1. bookVolume 14 (2021): Edition 1 (June 2021)
Détails du magazine
License
Format
Magazine
eISSN
2029-0454
Première parution
05 Feb 2009
Périodicité
2 fois par an
Langues
Anglais
Accès libre

Individual Prevention in Criminal Procedure

Publié en ligne: 08 Oct 2021
Volume & Edition: Volume 14 (2021) - Edition 1 (June 2021)
Pages: 1 - 21
Reçu: 28 Jan 2021
Accepté: 25 Mar 2021
Détails du magazine
License
Format
Magazine
eISSN
2029-0454
Première parution
05 Feb 2009
Périodicité
2 fois par an
Langues
Anglais
Abstract

This article explores the possibility of using criminal procedure and its measures for individual prevention of crime. The author tries to look at criminal procedure in an abstract way, not focusing on any concrete legal system. It is argued that the criminal process is traditionally reactive and this should not change. However, some measures of criminal procedure (arrest, pretrial detention, house arrest, suspension of driving licence, suspension at work) may be used as instruments of individual prevention when they are the best or only measures available and their application will not prejudice the case against the accused. Their use must be accompanied by relevant safeguards and allowed only if necessary and proportional.

Keywords

1. Ashworth, Andrew. “Criminal Law, Human Rights and Preventative Justice”: 87–108. In: Bernadette McSherry, Alan Norrie, and Simon Bronitt, eds. Regulating Deviance: The Redirection of Criminalisation and the Futures of Criminal Law, London: Hart Publishing, 2009. Search in Google Scholar

2. Ashworth, Andrew, and Lucia Zedner. Preventive justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press 2014.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198712527.001.0001 Search in Google Scholar

3. Bjørgo, Tore. Preventing Crime. A Holistic Approach. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2016.10.1057/9781137560483 Search in Google Scholar

4. Blackstone, William. The Commentaries on the Laws of England. Vol. IV. London, 1825. Search in Google Scholar

5. Blom–Cooper, Louis. “Crime and Justice: A Shift in Perspective”: 151–169. In: David Cornwell, John Blad, and Martin Wright, eds. Civilising Criminal Justice: An International Restorative Agenda for Penal Reform. Hook: Waterside Press, 2013. Search in Google Scholar

6. Brantingham, Paul J., and Frederic L. Faust. “A Conceptual Model of Crime Prevention.” Crime and Delinquency 22 (1976): 130–146.10.1177/001112877602200302 Search in Google Scholar

7. Caianiello, Michele. “Detention as Punishment and Detention as Regulation”: xxv – xxxiv. In: Michele Caianiello and Michael L. Corrado, eds. Preventing Danger: New Paradigms in Criminal Justice. Durham: Carolina Academic Press, 2013. Search in Google Scholar

8. Cardamone, Daniela. “Criminal Prevention in Italy. From the ‘Pica Act’ to the ‘Anti-Mafia Code’” (2016) // http://www.europeanrights.eu/public/commenti/bronzini1-Cardamone_Criminal_prevention_in_Italy_2.0.pdf.10.1007/s40797-016-0035-x Search in Google Scholar

9. Claessen, Jacques. “Theories of Punishment”: 11–34. In: Keiler Johannes and Roef David, eds. Comparative Concepts of Criminal Law. Cambridge – Antwerp – Portland: Intersentia, 2016. Search in Google Scholar

10. Dalack, Andrew. “Special Administrative Measures and the War on Terror: When Do Extreme Pretrial Detention Measures Offend the Constitution?” Michigan Journal of Race and Law 19 (2014): 415–442. Search in Google Scholar

11. Dimock, Susan. “Criminalizing Dangerousness: How to Preventively Detain Dangerous Offenders.” Criminal Law and Philosophy 9 (2015): 537–560.10.1007/s11572-013-9270-5 Search in Google Scholar

12. Doyle, Aaron, and Laura McKendy. “Risk Aversion and the Remand Population Explosion in Ontario”: 199–223. In: Stacey Hannem et al., eds. Security and Risk Technologies in Criminal Justice. Critical Perspectives. Ontario: Canadian Scholars’ Press, 2019. Search in Google Scholar

13. Drakeford, Mark, et al. Pre-trial Services and the Future of Probation. Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 2001. Search in Google Scholar

14. Duff, Antony, Lindsay Farmer, Sandra Marshall, and Victor Tadros. The Trial on Trial: Volume 3: Towards a Normative Theory of the Criminal Trial. London: Hart Publishing, 2007. Search in Google Scholar

15. Feeley, Malcolm, and Jonathan Simon. “Actuarial Justice: The Emerging New Criminal Law”: 173–201. In: David Nelken, ed. The Futures of Criminology. London: Sage Publications, 1994. Search in Google Scholar

16. Floud, Jean, and Warren Young. Dangerousness and Criminal Justice. London: Heinemann, 1981. Search in Google Scholar

17. Garland, David. The Culture of Control. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001. Search in Google Scholar

18. Hendry, Jennifer, and Colin King. “Expediency, Legitimacy and the Rule of Law: A Systems Perspective on Civil/Criminal Procedural Hybrids.” Criminal Law and Philosophy 11 (2017): 733–757.10.1007/s11572-016-9405-6 Search in Google Scholar

19. Hirsch Ballin, F. H. Marianne. Anticipative Criminal Investigation. Theory and Counterterrorism Practice in the Netherlands and in the United States. The Hague: T. M. C. Asser Press, 2012. Search in Google Scholar

20. Husak, Douglas. Overcriminalization: The Limits of the Criminal Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195328714.001.0001 Search in Google Scholar

21. Kirchengast, Tyron. The Criminal Trial in Law and Discourse. Houndmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010.10.1057/9780230305564 Search in Google Scholar

22. Kitai–Sangero, Rinat. “The Limits of Preventive Detention.” McGeorge Law Review 40 (2009): 904–934. Search in Google Scholar

23. Lazarus, Liora. “Positive Obligations and Criminal Justice: Duties to Protect and Care?”: 135–155. In: Lucia Zedner and Julian V. Roberts, eds. Principles and Values in Criminal Law and Criminal Justice: Essays in Honour of Andrew Ashworth. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012. Search in Google Scholar

24. Mayson, Sandra G. “Dangerous Defendants.” Yale Law Journal 127 (2017): 490–568. Search in Google Scholar

25. McCulloch, Jude, and Dean Wilson. Pre-crime. Pre-emption, precaution and the future. New York: Routledge, 2016.10.4324/9781315769714 Search in Google Scholar

26. McSherry, Bernadette. “Pretrial and Civil Detention of ‘Dangerous’ Individuals in Common Law Jurisdictions”: 521–541. In: Darryl K. Brown, Jenia I. Turner, and Bettina Weisser, eds. The Oxford Handbook of Criminal Process. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2019. Search in Google Scholar

27. Noorda, Hadassa. “Preventive Deprivations of Liberty: Assets Freezes and Travel Bans.” Criminal Law and Philosophy 9 (2015): 521–535.10.1007/s11572-014-9303-8 Search in Google Scholar

28. Pradel, Jean. Procédure pénale. Paris: Cujas, 2015. Search in Google Scholar

29. Steiker, Carol S. “Proportionality as a Limit on Preventive Justice. Promises and Pitfalls”: 194–213. In: Andrew Ashworth, Lucia Zedner, and Patrick Tomlin, eds. Prevention and the Limits of the Criminal Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013. Search in Google Scholar

30. Tribe, Lawrence H. “An Ounce of Detention: Preventive Justice in the World of John Mitchell.” Virginia Law Review 56 (1970): 371–407.10.2307/1071797 Search in Google Scholar

31. Vervaele, John A. E. “Special Procedural Measures and Respect of Human Rights. General Report.” Revue Internationale de Droit Pénal 80 (2009): 75–123.10.3917/ridp.801.0075 Search in Google Scholar

32. Von Hirsch, Andrew. “Prediction of Criminal Conduct and Preventive Confinement of Convicted Persons.” Buffalo Law Review 21 (1972): 717–58. Search in Google Scholar

33. Walker, Nigel. “Ethical and other Problems”: 1–12. In: Walker Nigel, ed. Dangerous People. London: Blackstone, 1996. Search in Google Scholar

34. Weigend, Thomas. “There is Only One Presumption of Innocence.” Netherlands Journal of Legal Philosophy 42 (2013): 193–204.10.5553/NJLP/221307132013042003003 Search in Google Scholar

35. Young, Warren. “The Justification for Taking Measures to Predict Offending and Reoffending and to Manage Risk”: 145–154. In: Piet H. van Kempen and Warren Young, eds. Prevention of Reoffending. Antwerp: Intersentia, 2014. Search in Google Scholar

36. Zedner, Lucia. “Pre-crime and post-criminology?” Theoretical Criminology 11 (2007): 261–281.10.1177/1362480607075851 Search in Google Scholar

37. Zedner, Lucia. “Erring on the Side of Safety: Risk Assessment, Expert Knowledge and the Criminal Court”: 219–241. In: Robert Sullivan and Ian Dennis, eds. Seeking Security. Pre-empting the Commission of Criminal Harms. Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2012. Search in Google Scholar

1. Ashot Harutyunyan v Armenia. Judgment of the ECtHR of 15 June 2010, application 34334/04. Search in Google Scholar

2. Austin and others v the United Kingdom. Judgment of the ECtHR of 15 March 2012, applications 39692/09, 40713/09 and 41008/09. Search in Google Scholar

3. De Tomasso v Italy. Judgment of the ECtHR of 23 February 2017, application 43395/09. Search in Google Scholar

4. Đorđević v Croatia. Judgment of the ECtHR of 24 June 2012, application 41526/10. Search in Google Scholar

5. Engel and others v the Netherlands. Judgment of the ECtHRof 8 June 1976, applications 5100/71, 5101/71, 5102/71, 5354/72 and 5370/72. Search in Google Scholar

6. Eremia v Moldova. Judgment of the ECtHR of 28 May 2013, application 3564/11. Search in Google Scholar

7. Garycki v Poland. Judgment of the ECtHR of 6 February 2007, application 14348/02. Search in Google Scholar

8. Hashman and Harrup v the United Kingdom. Judgment of the ECtHR of 25 November 1999, application 25594/94. Search in Google Scholar

9. K. U. v Finland. Judgment of the ECtHR of 2 December 2008, application 2872/02. Search in Google Scholar

10. Opuz v Turkey. Judgment of the ECtHR of 9 June 2009, application 33401/02. Search in Google Scholar

11. Osman v the United Kingdom. Judgment of the ECtHR of 28 October 1998, application 23452/94. Search in Google Scholar

12. S., V. i A. v Denmark. Judgment of the ECtHR of 22 October 2018, applications 35553/12, 36678/12 and 36711/12.10.1016/S1464-2859(18)30381-X Search in Google Scholar

13. Suominen v Finland. Judgment of the ECtHR of 1 July 2003, application 37801/97. Search in Google Scholar

14. Welsh v the United Kingdom. Judgment of the ECtHR of 9 February 1995, application 17440/90. Search in Google Scholar

Articles recommandés par Trend MD

Planifiez votre conférence à distance avec Sciendo