Corrections
Why are people released before their sentence has run its full term?
Because the statute says so, on stated criteria, decided by a court. German law sets fractions, requires that release be justifiable against the security interest of the public — and requires the convicted person’s consent.
In short
Release before the end of a term is not the shortening of a sentence. The sentence remains what the court imposed; what changes is that the remainder is suspended rather than carried out in custody, usually on conditions and usually with the possibility of return if they are not met. It is a decision about how the balance of the term is served, not about how long it is.
Why it exists
AnalysisA sentence fixed at the moment of conviction is fixed on what was known then. Everything that happens during the term — conduct, circumstances, what preparation for release has been possible — is unavailable to the sentencing court by definition. A mechanism for revisiting the balance is how a system uses information that did not exist when the term was set.
There is a second reason specific to systems that state a reintegration goal. German law names the capacity to live in social responsibility without offences as the goal of execution. A term that ran to its last day and ended abruptly at the gate would give that goal no mechanism; a suspended remainder with conditions is the mechanism.
How it works
Section 57(1) of the German Criminal Code states three cumulative conditions for suspending the remainder of a fixed-term custodial sentence on probation. Two-thirds of the sentence imposed, and at least two months, must have been served. The suspension must be one that unter Berücksichtigung des Sicherheitsinteresses der Allgemeinheit verantwortet werden kann — that can be justified taking account of the security interest of the general public. And the convicted person must consent.
The assessment has stated content. Section 57(1) directs that the decision take into account in particular the personality of the convicted person, their prior life, the circumstances of the act, the weight of the legal interest endangered in the event of relapse, their conduct during execution, their circumstances of life, and the effects to be expected from suspension.
Section 57(2) provides an earlier point in narrower circumstances: after half of a fixed-term sentence, and at least six months, where the convicted person is serving a custodial sentence for the first time and it does not exceed two years, among the conditions the provision states.
That release statuses are plural rather than singular is visible in other systems too. Canadian statute, in a provision about aggravating circumstances, names conditional sentence orders, parole, statutory release and unescorted temporary absence separately — four distinct arrangements under which a person may be in the community while a sentence runs.
Common misconceptions
Widely held beliefs that do not match how the system actually operates.
Common belief: Early release means the sentence was reduced.
In practice: The sentence stands. Under the German provision what is suspended is the remainder, on conditions, with the possibility of the balance being enforced. Nothing about the term the court imposed has changed.
Common belief: Release at two-thirds is automatic once the point is reached.
In practice: Under the German provision the fraction is one of three cumulative conditions. The suspension must also be justifiable taking account of the security interest of the general public, and the convicted person must consent.
Common belief: Release decisions are made by the prison administration.
In practice: Under the German provision it is the court that suspends the remainder, on statutory criteria. Which body decides varies between systems, and it determines what kind of challenge is available.
Common belief: Nobody would refuse supervised release, so consent is a formality.
In practice: Supervised release carries conditions and the possibility of return that serving to the end of the term does not. The statute requires consent because the two are genuinely different positions.
How this varies between jurisdictions
A required section on every guide. Arrangements differ between countries, and we say how.
What differs between systems is not whether early release exists but who decides and on what.
- A court, on statutory fractions plus a public-security condition plus consent — Germany, StGB § 57(1).
- An earlier fraction for a first custodial sentence not exceeding two years — Germany, StGB § 57(2).
- Several separately named statuses rather than a single mechanism — Canada, Criminal Code s. 718.2(a)(vi).
Rights and accountability
AnalysisStated criteria make a release decision contestable. A refusal that ignored a factor the statute names, or that treated the public-security condition as unsatisfiable in principle, has departed from the provision — which is a different kind of complaint from disagreeing with the outcome.
AnalysisPlacing the decision with a court rather than the administration also separates it from the body whose daily judgments about conduct in custody feed into it. That is the same separation logic that keeps sentencing away from the service that carries sentences out.
What we could not establish
- One system’s provisions are described from primary text. How the assessment is conducted, what conditions attach on release, and what happens on breach were not researched and are not described.
- Release mechanisms differ so widely between systems that nothing here should be read as describing any other country.
Where to go next
Related: why a sentence length is not time served, what reintegration means, and probation is three different things.
Related topics
- Why is the number announced in court not the number of years in custody?
Because they are answers to different questions. The announced term is what the court imposed; time in custody is what execution produces after suspension, release provisions and rules about combining terms have operated on it.
- What does “probation” actually mean?
Three unrelated things, depending on the system: an organisation, a status attached to a suspended custodial term, and supervision after release from custody. English supplies one word; the statutes do not.
- What is a prison system supposed to have achieved by the time someone leaves?
Two legislatures answer in their own text, and neither answer is “that the person has been reformed”. One names a capacity; the other names conditions the state must provide. The difference is where the obligation sits.
Sources
Bundesministerium der Justiz / Bundesamt für Justiz (Gesetze im Internet) · Legislation · link verified 2026-08-26
The authoritative German text, read directly. Supports § 57(1): the court suspends execution of the remainder of a fixed-term custodial sentence on probation where (1) two-thirds of the sentence imposed, but at least two months, have been served; (2) this can be justified taking account of the security interest of the general public ("unter Berücksichtigung des Sicherheitsinteresses der Allgemeinheit verantwortet werden kann"); and (3) the convicted person consents — with the decision taking into account in particular their personality, prior life, the circumstances of the act, the weight of the legal interest endangered in the event of relapse, their conduct during execution, their circumstances of life, and the effects to be expected from suspension. And § 57(2): after half of a fixed-term sentence, but at least six months, where the convicted person is serving a custodial sentence for the first time and it does not exceed two years, among the stated conditions. Cited for the fact that release before the end of a custodial sentence is a judicial decision on stated statutory criteria, including the convicted person's consent. It supports no claim about release rates, about outcomes after release, or about any other system.
Department of Justice Canada (laws-lois.justice.gc.ca) · Legislation · link verified 2026-08-26
The consolidated federal text on the Justice Laws Website, read directly (English; the French text is equally authoritative). Supports s. 718: "The fundamental purpose of sentencing is to protect society and to contribute, along with crime prevention initiatives, to respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society by imposing just sanctions that have one or more of the following objectives" — denouncing unlawful conduct and the harm done to victims or the community (a); deterring the offender and other persons (b); separating offenders from society, where necessary (c); assisting in rehabilitating offenders (d); providing reparations for harm done to victims or to the community (e); and promoting a sense of responsibility in offenders, and acknowledgment of the harm done (f). Supports s. 718.1, marginal-noted "Fundamental principle": "A sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender." Supports s. 718.2 principles, including that a sentence should be increased or reduced for aggravating or mitigating circumstances with an enumerated list of deemed aggravating circumstances (a); that "a sentence should be similar to sentences imposed on similar offenders for similar offences committed in similar circumstances" (b); that where consecutive sentences are imposed "the combined sentence should not be unduly long or harsh" (c); that "an offender should not be deprived of liberty, if less restrictive sanctions may be appropriate in the circumstances" (d); and that "all available sanctions, other than imprisonment, that are reasonable in the circumstances and consistent with the harm done to victims or to the community should be considered for all offenders, with particular attention to the circumstances of Aboriginal offenders" (e). Criminal law is federal in Canada and this text applies across the country. It establishes no sentence length for any offence, supports no prediction of any outcome, and describes no other system.
Strafvollzugsgesetz (StVollzG) § 2 — Aufgaben des Vollzuges (German original text)
Bundesministerium der Justiz / Bundesamt für Justiz (Gesetze im Internet) · Legislation · link verified 2026-08-26
The authoritative German text of § 2 of the Prison Act, headed "Aufgaben des Vollzuges" — the tasks of execution — read directly. Supports verbatim: "Im Vollzug der Freiheitsstrafe soll der Gefangene fähig werden, künftig in sozialer Verantwortung ein Leben ohne Straftaten zu führen (Vollzugsziel). Der Vollzug der Freiheitsstrafe dient auch dem Schutz der Allgemeinheit vor weiteren Straftaten." In the execution of a custodial sentence the prisoner shall become capable of leading a life in social responsibility without offences — this is named as THE Vollzugsziel, the goal of execution — and execution ALSO serves the protection of the general public from further offences. Cited for the fact that a statute can state the purposes of imprisonment expressly, and for the specific two-purpose structure Germany states. It supports no claim about whether the goal is achieved, no claim about any other country, and no normative theory of punishment. Note also that since the 2006 federalism reform prison law is substantially a Land competence and the Länder have enacted their own execution statutes; this federal provision is cited for what it states, not as a description of every German prison regime.