Zoekresultaat: 5 artikelen

x
Jaar 2016 x
Article

Access_open Legal Constraints on the Indeterminate Control of ‘Dangerous’ Sex Offenders in the Community: The German Perspective

Tijdschrift Erasmus Law Review, Aflevering 2 2016
Trefwoorden Supervision, twin track system, principle of proportionality, human rights, violent and sex offenders
Auteurs Bernd-Dieter Meier
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    After release from prison or a custodial preventive institution, offenders may come under supervision in Germany, which means that their conduct is controlled for a period of up to five years or even for life by a judicial supervising authority. Supervision is terminated if it can be expected that even in the absence of further supervision the released person will not commit any further offences. From the theoretical point of view, supervision is not considered a form of punishment in Germany, but a preventive measure that is guided by the principle of proportionality. After a presentation of the German twin track system of criminal sanctions and a glimpse at sentencing theory, the capacity of the principle of proportionality to guide and control judicial decisions in the field of preventive sanctions is discussed. The human rights perspective plays only a minor role in the context of supervision in Germany.


Bernd-Dieter Meier
Prof. Dr. Bernd-Dieter Meier is the Chair in Criminal Law and Criminology at the Law Faculty of Leibniz University Hannover.
Article

Access_open Legal Constraints on the Indeterminate Control of ‘Dangerous’ Sex Offenders in the Community: The French Perspective

Tijdschrift Erasmus Law Review, Aflevering 2 2016
Trefwoorden Preventive detention, mandatory supervision, sex offenders, retrospective penal laws, legality principle
Auteurs Martine Herzog-Evans
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    France literally ‘discovered’ sexual abuse following neighbour Belgium’s Dutroux case in the late 1990s. Since then, sex offenders have been the focus of politicians, media and law-makers’ attention. Further law reforms have aimed at imposing mandatory supervision and treatment, and in rare cases, preventive detention. The legal framework for mandatory supervision and detention is rather complex, ranging from a mixed sentence (custodial and mandatory supervision and treatment upon release or as a stand-alone sentence) to so-called ‘safety measures’, which supposedly do not aim at punishing an offence, but at protecting society. The difference between the concepts of sentences and safety measures is nevertheless rather blurry. In practice, however, courts have used safety measures quite sparingly and have preferred mandatory supervision as attached to a sentence, notably because it is compatible with cardinal legal principles. Procedural constraints have also contributed to this limited use. Moreover, the type of supervision and treatment that can thus be imposed is virtually identical to that of ordinary probation. It is, however, noteworthy that a higher number of offenders with mental health issues who are deemed ‘dangerous’ are placed in special psychiatric units, something that has not drawn much attention on the part of human rights lawyers.


Martine Herzog-Evans
Martine H-Evans, PhD, is a Professor at the Department of Law, Universite de Reims Champagne-Ardenne.
Artikel

Access_open The Justification of Basic Rights

A Discourse-Theoretical Approach

Tijdschrift Netherlands Journal of Legal Philosophy, Aflevering 3 2016
Trefwoorden Basic rights, Right to justification, Discourse theory, Non-domination, Kant
Auteurs Rainer Forst
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    In this paper, I suggest a discourse theory of basic legal rights that is superior to rival approaches, such as a will-based or an interest-based theory of rights. Basic rights are reciprocally and generally justifiable and binding claims on others (agents or institutions) that they should do (or refrain from doing) certain things determined by the content of these rights. We call these rights basic because they define the status of persons as full members of a normative order in such a way that they provide protection from severe forms of legal, political and social domination. The very ground of these rights is the status of persons as free and equal normative authorities within the order they are subject to. In other words, these rights are grounded in a fundamental moral right to justification.


Rainer Forst
Rainer Forst is professor of Political Theory and Philosophy at the Goethe Universität, Frankfurt am Main.
Praktijk

Uitdagingen voor de toekomst van de (groene) criminologie

Tijdschrift Tijdschrift voor Criminologie, Aflevering 3 2016
Trefwoorden environmental crime, social harm, environmental governance, green criminology
Auteurs Dr. Lieselot Bisschop
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    This narrative aims to identify a number of challenges for the future of (green) criminology. It discusses what the three traditional criminological questions about criminalization, etiology and the social reaction imply in a ‘green’ context. For each of those topics, we analyse where the goals of green and mainstream criminology align and pay attention to research projects on these topics in the Netherlands and Belgium. In the end, this allows us to identify the following challenges for the future of (green) criminology: theoretical foundations, methodological creativity, interdisciplinary research projects and dialogue, and a research focus that goes beyond a preoccupation with the Global North.


Dr. Lieselot Bisschop
Dr. L.C.J. Bisschop is postdoctoraal onderzoeker bij het Fonds Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek Vlaanderen en universitair docent bij de Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam.
Artikel

Advocatuur in strafrecht en herstelrecht

Een verkenning van de verschillen

Tijdschrift Tijdschrift voor Herstelrecht, Aflevering 2 2016
Trefwoorden raadsman, herstelprocesrecht, Strafprocesrecht, advocaten, mediation
Auteurs John Blad
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    The author first describes the deontological axioma for the role of the defense counsel in the domain of criminal procedure. Since here the most serious charges are brought against a suspect, who may have all his life-perspectives to lose by severe punishments, the duty of the legal counsel is to be as one-sided in the defense of his clients views and interests as possible and as allowed by professional ethics. He is the guardian of the legitimate interests of the suspect in the context of a legal battle in or out of court about the legal truth of what is said to have happened. In view of the ideals of restorative justice (illustrated by references to Nils Christies Conflicts as property) a new set of rules and customs should be developed that can function as a framework of ‘restorative procedural law’. In the context of restorative justice legal counsel of both the suspect and the victim should be expected and able to function much more as ‘restorative coaches’, seeking co-operation and deliberation between all stakeholders. But, should clients – suspects and victims alike – decide against such an approach and want ‘their day in court’ this should also be possible and be realised. The independent courts should always remain the ultimate refuge for those seeking justice.


John Blad
John Blad is redacteur van dit tijdschrift, auteur en consulent op het gebied van herstelrecht. Naast andere publicaties schreef hij samen met David Cornwell en Martin Wright Civilising Criminal Justice, Waterside Press (2013). In 2015 viel hem de Herman Bianchi herstelrecht-prijs ten deel.
Interface Showing Amount
U kunt door de volledige tekst zoeken naar alle artikelen door uw zoekterm in het zoekveld in te vullen. Als u op de knop 'Zoek' heeft geklikt komt u op de zoekresultatenpagina met filters, die u helpen om snel bij het door u gezochte artikel te komen. Er zijn op dit moment twee filters: rubriek en jaar.