No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 February 2019
Bail, probation and parole have one thing in common, namely, they are devices that enable a person proceeded against criminally to obtain personal liberty from detention. It is significant that each of them falls within one of the three basic phases of criminal proceedings. Bail may be obtained in the first phase extending from the beginning of the proceedings until trial or the final decision on appeal. In the second phase dealing with the final decision, a person may be admitted to probation rather than commited to jail. In the third phase covering the incarceration, a convicted person may be released on parole with respect to the final portion of his imprisonment rather than being kept in prison for the whole term imposed. This seemingly favorable treatment of offenders is based on sound reasoning, namely, since a person must be considered innocent until found guilty in court proceedings, an unnecessary detention prior to trial must be avoided. In the second phase, a minor offense may be punished by a probated sentence, i.e., the term of imprisonment will have to be served only if the person does not comply with the conditions of probation. The favor granted to the offender is designed to guide him out of trouble in the future and encourage him to abide by the law. In the third phase, parole is envisaged as a reward for good conduct and as an incentive to behave well after release. Belgian criminal law has been applying all these principles with success.
1. The Advisory Chamber (La chambre du conseil) is the body to which the Investigating Judge reports. After he has completed his investigation, he has to present the case to this chamber which then makes a decision either to discontinue the proceedings or to prosecute and at what level (as a felony, misdemeanor or an offense). The Advisory Chamber is composed of at least 3 judges including the Investigating Judge (Code of Criminal Procedure, arts. 127-136; Law of Preventive Detention of April 20, 1874, arts. 4-9, 19, as amended).Google Scholar
2. Th. Versée, “La Privation de la liberté dans la procédure pénale Belge,” 47 Revue de Droit Pénal et de Criminologie, 1966-1967, No. 1, pp. 343–382, at 344.Google Scholar
3. Id. at 345.Google Scholar
4. Pasinomie, 1874, p. 136.Google Scholar
5. Doc. Parl., Chambre, session 1873-1874, rapp. du 25 février 1871; Pasinomie, 1874, pp. 110, 119, (rapport de M. Thonissen).Google Scholar
6. The chronology of the amendments is discussed in José Vanderveeren. “La détention est l'exception,” Journal des Tribunaux (hereafter J. T.), No. 4688, 7 février 1970, p. 93; the operation of the Law including the 1973 amendment is discussed in E. Krings. “Réflexions relatives à l'application de la loi sur la détention préventive,” J. T., No. 5306, 23 septembre 1984, p. 521. See also Declercq, R., “Problèmes actuels de la détention préventive,” J. T., No. 4901, 15 février 1975, p. 109, and 1902, 22 février 1975, p. 129.Google Scholar
7. Servais, J. and Mechelynck, E., comps., 2 Les Codes Belges 391 (Bruxelles, Bruylant, 1985).Google Scholar
8. The provisions on bail are embodied in articles 10-16 of the Law of Preventive Detention. They are only rarely used, however, since release on bail is rather infrequent, and the person proceeded against is, as a general rule, released without bail. Raymond Screvens, Procédure pénale el notions de déontologie, (4th ed., 2nd printing, 136bis, Bruxelles, Presses Universitaires de Bruxelles, 1979).Google Scholar
9. Journal Officiel de la République Française, 27 mars 1891, p. 1433.Google Scholar
10. Pasinomie, 1888, pp. 223–225, 226-229.Google Scholar
11. Id., at 222.Google Scholar
12. Id., 1947. p. 925.Google Scholar
13. Cornil, P., “Sursis et probation. La loi belge du 29 juin 1964.” 20 Revue de Science Criminelle et de Droit Comparé, Nouvelle Série, Année 1965, p. 50 at 52, (Paris, Sirey, 1965).Google Scholar
14. Supra note 7, at 733. The Law of June 29, 1964 was slightly amended by Law of July 12, 1981, on the Modification of its Article 17, dealing with reports of the Probation Commission and files. Comments on the Law in legal literature appear in: P. Cornil, “Déclin ou renouveau de la répression pénale,” Revue de Droit Pénal et de Criminologie, 1964-1965, No. 8, pp. 715–729; Pierre van Drooghenbroeck, “Commentaire de la Loi du 29 juin 1964 concernant la suspension, le sursis et la probation,” Id. at 731-806; P. Cornil, Sursis et probation, supra note 13; Raymond Charles, “L'application de la loi du 29 juin 1964 concernant la suspension, le sursis et la probation, depuis son entrée en vigeur fixée au 1er septembre 1964,” 18 Revue de Droit Pénal et de Criminologie, 1967-1968, No. 2, pp. 159-182.Google Scholar
15. Annales Parlementaires, Discussion, Séance du 20 mai 1964, Adoption, Séance du 21 mai 1964, (Chambre des représentants). Annales Parlementaires, Discussion et adoption, Séance du 16 juin 1964, (Sénat).Google Scholar
16. Supra note 7, at 543.Google Scholar
17. Id.Google Scholar
18. Potvin, G., “De la libération conditionnelle des condamnés (1888-1963),” 44 Revue de Droit Pénal et de Criminologie, 1963-1964, No. 2, pp. 83–98, at 97.Google Scholar
19. Supra note 14, Raymond Charles at 180.Google Scholar
20. Supra note 18, at 97.Google Scholar
21. Supra note 44, Raymond Charles at 176-179; Annuaire Statistique de la Belgique, Tome 104, 1984, Justice, Statistique criminelle, II. Nombre de condamnés. (Bruxelles, Institut National de Statistique, 1985).Google Scholar