In the late 1980s and early 1990s, De Swaan, a historical sociologist, speculated that heightened global interconnectedness, and the resulting increased potential for international migration, would...

Back to the poorhouse? Social protection and social control of unauthorised immigrants in the shadow of the welfare state:

Acceptance or refusal of convenience food in present-day prison.

• Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research. • You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain • You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal Take down policy If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim.

/pdf/where-two-exceptional-prison-cultures-meet-negotiating-order-16bydbc0ap.pdf

Where two ‘exceptional’ prison cultures meet: Negotiating order in a transnational prison

In this article, we aim to achieve a better understanding of reintegration in Belgian sentence implementation. In concreto, we ask the question if Belgian sentence implementation courts ‘are doing reintegration’. Our analyses suggest the existence of a reintegrated-oriented decision-making process emphasising the strengthening of the social capital of the offender and enabling reintegration. Notwithstanding, we identify some barriers to reintegration. Firstly, we describe how the quest for reintegration is constantly interwoven with a more risk-based approach. As a result, ‘doing reintegration’ becomes subordinated by risk, wherefore the fundamental social right of reintegration is reduced to a conditional right only applicable if the offender displays certain needs, poses an acceptable risk and/or is prepared to take responsibility for this actions. Secondly, we argue how the members of the sentence implementation courts believe in ‘psychological individualism’ and project their middle class values and e...

Doing reintegration? The quest for reintegration in Belgian sentence implementation

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?

Decision-Making and Offender Supervision

Crimmigrant Nations: Resurgent Nationalism and the Closing of Borders

De detentiebeleving van mannelijke strafrechtelijk gedetineerden zonder verblijfsrecht krijgt weinig aandacht in de penologische literatuur. Dit kwalitatieve onderzoek naar de ervaringen van 16 gedetineerden zonder en 30 gedetineerden met verblijfsrecht toont aan dat het contact met de buitenwereld en de voorbereiding op de invrijheidstelling gecompliceerd(er) zijn en de communicatie met het personeel moeizamer is voor gedetineerden zonder verblijfsrecht. Dit heeft een negatieve invloed op hun detentiebeleving. Het betekent dat zowel de deprivatie- als de importtheorie van toepassing is op gedetineerden zonder verblijfsrecht, maar dat importaspecten – met name het niet beschikken over verblijfsrecht – de deprivatie substantieel en systematisch kunnen versterken en tot bijkomende uitsluitings- en isolatiemechanismen kunnen leiden.

/pdf/detentiebeleving-van-strafrechtelijk-gedetineerden-zonder-3uuytr6tx5.pdf

Detentiebeleving van strafrechtelijk gedetineerden zonder verblijfsrecht

Since the eighties, Belgium faces an increasing number of foreign prisoners. Accordingly, the number of foreign prisoners without a legal permit of residence, who are incarcerated in Belgian prisons due to (suspicion of) violation of the Belgian Criminal law is also rising. With regard to early release, all prisoners fall under the Belgian penitentiary Acts of 2005 and 2006 in which „reintegration‟ is an important leading principle. However, a considerable part of the foreign prisoners without a legal permit of residence is exposed to expulsion under the Belgian Act of 1980 on the entry, stay, settlement and expulsion of foreigners after their (early) release. The use of different legal frameworks with conflicting rationales with regard to release from prison has consequences for the possibilities to prepare the reintegration of foreign prisoners without residence permit. The aim of this article is to analyse the meaning, use and importance of the reintegration principle with regard to the early release from prison of foreign prisoners without a legal permit of residence. The consequences of the interaction of requirements from immigration and penitentiary laws with regard to their release in society will be discussed. Also some statistical data on the presence of foreign prisoners without a legal permit of residence in the Belgian prisons are presented and commented from a methodological point of view.

Does Reintegration Need REHAB? Early Release Procedures for Prisoners without a Legal Permit of Residence in Belgium

Until 2009, accompanied migrant minors without a residence permit were regularly detained in closed immigration detention centres in Belgium in view of forced return. However, following several convictions by the European Court of Human Rights, Belgium started to transfer families whose forced return is pending to open return units. At first, high compliance rates were observed: only 20% of the families ‘escaped’ from their unit. Yet as compliance of families with a forced return order has decreased recently, a search for more effective measures was reinforced. In this chapter, this evolution (2000–2016) of forced return and corresponding detention practices related to families in an irregular migration situation in Belgium is analysed from a legal and practical point of view. Central is the argument that, although influences of human right standards have curtailed excessive detention practices, an instrumental quest for effective forced return measures is still predominant.

/pdf/the-evolution-of-detaining-accompanied-migrant-minors-11ctt9vpry.pdf

Steven De Ridder

Papers

Crimmigrant Nations: Resurgent Nationalism and the Closing of Borders

Detentiebeleving van strafrechtelijk gedetineerden zonder verblijfsrecht

Does Reintegration Need REHAB? Early Release Procedures for Prisoners without a Legal Permit of Residence in Belgium

The Evolution of Detaining Accompanied Migrant Minors Without a Residence Permit in Belgium

Van bejegening tot vertrek