The aim is to reduce the burden on the courts, and automatic release would happen provided the prison or the prosecutor's office did not raise objections in that specific case.

The bill also proposes that decisions on probation would no longer be made by the court.

Typically prisoners would be freed after serving around two-thirds to three-quarters of their custodial sentence.

Some legal scholars and the courts themselves, however, say the plan is deficient and may lead to the early release of individuals dangerous to society.

The Ministry of Justice has sent the bill out for its coordination rounds.

The stakeholders which have provided feedback on the bill are: The University of Tartu's law faculty, the Supreme Court, and the Tartu District Court.

The first of these called for the bill not to proceed as it is, arguing that for example, a culture of early release would largely develop within the prison system, even though prisons lack a reliable methodology for assessing early release.

Some legal academics also note that in situations where both the prison and prosecutor support early release yet the court disagrees and denies the request, the court would be overruled and the inmate released.

The Supreme Court pointed out that the plan could lead to the early release of a person who could still prove a danger to society.

The Tartu District Court stressed that a situation where release decisions bypass the courts must not arise.

University of Tartu law faculty: Bill unrefined and should move forward in current form

Tartu University's law faculty found the bill is insufficiently unrefined and needs further analysis, and lacks a clearly traceable calculation and analysis path on its potential impact on the state budget.

In the faculty's view, the shift to an automatic early release system, expected as it is to affect safety and societal attitudes, would need public approval, since it is the public who would be affected.

General legal compliance depends on the public's belief in and trust toward the legal system, which in turn depends on how legitimate people perceive the decision-making processes to be, the faculty found, stating: "Here, the emphasis is that the legislature must consider the options and justify the decisions made. Considerations and justifications like these are not apparent from the explanatory memorandum."

The faculty does not dispute that early release with probation offers presumably a smoother reintegration for the offender into society. For this reason, in the experts' view, this should indeed be the goal of the sanction system: To subject as many released inmates as possible to a supervision period.

"Certainly, though automatic release with a prison-initiated 'emergency brake' is not the only viable solution. It could also work the other way round: After a certain period of time has passed, all prisoners could be brought before a judge ,who would decide whether an individual is released or not," the faculty suggested.

The faculty noted that, under the terms of the bill as it stands, the practice of early release would largely be shaped by the prison system – the release of individuals who the prison does not block would not be overseen by the court, even as those it does block would be – yet there is no basis to conclude that the prison uses a reliable methodology in making decisions about the first of these categories.

Legal academics have emphasized that the prison service currently uses the UK-imported OASys (Offender Assessment System) in risk assessment, something which courts have previously been critical of, in terms of its use.

"In a situation like that, it is unthinkable that the prison would forge ahead with its current risk assessment practices, yet the explanatory memorandum does not reveal any systemic plan on how the prison system or the prosecutor's office should justify triggering their 'emergency brake,' even though that would be their obligation," the faculty states.

The legal scholars noted that if the responsibility for using the "emergency brake" rests with the prisons alone, it must be taken into account that in practice there have been cases where both the prison and prosecutor supported early release, but the court disagreed and denied the application.

The academics pointed out that, under the bill, such cases would instead lead to the release of the offender.

"Based on the above, we request that under no circumstances should the bill proceed in its current form, nor should these extremely significant changes for society be rushed," the faculty wrote.

"Although the idea behind these changes is a noble one, the lack of justification and the failure to analyze impacts is not appropriate legislative practice for a democratic society and does not support public acceptance of a socially sensitive issue," the statement went on.

In the faculty's opinion, the topic of this draft should begin with a development intent, and from there proceed if desired, supporting proposals with proper analysis.

Supreme Court: Bill if passed could increase early release of dangerous individuals

The Supreme Court meanwhile pointed out that under the terms of the bill, the right to propose denying early release would be granted to the prison and the prosecutor's office.

The court stresses that assigning such a task to two institutions without precisely defining in what situations and on what grounds the proposal to the court should be made may result in no proposal being submitted and the release of a person whose release is not in line with the purposes of imprisonment or who continues to pose a danger to society.

The Supreme Court notes that it is not the prosecutor's duty to handle the execution of sentences, and the court believes it should be carefully considered whether granting the prosecutor such independent authority is appropriate.

"From current procedural practice in early release and denial cases that reach the Supreme Court, it appears that the prosecutor generally plays a formal role. Except for a few exceptions, the prosecutor merely agrees in general terms with the prison's position," the court added.

Tartu Circuit Court: Release decisions must not bypass the court

The Tartu Circuit Court noted that, in general, the court can agree with the reasoning provided in the explanatory memorandum and support the proposed reform of the conditional release procedure.

The court emphasizes that there must not be a situation where release is decided bypassing the court.

At the same time, the court also finds that the current prison assessment methodology is inadequate.

The Court of Appeal explains that, according to the constitution, justice is administered by the courts, and in criminal law the clearest expression of judgment is the imposition of a sentence.

"Therefore, there should not be a situation where any institution or person can decide on a prisoner's release completely bypassing the court. This would be the case if someone could make a release decision that the court could in no way overrule. It appears that under the current draft, the court's central role remains intact."

The circuit court that courts more generally have the option to bar automatic release.

"It is true that, as a rule of thumb, the bill states that a prisoner is released after serving 2/3 or 3/4 of the sentence — which in a way overrides the court's original ruling that the full sentence be served. However, the court can preemptively prohibit such automatic release after 2/3 or 3/4 of the sentence has been served," the court wrote, adding: "Consequently, such a prohibition option is entirely justified."

However, the Court of Appeal observes that the draft leaves unclear what criteria the court should rely on when deciding on such a prohibition.

The circuit court also noted that the recidivism rate among those released early (currently running at 16 percent) is expected to rise somewhat if the bill gets adopted, as some individuals who pose a high risk of re-offending and whom the courts would not release will now be automatically released — and will go on to commit new crimes.

The circuit court added that if the role of the prisons' evaluation becomes more decisive within the release process, the prison must ensure that these evaluations are of a high quality — which so far has often not been the case.

The court provided examples here, noting that courts have repeatedly issued criticisms of prisons for making it impossible to understand how recidivism percentages get calculated, or why a prison refuses to support the release of a person assigned a "low recidivism percentage," for instance.

There are three main working prisons in Estonia, in Tallinn, Tartu and in Jõhvi (Viru Prison).

The court system is organized on three tiers, with the Tartu-based Supreme Court uppermost, followed by the two circuit courts in Tallinn and Tartu, then the county courts and administrative courts.

--

Follow ERR News on Facebook and Twitter and never miss an update!