For detainees, furloughs and the system of promotion and demotion are important issues. They affect how detention is endured and how they prepare to return to society.
Regulations on these topics are movable, though. In 2021, with the introduction of the Punishment and Protection Act (SenB Act), the rules were radically changed. The changes were mainly motivated by the idea that freedoms were granted too easily which detracted from the principle that a punishment should actually be a punishment. The SenB Act had the most far-reaching effects on the field of conditional release, detention phasing (BBA) the granting of furloughs.
We are now more than two years on and the law has been evaluated. In practice, the new law turned out not to be in line with its objectives. For instance, permits were still too easily granted if they were requested with the aim of maintaining a social network. This, while the new SenB Act was supposed to prevent automatisms and assess leave applications more critically. These leaves for maintaining a social network came at the expense of leave time that could be spent on other reintegration goals, such as care, housing, work, debt management and identity papers.
From 1 January 2025, two types of short-term reintegration leave will be distinguished. The first type of leave is short-term reintegration leave for maintaining a social network and the second type of leave is short-term leave that is no related to maintaining a social network, but to other reintegration goals. In effect, it comes down to limiting leave opportunities for maintaining a social network, leaving more time to work on other reintegration goals. The new scheme also aims to make leave less obvious.
Another bottleneck in the SenB Act proved to be the arrangement that provided for detainees to be assessed for promotion or demotion every six weeks in the house of detention. This system proved to put too great a strain on available staff due to staff shortages. From 1 January 2025, the six-weekly assessments of behaviour during detention will only take place in the prison. No longer in the house of detention. However, an assessment will be made prior to placement in prison whether a detainee has shown desirable behaviour during the assessment period in the house of detention. If that is the case, the detainee is immediately placed in the plus programme in prison.
When the law was drafted, the recommendations of the Council for Criminal Justice and Youth Protection were taken into account. In part, the Council was positive about the amendment to the law. However, the Council for Criminal Justice Application did ask the legislator to reconsider the fact that a detainee is only eligible for the short-term reintegration leave for maintaining a social network once per quarter of a current calendar year. As far as the council is concerned, a stable family contact or a parenting role within the family would be better worked on if the applicable regulation had been adhered to. The legislator did not adopt this recommendation because, in practice, the possibility of (picture) calls would be generously facilitated. Furthermore, the legislator felt that the social network could also be visited or corresponded with in writing. The new regulation would be more in line with the principle: punishment is punishment.
Of course, again, it needs to be seen how the new law works out in practice. It is important to note that the legislator has an eye for exceptional cases. That is why there is a so-called hardship clause, which can be invoked in case of serious and exceptional reasons. Objection and appeal options are still available against unwelcome decisions that directly affect a detainee.
Mr. D.M. Penn