{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.020657276995305163, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0028169014084507044, 'mean_word_length': 5.1976744186046515, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Consent and co-operation in community supervision – Denmark and Norway

Neither Danish nor Norwegian legislation has explicit references to European Rules on Community Sanctions and Measures (ERCSM), No. 31 or European Probation Rules (EPR), No. 6, on consent and co-operation. Attention is drawn to similarities and differences between Denmark and Norway in relation to legal regulations and practices concerning consent and co-operation. The analyses focus upon community supervision by the Probation Service and include the main forms of community sanctions in both countries. It is found that in spite of legal differences between the countries, their practices have a lot in common. The scope of discretionary power that is entrusted to the Probation Service regarding judgement of the offender’s suitability for community sanctions is debated; and the relationship between the rules on consent and co-operation in the ERCSM and EPR and the European Convention on Human Rights on the presumption of innocence and the prohibition of forced labour is questioned.