Penology
Code: 100462 ECTS Credits: 6| Degree | Type | Year |
|---|---|---|
| 2500257 Criminology | OB | 3 |
Contact
- Name:
- Anna Melendez Pereto
- Email:
- anna.melendez@uab.cat
Teachers
- Judit Xufre Calafell
- Ursula Ruiz Cabello
Teaching groups languages
You can view this information at the end of this document.
Prerequisites
There are no requests.
The subject follows the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG)
Language of the course
Lectures: Spanish
Seminar 11 (Prof. Anna Meléndez): English
Seminar 12 (Prof. Úrsula Ruiz): Spanish
Seminar 13 (Prof. Judit Xufré): Catalan
Objectives and Contextualisation
Looking at criminological topics, community sentences are characteristic of criminal justice systems beyond Europe and they have been a relevant topic the last decades. The aim of this subject - penology, alternatives to imprisonmnent- is to give an approach to the alternative system to imprisonment in Spain and in particular in Catalonia.
Competences
- Ability to analyse and summarise.
- Applying an intervention proposal about a person serving a sentence.
- Carrying out the criminological intervention on the basis of the values of pacification, social integration and prevention of further conflicts.
- Drawing up an academic text.
- Formulating research hypothesis in the criminological field.
- Identifying the most appropriate and effective penal intervention for each particular case.
- Reflecting on the foundations of criminology (theoretical, empirical and ethical-political ones) and expressing this in analysis and propositions.
- Students must demonstrate they know a variety of criminal policies in order to face criminality and its different foundations.
- Verbally transmitting ideas to an audience.
- Working autonomously.
- Working in teams and networking.
Learning Outcomes
- Ability to analyse and summarise.
- Accurately applying the most efficient criminal proceedings to the criminal act.
- Applying the appropriate foundations of criminal policy depending on the type of crime observed.
- Applying the scientific and criminological knowledge to the punishment studies.
- Carrying out penology researches with well-formulated hypothesis.
- Drawing up an academic text.
- Inferring those criminological proceedings that try to avoid criminal relapse.
- Suggesting the correct action that should be applied in a penal execution.
- Verbally transmitting ideas to an audience.
- Working autonomously.
- Working in teams and networking.
Content
Bloc 1: Introduction to punishment and community sanctions.
Theme 1. Introduction: criminology and punishment. Origins and evolution.
Theme 2. Theories on the justification of punishment
Theme 3. The Spanish penal System: Community punishments, Characteristics and evolution (since 2015)
Theme 4. Punishment and punitive attitudes towards punishment.
Theme 5. Implementation of community Sanctions in Catalonia. The role of probation officers.
Bloc 2: Community Sanctions in the Spanish context.
Theme 6. Community sanctions: Community service.
Theme 7. Community sanctions: Probation.
Theme 8. Victim-Offender Mediation and other forms of Restorative Justice.
Theme 9. Sanctions without intervention: suspended sentences, fines and disqualifications.
Theme 10. Electronic monitoring.
Common Theme. Criminologists as advisors: criminological reports*.
*This topic is developed during seminars.
Activities and Methodology
| Title | Hours | ECTS | Learning Outcomes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Type: Directed | |||
| Lectures | 19.5 | 0.78 | 2, 4, 5, 7, 8 |
| Seminars | 19.5 | 0.78 | 2, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 |
| Type: Supervised | |||
| Assessment | 5 | 0.2 | |
| Type: Autonomous | |||
| Group activities | 40 | 1.6 | 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11 |
| Mid-term and final exam preparation | 30 | 1.2 | 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, 10 |
| Reading preparation | 36 | 1.44 | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10 |
a) Lectures consist on the exposition -by the lecturer- of the topics list on the programme. Students may interact and discuss about the diferent topics explained. References likend to the topic need to be read in advance in order to get involved in the discussion.
b) Seminars consist on the performance of dynamics and rol playings in order to simulate real cases and situations linked to the community sancions enforcement. Debates based on theoretical topics and critical and reflexive comments about some of the compulsory readings may be part of seminars sessions as well.
c) Organization. The module has a time schedule that will be facilitated to the students at the begining of the semester. It includes weekly organization within the activities, in and outside of class.
Annotation: Within the schedule set by the centre or degree programme, 15 minutes of one class will be reserved for students to evaluate their lecturers and their courses or modules through questionnaires.
Assessment
Continous Assessment Activities
| Title | Weighting | Hours | ECTS | Learning Outcomes |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Group tasks | 10% | 0 | 0 | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 |
| Individual tasks | 90% | 0 | 0 | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
Evaluation system
A) Continuous evaluation
Combination of several activities, including individual and group work. In order to pass the module it is compusory to get a 5 on average between the two exams. The average of the module needs to be over five as well.
Individual activities (90%).
a) Exams ( 50%). There is a mid-term exam, assessing the topics belonging to the first bloc (25%); and a final exam, including only the topics listed on the second bloc (25%). In order to pass the module it is compulsory to get a 5 on average between the two exams.
b) Participation. Oral, active and reflective participation showing arguing abilities are part of the evaluation during the seminars ( 5%).
c) Report. Students have to write a Criminological Report about one of the cases part of the seminar file (10%).
d) Case-based activities (25%). Seminars are based on a case-activities file and there are weekly activities to prepare and develop during seminars ( individual and in group).
Attendance. Attendance to the module – lectures and seminars- is compulsory (100%). The minimum required in order to be evaluated is the 80%. Justified absences need to be documented and will not count as non attended. Justified causes are linked to illness or mayor causes not allowing the Student attending the module. Activities linked to the university do not count neither as an absence.
Group Project (10%).
Students need to work on a specific community sanction in group ( methodology will be explained at the begining of the course). Finally, oral presentations will be prepared by the different groups to the rest ofthe class.
Resit.
In order to pass the module students may needto get a Pass – 5 or more-in the final mark. Students may have the possibility to resit any of the assessed activities in order to pass the module, before the academic year ends and during the second semester period. In order to have access to the average activites and exams will need to be graded with a 4 o more.
Plagiarism and Cheating.
Cheating during an exam may imply a fail -0- and the impossibility to take the resit exam. Students may need to register the module the following academic year. According to the Law school and University rules, plagiarism is forbidden and punished. Plagiarising any of the activities of the module cannot be resat and may imply a fail of the activity -0-. In case of detecting plagiarism in more than one activity, students may fail the whole module.
Punctuality
Lectures will start on time. It is not possible to come into classe late or leave the class before the end without justification.
Not assessable students
A student may be classified as “not assessable” when he or she has not been able to provide sufficient evidence of evaluation of the subject (art. 266.9 UAB Academic Regulations). “Students will be evaluable if they have carried out a set of activities whose value is equivalent to a minimum of 2/3 of the total grade for the subject. If the value of the activities carried out does not reach this minimum, the subject teacher may consider the student as non-evaluable.
b) Unique (final) evaluation:
Students taking final evaluation may need to demonstrate having learned all the contents and skills expected for the subject. Evaluative activities may consist in diferent parts (exam/activity):
1. Written theoretical activity 45 %
2. Practical written activity 45 %
3. Theoretico - practical oral activity 10 %
In case of Failure it is possible to resit it.
Bibliography
Compulsory reading
Compulsory readings are the basis for the module preparation and evaluation. They will be discussed in class and part of questions in the exams. At the begining of the semester students will be announced if there are any changes in terms of literature to read.
Bloc 1.
Reading 1. Díaz-Cortés, L. M. (2007). Algunas consideraciones sobre el castigo: una perspectiva desde la sociología. In G. Balmaceda (Ed.), Problemas actuales de derecho penal (pp. 187-222). Ediciones Jurídicas de Santiago.
Reading 2. Cid, J. (2009). La justificación del castigo. In La elección del castigo. (pp.29-48) Bosch.
Reading 3. Varona, D. (2009). ¿Somos los españoles punitivos? Actitudes punitivas y reforma penal en España. InDret, Revista para el Análisis del Derecho, 1-31.
Reading 4. Díez-Ripollés, J. L. (2006). La evolución del sistema de penas en España. 1975 -2003. Revista Electrónica de Ciencia Penal y Criminología, 7-25.
Reading 5. Villacampa, Carolina. (2016). Las alternativas a la prisión en la reforma de 2015. In J. M, Landa (Dir). Prisión y alternativas en el nuevo código penal tras la reforma 2015, (pp.171-198). Instituto Internacional de Sociología jurídica de Oñati.
Bloc 2.
Reading 6. Ayala, J. M & Echano, J. I. (2016). La suspensión de la pena tras la LO 1/2015. In J. M, Landa (Ed.). Prisión y alternativas en el nuevo código penal tras la reforma 2015, (pp.199-224). Instituto Internacional de Sociología Jurídica de Oñati.
Reading 7a-. Trasovares, M. & Hilterman, E. (2010). ¿Cómo conducimos después de un programa formativo de seguridad vial?. Invesbreu, 50, 1-8.
Reading 7b-. Pérez, Meritxell. & Martínez, Marian (2010). Evaluación de los programas formativos aplicados desde la ejecución penal en la comunidad en delitos de violencia de género. Invesbreu, 49, 1-12.
Reading 8. Zorrilla, Nahia. (2013). La suspensión especial para drogodependientes. ¿existen posibilidades para una mejoraplicación? obstáculos y orientaciones de futuro. Eguzkilore, 27 (121-148).
Reading 9. Contreras, María. (2013). El potencial rehabilitador de la pena de trabajos en beneficio de la comunidad: revisión de la evidencia empírica y análisis de la percepción de una muestra de penados. E. Puentes (Ed). VIII congreso nacional de investigación sobre violencia y delincuencia. Vol. 1 ( pp.243-263). Fundación Paz Ciudadana.
Reading 10. Guimerá, A. (2005). La mediación-reparación en el derecho pena de adultos: un estudio sobre la experiencia piloto de Catalunya. Revista Española de Investigación Criminológica, 3(5), 1-22. https://doi.org/10.46381/reic.v3i0.20
Reading 11. Torres, Núria. (2012). Contenido y fines de la pena de localización permanente. Indret: Revista para el Análisis del Derecho, 1, 1-31.
Lectures transversals
Reading 12. Daunis, A. (2016). La ejecución delas penas alternativas a la prisión. La multa, la localización permanente y los Trabajos en beneficio de la comunidad. En Ejecución de penas en España. La reinserción social en retirada, 12 (295 -320). Comares.
Reading 13. Capdevila, M., Ferrer, M., Framis, B., Blanch, M, Garrigós, A., Batlle, A., & Mora, J.(2016). La reincidencia en medidas penales alternativas 2015. Resumen ejecutivo. Departament de Justicia. Centre d’Estudis Jurídics i Formació Especialitzada. http://www.recercat.cat
Reading 14. Blay, Ester (2019). El papel de los Delegados de Ejecución en la ejecución penal en la comunidad ¿gestores o agentes de rehabilitación? InDret, 4, 1-32.
Reading 15. Larrauri, Elena. (2012). La necesidad de un informe social para la decisión y ejecución de las penas comunitarias. Boletín Criminológico, 139, 1-5.
General references
Cid, J. (2009). La elección del castigo. Bosch.
Cid, J y Larrauri, Elena. (1997). Penas alternativas a la prisión. Bosch
Cid, J., Larrauri, Elena. (Cords). (2002). Jueces penales y penas en España. (Aplicación de las penas alternativas a la privación de libertad).Tirant lo blanch.
Capdevila, M., Ferrer, M., Framis, B., Blanch, M, Garrigós, A., Batlle, A. & Mora, J.(2016). La reincidencia en medidas penales alternativas 2015. Informe. Centre d’Estudis Jurídics i Formació Especialitzada. http://justicia.gencat.cat
Larrauri,Elena., Blay, Ester. (2011). Penascomunitarias en Europa. Trotta.
Varona, D. (2023). El sistema punitivo español. Atelier.
Literature in English
Aebi, M., Delgrande, Natalia & Marguet, Y. (2015). Have community sanctions and measures widened the net of the European criminal justice system?. Punishment & Society, 17 (5), 575-597. https://doi.org/10.1177/1462474515615694
Blay, Ester. (2006). 'It Could be us': recent transformations in the use of community service as a punishment in Spain. European Journal of Probation, 2 (1), 62-81. https://doi.org/10.1177/206622031000200105
Blay, Ester. (2008). Work for the benefit of the community as a criminal sanction in Spain. Probation Journal, 55 (3), 245-258. https://doi.org/10.1177/0264550508092813
Blay, Ester & Larrauri, Elena. (2016). Community punishment in Spain. A tale of two administrations. In Gwen. Robinson, F. McNeil (Eds). Community punishment. European perspectives (pp. 191-208). Routledge.
Cid, J. (2005). Suspended sentences in Spain: Decarceration and recividism. Probation Journal, 52 (2),169-179. https://doi.org/10.1177/0264550505052686
Cid, J. (2009). Is imprisonment criminolgenic? A comparative Study of recidivism rates between Prison and suspended prison sanctions. European Journal of Criminology, 6(6), 459-480. DOI:10.1177/1477370809341128
McIvor, Gill., Beyens, Kristel., Blay, Ester i Boone, Miranda. (2010). Community Service in Belgium,the Netherlands, Scotland and Spain: a comparative perspective. European Journal of Probation, 2(1), 82-98. https://doi.org/10.1177/206622031000200106
Stancu O. & Varona, D. (2020). What about judicial punitiveness? A study of homicide convictions in Spain (2000-2013). Criminal Law Forum, 31, 251-275. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10609-020-09388-9
Varona, D. & Kempt, S. (2020). Suspended Sentences in Spain: An alternative to prison or a"bargaining chip" in plea negotiations?. European Journal of Crime, Criminal Law and Criminal Justice, 28, 354-378. https://doi.org/10.1177/1477370822111751
Software
There is no specific program for this subject
Language list
| Name | Group | Language | Semester | Turn |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| (TE) Theory | 1 | Spanish | second semester | morning-mixed |