European Institute for Crime Prevention and Control, affiliated with the United Nations (HEUNI) PO

95 Pages·2004·0.4 MB·English

European Institute for
Crime Prevention and Control,
affiliated with the United Nations
(HEUNI)
P.O.Box 157
FIN-00121 Helsinki
Finland
Publication Series No. 44
Crime and Crime Control in an Integrating Europe
Plenary presentations held at the Third Annual Conference of
the European Society of Criminology, Helsinki 2003
Edited by
Kauko Aromaa and Sami Nevala
Helsinki 2004
Copies can be purchased from:
Academic Bookstore Criminal Justice Press
P.O.Box 128 P.O.Box 249
FIN-00101 Helsinki Monsey, NY 10952
Finland USA
Website: http://www.akateeminen.fi Website: http://www.criminaljusticepress.com
ISBN 952-5333-20-5
ISSN 1237-4741
Page layout: DTPage Oy, Helsinki, Finland
Printed by Hakapaino Oy, Helsinki, Finland
Foreword
TheThirdAnnualConferenceoftheEuropeanSocietyofCriminologywasor-
ganisedinHelsinki27–30August2003.Theconferencehadthreeco-organis-
ers:theEuropeanInstituteforCrimePreventionandControl,affiliatedwiththe
UnitedNations(HEUNI),theScandinavianResearchCouncilforCriminology,
andtheDepartmentofCriminalLaw,ProceduralLawandGeneralJurispruden-
tial Studies of the University of Helsinki.
ThefirstcontributiontothisvolumeistheOpeningaddressoftheconference
byMr.JohannesKoskinen,theFinnishMinisterofJustice,followedbyeightin-
vited plenary presentations. As to the ninth (Neil Walker: Constitutionalizing
EuropeanCriminalJustice),invitedatshortnotice,onlytheabstractwasavail-
able.
Thethemeoftheconferencewas“CrimeandCrimeControlinanIntegrating
Europe”.Relatingtothis,theplenarypresentationscovertopicalissuesofEuro-
peanintegration,crime,andcriminalpolicy,includingtheenlargementprocess
of the European Union.
Someofthesetextshavebeenrevisedbytheauthorsaftertheevent.Theyhave
thushadtheopportunitytocommentsomeoftheeventualdiscussions,rendering
the outcome more dynamic a flavour.
HEUNIhasconsideredthecreationofatrulyEuropeanforumforscientific
criminologicalexchangesasaveryimportantsteptowardsabetterintegrationof
theEuropeancriminologicalcommunities.Thisvolumeintendstoprovideevi-
dence of the potential of this positive development.
Helsinki, 19 April 2004
Kauko Aromaa
Director
III
Contents
Foreword. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .III
Opening Address. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1
Johannes Koskinen
Minister of Justice, Finland
Re-integrative Shaming of National States. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4
Nils Christie
Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Oslo, Norway
Crime Control and Integration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10
Paul Wiles
Director, Research, Development & Statistics, Home Office, UK
Mayhem and Measurement in Late Modernity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18
Jock Young
Professor, John Jay College of Criminal Justice, United States
Victim Policy—Only for the Good?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32
Annika Snare
Associate Professor, Institute of Legal Science D,
University of Copenhagen, Denmark
Crime Trends in Europe from 1990 to 2000. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .39
Marcelo Aebi
Vice Director, Institute of Criminology,
University of Sevilla, Spain
Counting Crime in Europe: Survey Trends 1996–2000. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .61
Anna Alvazzi del Frate
Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Officer,
Research and Analysis Section,
United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime
Constitutionalizing European Criminal Justice. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .73
Neil Walker
Professor, European University Institute, Italy
Steps Towards Harmonisation—Steps Towards Friction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .75
Ursula Nelles
Director, Institut für Kriminalwissenschaften,
Universität Münster, Germany
Harmonising of Sentencing: Will It Encourage a Principled Approach? . .85
Nicola Padfield
Senior Lecturer, Institute of Criminology,
University of Cambridge, UK
IV
Opening Address
Johannes Koskinen
Minister of Justice, Finland
Ladies and Gentlemen,
OnbehalfoftheFinnishMinistryofJusticeIhavethegreatpleasuretoopenthis,
thethird,annualCongressoftheEuropeanSocietyofCriminology.Thetheme
oftheCongressis“CrimeandCrimeControlinanIntegratingEurope”.FirstI
wouldliketopresentsomeperspectivesoftheFinnishMinistryofJusticerelat-
ing to this theme.
1. Basic Rights and the EU Constitution
OneofthecentralissuesinthedebateonthefutureoftheEUisthestatusoffun-
damental rights and in particular how the protection of these rights can be
strengthened.OneofthemeansthroughwhichtheUnionaimsatreinforcingthe
citizens’confidenceintheUnion’sworkisbydevelopingtheEUCharteronBa-
sicRightsintoalegallybindingsystemofnorms.IncasetheEUadoptstheCon-
ventiononHumanRights,andthisissomethingparticularlyFinlandhasbeen
workingfor,theEUwillbecoveredbythesameexternalHumanRightscontrol
as the member states now are.
TheCharteronBasicRightswasadoptedasasolemnproclamationin2002.
Atthattime,therewereseveralpersonsfeelingscepticalaboutthesuitabilityof
creatingalegallybindingnormsystemonbasicrightswithintheEU.Andthus
theCharterremainedapoliticaldeclaration.InFinland,too,thereweresuspi-
cionsrelatingtothecircumstancethatalegallybindingchartermightreinforce
theauthorityoftheUnion.Andinadditiontothat,thequestionoftherelationbe-
tweentheCharterandthebasicrightsprovisionsintheFinnishConstitution,and
thequestionoftherelationshipbetweentheCharterandtheEuropeanConven-
tion on Human Rights, was raised.
SincetheCharterwasadopted,theseissueswerefurtherdiscussedinEurope.
Aconferenceonissuesrelatingtoenlargingthescopeofbasicrightswithinthe
EU was organized in Helsinki in 2002. This seminar and other similar subse-
quentdiscussionshaveinmyopinionconsiderablycontributedtoovercoming
scepticismaboutreinforcingthelegalpositionoftheCharterandaboutEUsup-
porttotheHumanRightsConvention.ThethoughtaccordingtowhichtheChar-
teranditsadoptionwerecompetingorsomehowexcludingeachotherwasgrad-
ually abandoned. The Convention working group on basic rights was surpris-
inglyunanimousontheseissuesandwantedtheConventiontoproceedinboth
areas.
1
InFinland,too,itwasconcludedthatthegoalsoftheEUCharteronBasic
RightsandtheadoptionoftheConventiononHumanRightsbytheEUarein
parttwodifferentthings.TheCharteraimsatreinforcingthepositionofbasic
rightsinthelegislativeworkandotheractivitiesoftheUnionandatclarifying
thefundamentalrightsrecognizedbytheUnion.Thisisconnectedtothedevel-
opmentoftheUnionasapoliticalsystemthatevermoreextensivelytakescareof
taskspreviouslyfallingwithinthescopeofthememberstatesandevermoreex-
tensivelyaffectingcitizens’everydaylife.ThecomprehensivetaskoftheChar-
teristoreinforcethecivildimensionanddemocraticlegitimacyoftheUnionand
to guarantee that civil rights be protected in Community law as well.
TheadoptionoftheEuropeanConventiononHumanRightsbytheEUwill
alsopromotethescopeoftheUnionasfarasHumanRightsareconcerned,asthe
Unionanditsbodieswillbeaffectedbytheexternalsupervisorysystemofthe
Convention after adoption. The purpose of adoption, however, partly differs
fromthegoalsoftheCharter.Firstly,adoptionservesasasignaltotheoutside
world,declaringthattheUnionwillcommititselftogeneralEuropeananduni-
versalHumanRightsnorms.Secondly,theexternalsupervisorysystemofthe
ConventionwillultimatelyguaranteetheprotectionofHumanRightsintheap-
plicationofCommunitylawaswell.InthisrespecttheCharteranditsadoption
performpartlydifferentfunctions.Theyshallthusbeconsideredtwodifferent
methods of reinforcing the protection of Basic Rights, rather complementing
than excluding each other.
InthisrespectIconsiderwecanbesatisfiedwiththefinalresultoftheCon-
vention.IconsideritparticularlyimportantthattheUnionwilladopttheCon-
ventiononHumanRights,asthisisnecessaryinordertoguaranteethatauni-
form interpretation of Human Rights be secured.
2. The Integration of Criminal Legislation in Europe
AnotherimportantthemeinthedebateonthefutureoftheEU,fromthepointof
viewoftheMinistryofJustice,isofcoursethedevelopmentofco-operationin
questions of legislation and domestic policy.
The transition to supranational co-operation, however, is not taking place
withoutproblems.Asthememberstatestransfercertainauthoritiesinpoliceaf-
fairs and penal co-operation to the Union, the definition of Union powers be-
comesacrucialquestion.Questionsofcompetencearepertinenttopenalissues,
sincethesearecloselylinkedtothesovereigntyofthememberstates.Wemust
haveaclearconceptionofthepowersthememberstatestransfertotheUnion
and the powers that remain within the member states.
Thesefundamentalquestionsplayacrucialroleparticularlywhenspeaking
oftheunificationofsubstantivecriminallaw.ConsideringthegoalsoftheUn-
ion,thereisacertainneedforharmonizingpenalprovisions.However,sincewe
aredealingwiththeessenceofthepenalsysteminthememberstates,itisneces-
sarytorestrictharmonizationtothosequestionswhereitcanbevirtuallyuseful.
Generallyspeaking,moreambitiousharmonizationmaybeconsideredjustified
2
mainlydealingwithseriouscrime,crossingborders.Alistofsuchoffenceswas
proposed in the conclusions from the 1999 European Council Meeting at
Tampere.
TherearealsoothertendenciesintheConvention.TheCommissioninpartic-
ularpromotesadefinitionofUnionpowersenablingtheUniontoharmonizepe-
nalregulationsinallpolicyareaswithintheUnion,incasethisisconsiderednec-
essaryinordertoachieveGovernmentgoals.Theprobleminthisproposalisthat
thepenalauthorityoftheUnionisintendedtobecoveringthewholescopeofap-
plication of the Constitutional Treaty. The powers are not merely intended to
coverserioustransnationalcrime.Instead,harmonizationmightincludeinsig-
nificantcriminalactsaswell.AccordingtotheFinnishopinion,suchanunclear
definitionofpowersshouldnotbeadopted.Whyisitnotsufficienttotheexecu-
tionofUnionlegislationthatthememberstatesinaccordancewiththeprinciple
offidelityareobligedtoguaranteeeffectivesanctions?Ifthepurposeistoguar-
anteethatseriousinternationaloffences,asforinstanceenvironmentaloffences,
aretobeincludedinpenalharmonizationinsomeparticularpolicyareas,theUn-
ionpowersrelatingtotheseoffencesaretobeconfirmedintheConstitutional
Treaty.
3. In Conclusion
Acrucialmatterforpenalpolicydecision-makingisthatdecisionsshallbebased
onfacts,reliableresearch,andthatdecision-makersshallbeconstantlyinteract-
ingwithexpertsandpracticalworkersinthefield.Thefruitfulinteractionbe-
tween the Finnish Ministry of Justice and the scientific community is, among
otherthings,reflectedinthefactthatabouthalfoftheFinnishlecturersatthis
CongressareworkinginscientificresearchorotherfieldsoftheMinistryofJus-
tice.Ihopethedebatesattheseminarwillbeproductiveandrewarding.How-
ever,theyhardlywillbeunanimous,asscientificdebateandpoliticsneverare.
3
Re-integrative Shaming of
National States
Nils Christie
Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Oslo, Norway
Dear participants,
MostofushereinthisroomarefromothercountriesthanFinland.Therefore;we
need to know where we are. Not from a tourist’s point of view. Not about the
thousandlakesandthedeepforests.ButmaybeaboutthedeepsoulsoftheFinns,
andtheirbloodyhistory.Atleastabouttheirhistory.Farbackintime,thiscoun-
trywasapartofSweden,thenfrom1809apartofRussia,then,in1918,divided
inabloodycivilwar,afterthatasprinkleoffascism,thentwofiercewarsagainst
Russia,asmalloneagainstGermany,andthenalong,tenseperiodundertheeyes
ofStalin.Thebestpoliticalprotectioninthisperiodwastobecomefullyinte-
gratedintheNordicblock.Andsotheydid—alsowhenitcametopenalmatters.
Traditionally,theirpenalsystemwasaRussianone.Theysentmanyprisoners
toSiberia,buthadalsoagreatprisonpopulationathome.Uptothe1960sthey
hadseveralhundredprisonersper100,000inhabitants.TheywereEasternEuro-
peanintheirpenalpolicy.Butthen,bypoliticalandmoralreasons,theychanged
theirsystemandgottheirnumberofprisonersdowntoonefourthofthelevelit
hadbeenmostofthetimesincethecivilwarin1918.Today,Finlandissolidly
placedamongScandinaviancountrieswith66prisonersper100,000inhabitants.
Theleadingtroikabehindthisethicallyandpoliticallybasedactionconsistedof
InkeriAnttila,PatrikTörnuddandK.J.Lång.Theyprovedthatprisonfiguresare
not a result of destiny, but of choice. We are free. Free to choose and change.
But are we not forced, by the crime situation?
Inmyview,crimeisanunsuitablepointofdeparturewhenwediscusspenalmat-
ters.Crimeisall,andnothing.Actswiththepotentialityofbeingseenascrimes
arelikeanunlimitednaturalresource.Wecantakeoutalittleamountintheform
ofcrime—oralot.Crimeisinendlesssupply.Actsarenot,theybecome,their
meaningsarecreatedastheyoccurtous.Withthisview,itisprobablyclearthatI
amnotparticularlyfondofcomparativestudiesofcrimefiguresandvictimfig-
ures.
Thisopensforararelydiscussedproblem:Howmuchoftheunwantedactsin
asocietyshouldwetakeoutintheformofcrime?Whatisasuitableamountof
crime,bothwhenitcomestotheoccurrenceofunwantedacts,andwhenitcomes
totheamountoftheseunwantedactstobedesignatedascrimesandthereforebe-
longingtotheinstitutionofpenallaw?Andrelatedtothis:Whatisasuitablesize
ofthepenalsector?Idiscusscriteriaforthisinabooksoontobepublished,but
4
cannotusemy30minutesheretoadiscussionofthesecriteria.Itmustbesuffi-
cienttosay,thatsometimes,intuitively,wefeelthatsomecountrieslettheirpe-
nalapparatusexpandmuchtoomuch.Itissimplyethicallywrongtodeliverso
muchpain.Andithurtsthecivilcharacterofthesesocieties.Somestatesareso
punitive that it hurts both them and us.
My problem in what follows is therefore: What to say in such cases, can we
shame states out of it? I will mention three cases.
Tovisitthefirstcase,wecanjustleavethisroomandgotothemainrailway
station of Helsinki, take a beer in the beautiful railway restaurant—Bertolt
Brechtdidsomeofhiswritinghere—andthen,somehoursinthetrainbound
eastwardsandyouareinacountrywithcloseto600prisonersper100,000inhab-
itants—ninetotentimestheScandinavianlevel.Russiaisthemajorincarcerator
inEurope,withBelarusasthenextinline.Russiatodayisacountrycompletely
out of line with Europe when it comes to the number of prisoners.
ButimportantpartsoftheRussianintelligentsiawanttheircountrytobepart
ofWesternEurope.Visitorsareinvitedtoobserveandtorevealtheirobserva-
tions.TheRussianprisonadministrationisexceptionallyopenandselfcritical.
Asoneofthesevisitors,IgetsomeofthesamefeelingaswhenvisitingFinland
intheformerdays,inmeetingaculturewhereitisuncomfortabletoexperience
oneselfasintoogreatadistancetocommonEuropeanstandards.Itiswithcon-
siderableembarrassment,fromtheverytopanddown,thatRussiansrevealthe
totalsizeoftheirprisonpopulationandalsotheconditionsintheirremandpris-
ons. My own theme while lecturing at universities or colleges in Russia is to
emphasisetheurgentneedforreductionofthenumberofprisoners.Thereis,I
say,nopointintalksaboutpsychologicaltreatmentoreducationinasystemso
desperatelyovercrowdedastheRussianone.Itisjustacover-up.IfRussiawants
tobeanordinarypartofEurope,itmustalsobesowhenitcomestotheirprison
population.
Estonia,LatviaandLithuaniaareinthesamesituation.Theywanttocome
closetoScandinavia,thereisjustsomewaterthatdividesus,andmuchinthe
cultureissimilar.Buttheproximitybuildsonanillusioniftheypreserveapenal
apparatusbelongingtoanothertimeandanotherculture.Theyallhavemorethan
300prisonersper100,000inhabitants.Canthegeneralcultureinacountryre-
mainuninfluencedbybeingthatpunitive?Onemightalsoexpectthatcountries
withsuchahugenumberofprisonerswillcreateperfectgrowthconditionsfor
highly unwanted subcultures. People trained in this type of subcultures, and I
haveherebothprisonguardsandprisonersinmind,willnotbethemostwel-
comeambassadorsfortheircountrieswhentheyvisittheScandinaviatheyare
supposed to stand so close to.
TheembarrassmentamongmanyofficialsinEasternEurope,particularlyin
Russia,hasanotherside:Itistodaywithconsiderablepridesomeofthemreport
onthereductionoftheirprisonpopulation,particularlyintheirremandprisons.
ThisdevelopmentisamanifestationofthatpartofEuropecomingclosertoEu-
rope.Inthisreductionisonceagainillustratedthatprisonfiguresarenotshaped
by crime, but by the general culture.
Butthesereductionsarefarfromstabilised.Twowarsthreatenprisonreduc-
tionsinRussia.First,thewarinChechnyaandalltheviolencedirectlyandindi-
5
rectlyconnectedtothiswar.Secondlythewaragainstdrugs.Penalreformersare
nottheonlyvisitorstoRussia.Drugexpertsalsogothere.Ihavespentdepress-
inghoursintheDuma,listeningtoaparliamentarianwithmuchpowerwhode-
scribedtheimportanceofprotectingtheRussianyouthagainstdrugs.Itwillde-
velopintoanepidemic,hesaid.Oneuserdragstennewcomersintothehabit,and
soitwillcontinue.Severepunishmentbecomesanecessitytostopthisepidemic
spreading.Ihadhearditbefore.ThelostwaragainstdrugsintheWestisnow
dangerously close to be repeated in the East, with predictable results.
Nonetheless,thesituationinthegreatestincarceratorinEuropeisnotwithout
hope.Theincreaseinthenumberofprisonershascometoastop,aconsiderable
reductioncanbeobserved,thereexistsawillingnesstodiscusstheproblems,and
the atmosphere makes an open discussion of these matters possible.
* * *
Cubaismynextcase.Lastterm,Ispentsomedayslecturingthere;wehavean
agreementofco-operationbetweenCubaandourinstituteinOslo.Usually,Iget
toknowacountrythroughitspenalsystem,butthatwasnotparticularlyeasyin
thiscase.Ididnotgetaccesstoanyoftheirprisons.Andtheirprisonfiguresare
statesecrets,justasintheSovietUnionbackintime.Butofcourse,theUSSR
figureswerenotimpossibletoestimate.Ihavedescribedthebasisformyesti-
matesinCrimeControlasIndustry(Christie2000).WhenitcomestotheCuban
situation,Iusedthesamemethods,buttherearemiserableholesinmyknowl-
edge. I can offer only rough estimates.
Evenso,IfeelprettysurethatCubabelongstothecategoryofcountrieswitha
veryhighrateofincarceration.Myestimateisthattheynow,in2003,probably
have between 454 and 545 prisoners per 100,000 inhabitants. These are large
numbers in a Caribbean connection. The figures have probably tripled since
1987.Cubaalsohas,thisspring,executedthreeprisoners.Formanyyearsthey
have had a moratorium on capital punishment.
Comparedtomoststatesclosetothem,Cubahasahighlydevelopedwelfare
systemforthemostvulnerablepartofthepopulation.Noilliteracy,nochildren
sleepinginthestreets.Andtheyhaveahospitalsystemsowelldevelopedthatthe
mostconservativeamongNorwegianparliamentarianscomehomeaftervisits
andtellthatwehavemuchtolearnfromCuba.Nonetheless,externalpressure
andinternaldifferentiationtaketheirtoll.Avulnerablestatebites,andafrus-
trated population tolerates these bites.
Inadditioncomestherigiditycreatedbysecrecy.Withprisonfiguresasstate
secrets,itisnoteasytoinitiateanydiscussionthereonthesematters.Secrecy
also makes difficult any criticism of the inner working of the system.
How to approach this problem?
My attempt was the old one, to compare ideals with practice.
Cubahasidealsofcreatinganegalitariansociety.Ithasidealsclosetothosein
Scandinavianwelfarestates.Ithasatraditionofclosecontactbetweentradeun-
ionsinCubaandScandinavia.Butwhathappenswiththeseideals,whenastate
acquires an exceptionally large prison population?
6