International Journal on Criminology Volume 1, Number 1, Fall 2013 | Seite 44

Demographic Analysis of the Penal System
First case. A receives 120 detainees and B 180 detainees. Overall, there are 300 detainees
for 250 spaces, a difference of 50. There is a surplus of 20 detainees in A and a surplus of
30 detainees in B (20 + 30 = 50). The total number of surplus detainees corresponds to
the positive difference between the total number of detainees and the total number of
spaces.
Second case. A receives 80 detainees and B 110 detainees. Overall, there are 190
detainees for 250 spaces, a difference of −60. There are 20 free spaces in A and 40 free
spaces in B (20 + 40 = 60). The total number of free spaces corresponds to the difference
(negative) between the total number of detainees and the total number of spaces.
Third case. A receives 80 detainees and B 180 detainees. Overall, there are 260 detainees
for 250 spaces, a difference of + 10 (apparent overpopulation). In reality, there are 20 free
spaces in A and 30 surplus detainees in B, for an overall number of surplus detainees of
30. The difference, positive in this case, between the total number of detainees and the
total number of spaces does indeed indicate a state of overpopulation, but does not
measure the number of surplus detainees.
Surplus detainees = apparent overpopulation + number of free spaces (30 = 10 + 20).
Fourth case. A receives 110 detainees and B 120 detainees. Overall, there are 230
detainees for 250 spaces, a difference of −20 (apparent under-population). In reality,
there are 10 surplus detainees in A and 30 free spaces in B, for a total number of surplus
detainees of 10. The negative difference between the total number of detainees and the
total number of spaces simply indicates that not all the facilities are overpopulated.
Surplus detainees = apparent overpopulation + number of free spaces. (10 = −20 + 30)
6. Should we limit the use of prison?
DYNAMIC TYPOLOGY OF ALTERNATIVE MEASURES AND PENAL
SANCTIONS TO PRISON AND/OR DETENTION: It was after work done for the
Council of Europe's Council for Penological Co-operation on the overpopulation of
detention facilities and prison population inflation that we proposed an original typology
of alternatives to prison and/or detention. 14 This classification is based on an analysis of
the ways in which the prison population is renewed (individuals in prison): Analysis of
stock based on that of entries into prison and length of time spent in prison.
A first-category alternative is any measure or penal sanction (MPS) that reduces the
number of entries into prison. Such is the case when, during proceedings, a free
defendant is given a suspended sentence or a suspended sentence with probation and is
placed under court supervision ab initio (decided before any pre-trial detention) or given
community service. These alternatives are sometimes regarded as radical.
Second-category alternatives reduce the length of time spent in prison. This is a
measure of lesser evil since it is partial or relative: Recourse to prison could not be
avoided, but time spent in prison is reduced by some means. Accordingly, reductions of
sentences are second-category alternatives.
Of course, this dichotomy does not mean we can classify all MPSs into two separate
categories since many belong to one or the other depending on how they were applied.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
14 Council of Europe, Prison overcrowding.
43