In late June last year, the Punishment and Protection Act was passed by the Senate. There is a good chance that the law will actually take effect. Particularly noteworthy are the new rules on conditional release (V.I.). It is also striking that the legislator wants to make the granting of, for example, a penitentiary programme or V.I. dependent on the behaviour shown in the institution. This should involve the system of promotion and demotion. In this plan, if someone is on red, even a V.I. could be in question. This is a substantial change with the current situation, where even someone who shows a lot of undesirable behaviour can be considered for V.I. 

Moreover, the bill would 'simplify' the system of promotion and demotion, by eliminating the 'orange' category. The Council for Criminal Justice and Youth Protection (RSJ) does not understand this choice, as no thorough evaluation of the current system has taken place. Moreover, the 'orange' category has an important warning function. After all, the decision to place someone on orange needs to be justified and this way it becomes clear to the person concerned what behaviour he would have to change to get back on green.

Surely the process of resocialisation is a process of 'trial and error'. Reasoned warnings fit into that process. If the management decides to demote someone on the grounds of 'inadmissible behaviour', it should also motivate this, according to the RSJ. After all, the term 'inadmissible behaviour' is a 'catch-all term' that is not very guiding. A justification is therefore important to make clear why certain behaviour is deemed inadmissible. Also to prevent detainees, who may or may not have been punished in the same circumstances, from getting the idea that there is arbitrariness and legal inequality

So why does the legislator want 'orange' to disappear? In practice, according to the RSJ, more detainees are actually qualified as green than their behaviour justifies. According to the RSJ, staff would be more likely to qualify behaviour green than orange or red. This has to do with the fact that green requires the least substantiation and reporting, thus avoiding awkward conversations with detainees. 

Preparing a substantiated report is not an easy task. Because detainees spend relatively many hours in the cell, piw-ers often do not get enough opportunity to form a good picture of a detainee. Also, piw-ers are not (sufficiently) trained to do behavioural assessment. If a detainee feels that he owes a red placement to a piw-er, this can be threatening even for the latter. A green placement would then often be the easiest choice for the piw-er. 

Presumably to ensure that detainees remain unjustifiably on green, the legislator wants to simplify the system. By eliminating the 'orange' category, a choice has to be made between desirable and undesirable behaviour. 

It can be assumed that with the new legislation, there will be more stringent requirements on the behaviour of detainees. While undesirable or inadmissible behaviour may have more serious consequences. The RSJ therefore advocates giving written and reasoned warnings before being demoted. The RSJ also advocates professionalising behavioural assessment in the institution. According to the RSJ, this is not the case now. Piw-ers are not trained as behavioural experts and psychologists are only present at the Multidisciplinary Consultation (MDO) in varying degrees. Given the far-reaching consequences a demotion can have, behavioural reports will have to improve in quality. 

Art. 2 of the Penitentiary Institutions Act(PBW) describes the basic principle of the custodial sentence. It should, as far as possible, be made subservient to a return to society. The RSJ has this principle clearly in mind. Hopefully, the legislator will think again about the bill. A simplified and stricter policy does not simply contribute to better resocialisation of detainees.  

Mr. D.M. Penn