘Assisting and advising the sentencing process’. British Journal of Criminology, 48(6), 835–855.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tebar, B. (2006) El modelo de libertad condicional espanol [The Spanish system of conditional release]. Barcelona: Aranzadi.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tombs J. (2004) A Unique Punishment: Sentencing and the Prison Population in Scotland. Glasgow: Scottish Consortium for Crime and Criminal Justice.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tournier, P.V., and Robert, P. (1992) Etrangers et délinquances, les chiffres du débat [Foreigners and delinquency, facts and figures]. Paris: l’Harmattan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Travis, J., and Visher, C. (2005) Prisoner Reentry and Crime in America. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Tyler, T.R. (2006) Why People Obey the Law, 2nd edn. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tyler, T.R. (ed.) (2007) Legitimacy and Criminal Justice: International Perspectives. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tyler, T.R., andHuo, Y.T. (2002) Trustin the Law: Encouraging Public Co-operation with the Police and Courts. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Uit Beijerse, J., and Kunst, D. (2000) ‘Het huis van bewaring voorbij: de schorsing van de voorlopige hechtenis onder bijzondere voorwaarden in de praktijk’ [Beyond remand prison: suspension of conditional pre-trial detention]. Trema, 9,417–422.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Kalmthout, A., Knapen, M., and Morgenstern, C. (eds) (2009) Pre-trial Detention in Europe. Nijmegen: Wolf Legal Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Kempen, P. (ed.) (2012) Pre-trial Detention: Human Rights, Criminal Procedural Law and Penitentiary Law, Comparative Law. Cambridge: Intersentia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Marie, H.J.C., and van der Wolf, M. (2010) ‘Safety measures in Holland: the TBS’. In M. Herzog-Evans (ed.) Transnational Criminology Manual (Vol. 3, pp.439–451). Nijmegen: Wolf Legal Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Swaaningen, R., and uit Beijerse, J. (2013) ‘Bars in your head: electronic monitoring in the Netherlands’. In M. Nellis, K. Beyens and D. Kaminski (eds) Electronically Monitored Punishment (pp. 172–191). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wandall, R.H. (2008) Decisions to Imprison: Courts’ Decision-Making Inside and Outside the Law. Aldershot: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wandall, R.H. (2010) ‘Resisting risk assessment? Pre-sentence reports and sentencing in Denmark’’. Punishment and Society, 12(3), 329–347.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weaver, B., Tata, C, Munro, M., and Barry, M. (2012) ‘The failure of recall to prison: early release, front-door and back-door sentencing and the revolving prison door in Scotland’. European Journal of Probation, 4(1), 85–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors
  1. Miranda Boone
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Martine Herzog-Evans
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Copyright information

© 2013 Miranda Boone and Martine Herzog-Evans

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Boone, M., Herzog-Evans, M. (2013). Decision-Making and Offender Supervision. In: Offender Supervision in Europe. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137379191_3

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation