[
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
