Encounters of a different kind: Social enquiry and sentencing in belgium

Punishment and Society

Volumn 12, Issue 3, 2010, Pages 309-328

  Beyens, Kristel ^a   Scheirs, Veerle ^a  

^a VRIJE UNIVERSITEIT BRUSSEL   (Belgium)

Author keywords

Belgium; discretion; judges; report writers; sentencing; social reports

Indexed keywords

EID: 77954901699     PISSN: 14624745     EISSN: 17413095     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1462474510369445     Document Type: Article

References (43)

1. Armstrong S., McAra L. Audiences, borders, architecture: The contours of control. In: Armstrong S, McAra L (eds) Perspectives on Punishment: Contours of Control. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006, p.1-29.
2. Bauwens A. Probation officers' perspectives on recent Belgian changes in probation service. Probation Journal 2009; 56(3): 257-68.
3. Beyens, K. From 'community service' to 'autonomous work penalty' in Belgium What's in a name?. European Journal of Probation 2010; 2(1): 4-21.
4. Beyens K. Straffen Als Sociale Praktijk: Een Penologisch Onderzoek Naar Straftoemeting. Brussels: VUBPress, 2000.
5. Beyens K. De werkstraf als hedendaagse straf. Panopticon 2006; 27(4): 7-18.
6. Beyens K., Vanhamme F. Onderzoek naar rechtspreken als sociale praktijk. Tijdschrift voor Criminologie 2008; 50(4): 350-60.
7. Bonta J., Bourgon G., Jesseman R., Yessine AK Presentence Reports in Canada. Ottawa: Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Canada, 2005.
8. Boone M. De Tenuitvoerlegging Van Sancties: Maatwerk Door de Rechter. The Hague: Boom Juridische uitgevers, 2009.
9. Bourdieu P. Outline of a Theory in Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977.
10. Brown L., Levy L. Social Work and Criminal Justice. Volume 4: Sentencer Decision Making. Edinburgh: TSO, 1998.
11. Campbell C., McCoy C., Osigweh CAB. The influence of probation recommendations on sentencing decisions and their predictive accuracy. Federal Probation 1990; 54(4): 13-21.
12. Carter R., Wilkins L. Some factors in sentencing policy. Journal of Criminal Law 1967; 58(4): 503-14.
13. Cavadino M. Pre-sentence reports: The effects of legislation and national standards. British Journal of Criminology 1997; 37(4): 529-48.
14. Cheliotis L. How iron is the iron cage of new penology? The role of human agency in the implementation of criminal justice policy. Punishment and Society 2006; 8(3): 313-40.
15. Faget J. (2008) La fabrique de la décision pénale: Unie dialectique des asservissements et des émancipations, Champ Penal/Penal Field V, 22 May. Available at: http://champpenal.revues.org/document3983.html (accessed 22 July 2009).
16. Feely M., Simon J. The new penology: Notes on the emerging strategy of corrections and its implications. Criminology 1992; 30(4): 449-74.
17. Feeley M., Simon J. Actuarial justice: The emerging new criminal law. In: Nelken D (ed.) The Futures of Criminology. London & Los Angeles, CA: SAGE, 1994, p.173-201.
18. FOD Justitie Justitie in Cijfers 2009. Brussels: FOD Justitie, 2009.
19. Garland D. The Culture of Control: Crime and Social Order in Contemporary Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001.
20. Gelsthorpe L., Loucks N. Magistrates' explanations of sentencing decisions. In: Hedderman C, Gelsthorpe L (eds) Understanding the Sentencing of Women. London: Home Office, 1997, p.22-53.
21. Gelsthorpe L., Raynor P. Quality and effectiveness in probation officers' reports to sentencers. British Journal of Criminology 1995; 35(2): 188-200.
22. Haines K., Morgan R. Services before trial and sentence. In: Gelsthorpe L, Raynor P (eds) Handbook of Probation. Devon: Willan Publishing, 2007, p.182-209.
23. Hannah-Moffatt K. Moral agent or actuarial subject: Risk and Canadian women's imprisonment. Theoretical Criminology 1999; 3(1): 71-94.
24. Hannah-Moffat K. Criminogenic needs and the transformative risk subject: Hybridizations of risk/need in penality. Punishment and Society 2005; 7(1): 29-51.
25. Hogarth J. Sentencing as a Human Process. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1971.
26. Hutton N. Sentencing, rationality, and computer technology. Journal of Law and Society 1995; 22(4): 549-70.
27. Hutton N. Sentencing as a social practice. In: Amstrong S, McAra L (eds) Perspectives on Punishment: The Contours of Control. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006, p.155-73.
28. Jonckheere A. Wetenschappelijke Exploitatie van SIPAR, de Databank van de Justitiehuizen: Onderzoeksrapport. Brussels: Nationaal Instituut voor Criminalistiek en Criminologie, 2008.
29. Kemshall H., Maguire M. Public protection, partnership and risk penality: The multi-agency risk management of sexual and violent offenders. Punishment and Society 2001; 3(2): 237-64.
30. Luypaert H., Beyens K., Françoise C., Kaminski D., Janssens C. Werken en Leren Als Straf: Le Travailet alFormation Comme Peines. Brussels: VUBPress, 2007.
31. Lynch M. Waste managers? The new penology, crime fighting and parole agent identity. Law and Society Review 1998; 32(4): 839-70.
32. McNeill F. Assisting sentencing, promoting justice? In: Tata C, Hutton N (eds) Sentencing and Society: International Perspectives. Aldershot: Ashgate, 2002, p.429-51.
33. McNeill F., Burns N., Halliday S., Hutton N., Tata C. Risk, responsibility and reconfiguration: Penal adaptation and misadaptation. Punishment and Society 2009; 11(4): 419-42.
34. Maes E. Vijf jaar justitiehuizen: Enkele cijfers over de werking van de justitiehuizen tijdens de periode 1999-2002. Panopticon 6 2002; 73-109.
35. Maurutto P., Hannah-Moffat K. Assembling risk and the restructuring of penal control. British Journal of Criminology 2006; 46(3): 438-54.
36. Robinson G. Exploring risk management in probation practice: Contemporary developments in England and Wales. Punishment and Society 2002; 4(1): 5-25.
37. Rush C., Robertson J. Presentence reports: The utility of information to the sentencing decision. Law and Human Behavior 1987; 11(2): 147-55.
38. Scheirs V., Beyens K., de Keijser J. De slachtoffergerichte dimensie in rechterlijk denken: Nederland en België vergeleken. Tijdschrift voor herstelrecht 2009; 1(1): 7-19.
39. Snacken S. Penal policy and practice in Belgium. In: Tonry ME (ed.) Crime, Punishment and Politics in Comparative Perspective, Crime and Justice: A Review of Research. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press, 2007, p.127-214.
40. Tata C. Sentencing as craftwork and the binary epistemologies of the discretionary decision process. Social & Legal Studies 2007; 16(3): 425-47.
41. Tata C., Burns N., Halliday S., Hutton N., McNeill F. Assisting and advising the sentencing decision process: The pursuit of "quality" in pre-sentence reports. British Journal of Criminology 2008; 48(6): 835-55.
42. Thorpe J., Pease K. The relationship between recommendations made to the court and sentences passed. British Journal of Criminology 1976; 16(4): 393-4.
43. Walsh A. The role of the probation officer in the sentencing process. Criminal Justice and Behaviour 1985; 12(3): 289-303.