Search

Abstract According to a study published by Emelí Lönnqvist in 2023, the percentage of inmates in pre-trial detention (imprisonment on remand) in Denmark differs significantly from the other Nordic countries. This is an issue of ongoing debate among Danish defence lawyers. The present study analyses 46 cases before the City Court of Copenhagen in 2023-2024, in which the public prosecutor has requested a pre-trial detention of the person charged with an offence. It is apparent that the relevant provisions on pre-trial detention are not applied restrictively despite the fact that a pre-trial detention is a deviation from the right of personal freedom. It is also apparent that the alternatives to pre-trial detention listed in section 765(2) of the Administration of Justice Act are not applied. Furthermore, it is apparent that decisions on pre-trial detention only rarely indicate the reasons that have justified a pre-trial detention.

The central issue of this work is to understand how adversarial principles are (or are not) applied by institutions that operate under an inquisitorial logic. To this end, it was developed a flow survey, in which we followed 825 custody hearings, held between 2015 and 2016. We also followed their criminal processing up to the outcomes, totaling a sample of 426 sentences examined. As result, We found that the decision of pre-trial detention in a custody hearing increased the chance of conviction. Therefore, when all the cases are constituted by an arrest in flagrante delicto, the conviction reiterates the previous court decision, rendered at the beginning of the processing flow and without any debate on the merits of the case. In addition, it was found that police work is decisive for these results. Beyond it, it was found that judicial actors (especially judges and prosecutors) actively contribute to this result, acting inquisitoriality from the beginning of the flow. Thus, although the new accusatorial rules aim to democratize criminal justice, the institutions and actors remain the same, which contributes to a non-democratic justice practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study aims to test the psychometric properties of the Violent Risk Scale (VRS) in a sample of Portuguese remand prisoners. A total of 133 subjects participated in the present study. We carried out a Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) to test the originally proposed two factor structure. Results showed evidence to support the VRS's psychometric qualities. The CFA tested the two-factor structure and showed evidence of the goodness of fit of the original two-factor model. Also, our findings indicated acceptable internal consistency for both subscales. The correlational analyses supported both convergent and discriminant validity of the VRS. Finally, this study also tested known-groups validity. The VRS score showed a satisfactory postdictive accuracy, which means that it is able to demonstrate distinctive scores for groups known to vary on the variables being measured. We consider this work represents an essential support for decision-makers to evaluate the appropriateness of different judicial measures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper exposes how colonial ways of knowing and being shape judicial behaviour in Brazil, where pre-trial detention is excessively used against racialised groups. I argue that judges continue to conceptualise and operationalise justice according to colonial logics and thus reveal the coloniality of justice. Drawing on decolonial theory from across South America and from interviews and court observations in Rio de Janeiro, I reveal how judges understand themselves as heroic crime fighters, acting beyond the law in a modern moral crusade. I examine how violence remains a central component of justice and consider how judges deal with the contradiction of neutrality and aggression. I argue that judges, by endorsing or tolerating violence, become agents of coloniality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Revista Brasileira de Direito Processual Penal is the property of Instituto Brasileiro de Direito Processual Penal and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The condition of the italian prisons is tragic and worrying, despite, during the pandemic period, the situation was little better. Statistic data show which are the worst problems of the italian places of detention: overcrowding, excessive use (rectius abuse) of the pre-trial detention, criminalisation of the weaker people, very high and dramatic number of suicides. The inmates are forced to live in a idleness condition rather than in the prospects of social reintegration. To rethink execution in the sense of humanising and resocialising punishment a strong political will is needed, even if, today, it’s hard to imagine. Maybe, a feeble hope can be seen in the aims pursued by the Cartabia reform. For now, however, the prison continues to be a non-place.

The article discusses the evolution of criminology as a scientific discipline, emphasizing the importance of integrating theory with practice in the field of criminal justice. The aim of this scientific endeavour was to analyse contemporary challenges of crime, the impact of modern technologies on criminal investigations, and the role of academic institutions in training specialists. The article examines the unique context of the Republic of Moldova, emphasizing both the advancements and challenges within the criminal justice system. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background/Aim: Official data show that nearly three million people are awaiting trial in prison. Despite this group representativeness, few interventions have been developed and assessed for these prisoners, even though literature has been showing that they present specific vulnerabilities. Nevertheless, no previous literature review had covered this topic. Considering this, the present review aims to gather evidence on the programs focused on this population, analyzing their intervention targets and their effectiveness. Method: The search identified a total of 7,143 studies. After removing the duplicates, 2,199 were screened using the title and abstract, according to the inclusion criteria. The full-text screening comprehended 45 articles, of which 37 were excluded. This resulted in 8 studies for inclusion in the final analysis, of which four were pharmacological studies. Results: Overall, meta-analysis results exhibited that treatment of remand prisoners (RPs) has an extraordinarily large positive effects, exceeding 92%. Our study confirmed that RPs would benefit from treatment, and therefore intervention programs should be established. Conclusions: Besides, our findings underlined the scarce resources to address the difficulties of the remand population, reinforcing the importance of assessing these individuals’ needs to develop effective responses to them.

The paper goes on to discuss the prevalence of issues in pre-trial detention practices in both Sweden and Ukraine, as noted by international and national organizations. Sweden has witnessed a growing trend in pre-trial detention statistics, while Ukraine, despite a decreasing trend in remand, faces a substantial number of cases brought against it at the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) pertaining to pre-trial detention. The historical context reveals that these two countries have responded differently to criticism and challenges, reflecting variations in their legal systems and corresponding regulations on pre-trial detention. Nonetheless, both nations have pursued reforms with a shared objective: to improve the pre-trial detention system. Given these divergent experiences, statistical data, and overall context, it is evident that a comparative analysis of pre-trial detention policies in Sweden and Ukraine is warranted. Such a comparison can offer valuable insights into the existing problems in both countries and suggest pertinent solutions, taking into consideration their distinctive experiences and circumstances.

One of the fundamental prerequisites for the progression of criminal proceedings is the participation of procedural subjects in the criminal procedure. Based on this fact, the primary responsibility falls on the justice authorities, who are obliged to ensure the presence of the accused in the procedure. Pre-trial detention is considered one of the most severe measures to secure the presence of the accused in the criminal procedure because it significantly restricts the freedom of the accused, a measure that can only be determined in accordance with the conditions specified by the Code of Criminal Procedure. Within the scope of this work, we will elaborate on the general concepts of pre-trial detention, the conditions for its imposition, its duration, the continuation of pre-trial detention, and the rights of pre-trial detainees. The Code of Criminal Procedure has envisaged the implementation of pre-trial detention in accordance with international standards. The rationale for applying measures to ensure the presence of the accused in the criminal procedure lies in achieving the goal of preventing the delay of the criminal procedure and ensuring access to justice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of European Journal of Psychology Applied to Legal Context is the property of Sociedad Espanola de Psicologia Juridica y Forense and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Remand prisoners (RP) are non-sentenced individuals who must be held in prison awaiting sentencing. The international data reported that up to a third of the detainees worldwide are in a pre-trial situation. The present systematic review aims to review the studies that assessed the remand prisoners' mental problems during detention. Following the PICO strategy, the search identified a total of 5427 studies, of which, 79 studies were included in the final analysis. Substance use disorders were the most reported problem, followed by mood disorders, psychotic disorders, and personality and behavior disorders. A smaller number of studies reported anxiety and neurotic disorders, posttraumatic stress disorder and adjustment disorders, intellectual disorders, paraphilias and sexual disorders, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, obsessive–compulsive disorder, eating disorders, and somatoform disorders. Our findings contribute to the scientific knowledge about this group of inmates' needs, emphasizing the prevalence of mental problems within this population and supporting both professionals and academics to reform policies and practices. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Referring to the provisions of the Romanian Constitution, individual freedom and security of person appear to be inviolable, unless criminal proceedings have been initiated against the person. Crime is that state of affairs which brings a high degree of danger to society. It consists in committing criminal acts with guilt, punishable by a criminal fine and/or deprivation of liberty. Preventive measures have the role of helping in the criminal process by meeting or removing situations of danger that could prevent the court from finding out the truth, as well as restricting the freedom of persons who have committed crimes or about whom there is reasonable suspicion that they are going to commit an act provided by criminal law. The deprivation of liberty of individuals who have committed crimes is a necessary measure for their re-education and aims to prevent the commission of other criminal acts. Among preventive measures, the most serious form is pre-trial detention. This is one of the most severe custodial measures by which the accused is interrupted from performing certain actions that could hinder the criminal process or its purpose. Pre-trial detention may be implemented only after the substantive conditions of the pre-trial detention warrant have been cumulatively met. Therefore, the arrest is a procedural measure without which pre-trial detention could not be ordered. It is a procedural act of particular importance because it presents, concretely, the act(s) of which the accused is accused and through this prism the necessary measures are taken to charge the defendant. The arrest warrant is the main document that makes the difference in order to establish a person's guilt. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The pre-trial release decision involves an assessment of the risk the accused poses to the community and the administration of justice if they are released pending trial. To ameliorate risk and provide some insurance, a surety – a family member or friend who agrees to supervise the accused and promises a sum of money if the accused fails to appear in court, commits further offences, or breaches a condition of their release – may be required. Sureties are required to act as "jailers in the community," conceptualized as a mechanism for reducing risk and enhancing public safety by providing supervision and improving the likelihood that the accused will comply with conditions. While the court imposes a legal relationship of monitoring and control between the accused and their surety, this expectation is confounded by tension between acting as someone's jailer and providing care in the context of a close personal relationship. Through 32 interviews with sureties in Ontario, we explore the tensions and contradictions in the ways the legal relationship imposed by the court is experienced in practice, revealing a lack of formal support, a sense of powerlessness to exert authority over the accused, and a flexibility in enforcement that raises questions about surety effectiveness as a risk management strategy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The legislator provided for several preventive measures that can be taken, leaving the judge to opt for the one who is best responsible for the need for prevention, but taking into account the fact that the measure of pre-trial detention can only be taken when no other easier preventive measure meets the requirements of adequate prevention. With the entry into force of the Code of Criminal Procedure in 2014 in Romania, the preventive measure of house arrest, similar to preventive arrest, was regulated, both in terms of their inclusion in the category of preventive measures and in terms of their custodial nature, the identity of the causes and conditions under which the two measures may be ordered and of the similar manner of their arrangement and extension. However, national case law denotes a great reluctance of magistrates to apply this lighter deprivation of liberty, or to replace it even after months of pre-trial detention, considering her too gentle when it comes to serious accusations. However, the reluctance to apply alternative measures to pre-trial detention is largely due to distrust of the actual possibilities of the police to verify the fulfillment of the obligation not to leave the home by the person arrested at home. Precisely to avoid these inconveniences, the Romanian legislator, inspired by the laws of other states, adopted the law on the use of electronic monitoring systems for persons under house arrest or judicial control. The possibility of continuous effective monitoring of the person arrested at home through the electronic monitoring system makes this preventive measure an effective alternative, the measure of pre-trial detention should only be taken in extreme cases, when no such monitoring would be sufficient. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Pre-trial detention was defined as the most intrusive custodial preventive measure in the exercise of the person's right to freedom, by which the judge or the court orders the detention of the defendant for the duration and under the specific conditions provided by law, in places specially intended for this purpose, in the interest of the criminal prosecution, the preliminary chamber procedure or the trial. In order to take pre-trial detention, it is necessary to meet all the general conditions provided by law for taking preventive measures, as well as the existence of at least one of the prev. of Article 223 of the Civil Procedure Code. In practice, in almost all cases, preventive arrest is based on the provisions of Article 223 (2) of the Civil Procedure Code. Under these conditions, we tried to create both a general presentation of these grounds and a theoretical analysis of the main issues that can generate confusion and problems in the application of the cases provided for by Article 223 (1) of the Civil Procedure Code. All this theoretical analysis has, as far as possible, been examined in conjunction with solutions from judicial practice, where appropriate. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Why Brazil presents high rates of pre-trial detention? The analysis of the numbers of pre-trial detention denotes the explication is not solely legal. The paper problematizes the relation between pre-trial detention and the length of criminal cases on first degree criminal courts until the judgment promoting comparison on imprisonment rates and judicial congestion in first instance. It asserts judicial congestion as a relevant factor to estimate pre-trial detention. Methodologically, the paper promotes legal-exploratory research and documental analysis – this, considering data available on imprisonment in Brazil.

This editorial seeks to introduce the special issue Towards an Evidence-Based Approach to Pre-trial Detention in Europe. It explains the state of the field surrounding the legal practice of pre-trial detention and why an interdisciplinary approach is warranted. Pre-trial detention is an instrument in criminal procedure that has been reportedly overused in several European systems, but the reasons remain partly unexplored. While legal scholarship continues to focus predominantly on the legal framework, more disciplines are involved in the way this applies in practice. This special issue gathers contributions from political scientists, (forensic) psychologists, criminologists and jurists who approach this phenomenon from different angles and therefore provide a deeper and more evidence-based understanding of how its practice operates. The special issue is structured along four themes highlighting the trends in scholarship regarding pre-trial detention, namely decision-making, risk-prediction, legal culture, and harmonisation. The editorial elucidates the narrative of the special issue and briefly presents the key points of each contribution. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The European Commission has repeatedly attempted to introduce EU legislation on pre-trial detention but has so far met with an overwhelming reluctance of Member States to address the issue. The latest initiative proposes to adopt an EU recommendation on the rights and conditions in pre-trial detention. This article seeks to highlight gaps in the protection of fundamental rights in national arrest warrant proceedings and whether standards on pre-trial detention alone will offer a solution for the full protection of fundamental rights in a cross-border context. It draws the link between the national arrest warrant, the EAW and the responsibility of the issuing state to guarantee the legality and validity of the national arrest warrant. The article finds that currently, compliance of judicial decision-making with the existing ECHR standards on pre-trial detention cannot be presumed in practice. This compliance also cannot be verified in an adversarial and equal judicial process until after the requested person has been surrendered. In the absence of a judicial process to challenge the legality of a national arrest warrant before the execution of an EAW, protection of the requested person's rights and access to an effective remedy remains problematic. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Quantitative recidivism risk assessment can be used at the pretrial detention, trial, sentencing, and / or parole stage in the justice system. It has been criticized for what is measured, whether the predictions are more accurate than those made by humans, whether it creates or increases inequality and discrimination, and whether it compromises or violates other aspects of fairness. This criticism becomes even more topical with the arrival of the Artificial Intelligence (AI) Act. This article identifies and applies the relevant rules of the proposed AI Act in relation to quantitative recidivism risk assessment. It does so by focusing on the proposed rules for the quality of the data and the models used, on biases, and on the human oversight. It is concluded that legislation may consider requiring providers of high-risk AI systems to demonstrate that their solution performs significantly better than risk assessments based on simple models, and better than human assessment. Furthermore, there is no single answer to evaluate the performance of quantitative recidivism risk assessment tools that are or may be deployed in practice. Finally, three approaches of human oversight are discussed to correct for the negative effects of quantitative risk assessment: the optional, benchmark, and feedback approach. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Ireland has a comparatively low pre-trial detention rate by European standards, at around 14 pre-trial detainees per 100,000 population. This article seeks to explore one factor which may explain a lower use of pre-trial detention in Ireland: its legal culture. Drawing on semi-structured interviews with judges, prosecution lawyers, defence lawyers and probation staff, the article finds that the constitutional protection of the right to bail (the key alternative to pre-trial detention in Ireland), an enduring legal tradition which historically prohibited the use of a risk of offending ground, and shared views and assumptions about the objectives of pre-trial detention hearings amongst judges, prosecution and defence lawyers, have influenced how such actors engage in the decision-making process about the use of pre-trial detention. The article argues that more attention needs to be given to the role of legal culture to examine why detention rates differ across Europe. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The decision to remand a defendant into custody pre-trial is one of the most controversial criminal justice decisions because it deprives individuals of their liberty while they are presumed to be innocent of a crime. Indeed, pre-trial detention decisions can have significant consequences for defendants, which need to be balanced against the potential implications of bail for public safety and the course of criminal proceedings. Despite this, court-based bail and remand decision-making remains relatively underexplored. In this paper, we compare court-based bail/remand decision-making in England and Wales and The Netherlands. We focus on (i) the procedure and structure of decision-making, (ii) the substantive relevant legal frameworks, (iii) the courts in which the decisions are made and the decision-makers in those courts, (iv) the conditions characterizing the decision task, and (v) the court's reasoning of bail and remand in custody decisions. Using a comparative and multi-disciplinary approach, relying on Law, Criminology, and Psychology, we make predictions about bail and remand in custody rates in the two jurisdictions as well as the decision performance of court-based decision-makers. These predictions are then evaluated using available (official) statistics and past research. We identify the need to collect more nuanced statistical data on bail and remand in custody rates and point to potentially fruitful avenues for future research. A comparative, multi-disciplinary, evidence-based approach can underpin remand reform in England and Wales, The Netherlands, and beyond. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Pre-trial detention empowers criminal courts to imprison defendants before they have been convicted of an offence. This is a significant power which should be subject to a rigourous decision-making process. A 2016 study of pre-trial detention practice in England and Wales highlighted concerns about such processes, recommending changes to law and practice in that jurisdiction. In 2017, several of these recommendations became law. This article details a follow-up empirical study, conducted in 2020, which sought to examine the impact of these changes on day-to-day pre-trial detention practice in criminal courts. After analysing the data, the article concludes that the changes in fact had minimal impact on practice, and suggests that changing the law does not necessarily translate into a change in the culture of pre-trial detention practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Research has established that justice-involved individuals experience significant mental health problems. However, mental healthcare in correctional settings is often not sufficiently accessible to meet the demand. Hence, to improve the availability of mental healthcare services, especially for pre-trial detainees, the first Swiss on-site psychiatric day clinic (PDC) was established in 2019. The present cross-sectional observational study aimed to evaluate the need of psychiatric care in pre-trial detention and the PDC's potential to improve it. Methods: File record data were collected from the Office of Corrections and Rehabilitation of the Canton of Zurich. Differences in primary psychiatric care consultations and psychiatric hospital admissions between pre-trial detainees and sentenced prisoners were examined. In addition, a total cohort of pre-trial detainees of the first 18 months of PDC operations was examined to identify differences between three treatment groups: (1) pre-trial detainees exclusively treated in the PDC (n = 41), (2) pre-trial detainees exclusively treated in a psychiatric hospital (n = 58), and (3) pre-trial detainees treated in both the PDC as well as a psychiatric hospital (n = 16). Results: In the 5 years before the PDC opened, pre-trial detainees had significantly more primary psychiatric care consultations and were admitted to psychiatric hospitals on significantly more occasions than were sentenced prisoners. In the first 18 months of the PDC, psychiatric hospital admission rates for pre-trial detainees decreased by 18.5% and pretrial detainees exclusively treated in the PDC differed significantly from other treatment groups concerning mental disorder, gender, and alleged index offense. They weremore likely to be diagnosed with adjustment disorders and were less likely to be diagnosed with schizophrenia spectrum disorder. Conclusion: The use of mental health care among pre-trial detainees is significantly more frequent than among sentenced prisoners concerning both primary care and inpatient treatment. Since establishment of the novel on-site PDC admissions to psychiatric hospitals were found to decrease. Data indicates that especially male pre-trial detainees with adjustment disorders benefitted from this innovative path forward in correctional healthcare. Further research is needed to improve the PDC's service for female pre-trial detainees. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Neue Kriminalpolitik is the property of Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Journal of Law & Emerging Technologies (JOLETS) is the property of Journal of Law & Emerging Technologies (JOLETS) and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

(Series Information) European Papers - A Journal on Law and Integration, 2021 6(1), 125-139 | European Forum Insight of 22 April 2021 | (Table of Contents) I. Introduction. - II. Defining deprivation of liberty in EU law. - III. The right to liberty and pre-trial detention in purely internal situations. - III.1. Measures of secondary EU law expression of the right to liberty. - III.2. Secondary EU law, the Charter and the indirect link with national provisions. - IV. The right to liberty and pre-trial detention in cross-border scenarios. - IV.1. General principles on the right to liberty and EAW procedures. - IV.2. The use of the Charter to oppose execution. - V. Conclusions. | (Abstract) As EU criminal law has expanded over the years, so have the opportunities for the application of relevant provisions of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. The present Insight analyses the situations where the right to liberty has become relevant to pre-trial detention in areas covered by EU rules. It critically discusses the gaps of protection existing in the current legal framework, and puts forward practical solutions to achieve better protection of the right to liberty.

IntroductionResearch has established that justice-involved individuals experience significant mental health problems. However, mental healthcare in correctional settings is often not sufficiently accessible to meet the demand. Hence, to improve the availability of mental healthcare services, especially for pre-trial detainees, the first Swiss on-site psychiatric day clinic (PDC) was established in 2019. The present cross-sectional observational study aimed to evaluate the need of psychiatric care in pre-trial detention and the PDC's potential to improve it.MethodsFile record data were collected from the Office of Corrections and Rehabilitation of the Canton of Zurich. Differences in primary psychiatric care consultations and psychiatric hospital admissions between pre-trial detainees and sentenced prisoners were examined. In addition, a total cohort of pre-trial detainees of the first 18 months of PDC operations was examined to identify differences between three treatment groups: (1) pre-trial detainees exclusively treated in the PDC (n = 41), (2) pre-trial detainees exclusively treated in a psychiatric hospital (n = 58), and (3) pre-trial detainees treated in both the PDC as well as a psychiatric hospital (n = 16).ResultsIn the 5 years before the PDC opened, pre-trial detainees had significantly more primary psychiatric care consultations and were admitted to psychiatric hospitals on significantly more occasions than were sentenced prisoners. In the first 18 months of the PDC, psychiatric hospital admission rates for pre-trial detainees decreased by 18.5% and pretrial detainees exclusively treated in the PDC differed significantly from other treatment groups concerning mental disorder, gender, and alleged index offense. They were more likely to be diagnosed with adjustment disorders and were less likely to be diagnosed with schizophrenia spectrum disorder.ConclusionThe use of mental health care among pre-trial detainees is significantly more frequent than among sentenced prisoners concerning both primary care and inpatient treatment. Since establishment of the novel on-site PDC admissions to psychiatric hospitals were found to decrease. Data indicates that especially male pre-trial detainees with adjustment disorders benefitted from this innovative path forward in correctional healthcare. Further research is needed to improve the PDC's service for female pre-trial detainees.

The disproportionate use of remand detention (i.e. pre-trial detention) for vulnerable and marginalized youth is an issue of concern globally and demographic disparities in youth remand decision outcomes have been found in many jurisdictions, including England and the Netherlands. This article aims to explore and identify potential catalysts of disparity in the collective process of remand decision-making in youth courts. Drawing from Ulmer's 'inhabited institutions' perspective, and the related 'court community model' and 'focal concerns model', and empirical findings from research in Dutch and English youth remand courts, this article suggests that several distinctive mechanisms and features of the youth remand decision-making process might function as catalysts of disparity. The findings indicate that the focus on 'risk' and 'welfare needs', the distinctive context defined by time constraints, limited information, shortages of readily available services, interdependency and interdisciplinary, and high stakes, combined with the profoundly human nature of courtroom workgroup decision-making, make the remand decision-making process in youth courts particularly prone to producing unwarranted disparities. Ultimately, informed by the theoretical perspectives and empirical findings, the article provides insights into how and why disparities might occur in youth remand decisions and offers suggestions for policy, practice and future research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The preventive measures are institutions of criminal law of a coercive nature, by which the suspect or defendant is prevented from engaging in certain activities that would adversely affect the conduct of the criminal proceedings or the achievement of the purpose of the criminal proceedings. The preventive measures provided in the Code of Criminal Procedure in our country are: detention, judicial control, judicial control on bail, house arrest and pre-trial detention. Of these, pre-trial detention is the measure that generates the most important problems in judicial practice. In this study, we do not intend to make an exhaustive analysis of this preventive measure or to present in detail the conditions for its disposal. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Derecho y Ciencias Sociales is the property of Universidad Nacional de La Plata and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Prison suicide/self-inflicted death is an international public health crisis, harming stakeholders including bereaved families, prisoners, prison staff and death investigators. England and Wales' record prison suicide numbers in 2016 cost at least £400 million. Death rates are an indicator of prison safety, and unsafe prisons mean unsafe societies. I present four case studies of people with very severe mental illness who were remanded to prison from police and/or court custody and went on to take their own lives in prison. I use publicly available data from Ombudsman and Coronial death investigations in England and Wales, highlighting that these accessible sources could be more widely mobilized to reduce the substantial harms and costs of prisoner deaths. Case studies include three men (Lewis Francis, Jason Basalat and Dean Saunders) and one woman (Sarah Reed) who took their own lives between January 2016 and April 2017. All four people were clearly very mentally unwell at the time of their alleged offense and remand to prison. I develop the concept of "risky remands" to highlight that people with very severe mental illness being remanded to prison is a particularly problematic practice. I highlight the implications of people with very severe mental illness transitioning into prison in the first place, arguing that being remanded to prison is not an acceptable or safe pathway into healthcare. I illustrate that police custody suites and courts may lack awareness of mechanisms and/ or the practical ability to transfer ill detainees charged with a serious crime to mental health facilities for assessment and/ or treatment. My analysis amplifies and extends recent Criminal Justice Joint Inspection findings that it is unacceptable to use prisons as a "place of safety," and that the Department of Health and Social Care, NHS England and the Welsh Government must increase the supply of medium and high secure beds. Moreover, Ombudsman investigations did not engage with the remand transition, effectively legitimizing this risky practice for very ill people. As such, my analysis also counters the apparent "problem of implementation" in prison oversight, instead questioning what reviewers recommend, based on which evidence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

(Series Information) European Papers - A Journal on Law and Integration, 2020 5(3), 1477-1492 | European Forum Insight of 28 December 2020 | (Table of Contents) I. Introduction. - II. Defining pre-trial detention: towards an autonomous notion? - III. EU secondary law and pre-trial detention: mapping the intersections. - III.1. The Directive on the right to information. - III.2. The Directive on the right to interpretation and other sources of secondary law. - III.3. The Directive on the presumption of innocence. - III.4. The European Arrest Warrant and the European Supervision Order. - IV. Conclusion. | (Abstract) Pre-trial detention has yet to be harmonised under EU law, although evidence points to an overuse that may affect mutual trust. Other instruments however exist that might impact on the way national authorities use pre-trial detention. In this Insight, we seek to detect fragments of harmonisation within the existing legal framework. The Insight thus looks at the EU area of criminal justice to highlight intersections between pre-trial detention and existing instruments, such as the procedural rights Directives and the European Arrest Warrant. Our findings show that the symbiosis of pre-trial detention and some procedures created by EU instruments (e.g. surrender proceedings) raise a plethora of questions regarding the legal standards of pre-trial detention. Several juncture points exist where current instruments could or should influence the manner in which pre-trial detention is regulated under national law. Despite these intersections, we conclude that the lack of an EU regulatory framework remains problematic.

(Series Information) European Papers - A Journal on Law and Integration, 2020 5(3), 1531-1542 | European Forum Insight of 4 November 2020 | (Table of Contents) I. Introduction. - II. Framework decision on the European supervision order. - III. Irish EAW cases where a ESO could have been usefully engaged. - IV. Time for a new ESO? | (Abstract) This Insight will discuss the European Supervision Order (ESO) in the context of its nexus with the EAW. It will give an overview of the ESO, focussing on the issue of the ways in which breaches of an ESO may be addressed. The argument is advanced that the ESO’s potential is currently untapped and that it has the ability to make the EAW procedure function more efficiently. This is done through a survey of Irish EAW case-law where the ESO could have been engaged. Finally, it will make suggestions for reform.

(Series Information) European Papers - A Journal on Law and Integration, 2020 5(3), 1573-1576 | European Forum Highlight of 4 November 2020 | (Abstract) This Highlight introduces the European papers special focus on pre-trial detention and its alternatives under EU law. It frames the highly controversial topic of overuse of pre-trial custodial measures within the Unions system of judicial cooperation in criminal matters. Specific attention is devoted to the European supervision Order and to the vertical division of competences between the EU and its Member States in its sensitive domain.

(Series Information) European Papers - A Journal on Law and Integration, 2020 5(3), 1493-1509 | European Forum Insight of 4 November 2020 | (Table of Contents) I. Objectives of the European supervision order. - II. The failure in application of the European supervision order in the face of the success of the European arrest warrant. - III. The reasons for the failure in application of the ESO. | (Abstract) The European Supervision Order is an instrument of mutual recognition of judicial decisions essential to guarantee the exceptional nature of pre-trial detention. It also prevents discrimination of suspects and accused persons in criminal proceedings on grounds of nationality or residence, with regard to the possibilities of enjoying provisional release pending trial. It is, in short, an instrument that stands as a guarantee of the freedom of citizens in the European Area of Freedom, Security and Justice. However, despite its crucial role, the use of this instrument is very scarce, as its application encounters significant obstacles, including the insufficient level of trust between Member States, which appears to play a key role.

(Series Information) European Papers - A Journal on Law and Integration, 2020 5(3), 1451-1461 | European Forum Insight of 4 November 2020 | (Table of Contents) I. Introduction. - II. Aims of the European supervision order. - III. Victims’ rights in the pre-trial stage. - IV. Protecting victims through the European supervision order? - V. Conclusion. | (Abstract) This Insight analyses the aim of victim protection in the Framework Decision 2009/829/JHA and its limited use-fulness, despite being regarded as one of the main objectives of the recognition and enforcement of judicial deci-sions on supervision measures. After explaining the apparent aims of the Framework Decision, the Insight ad-dresses the victims’ rights in the pre-trial stage according to Directive 2012/29/EU on victims’ rights and Directive 2011/99/EU on the European Protection Order, whose aim is to ensure that victims of crime receive appropriate information, support, and protection. Particular attention is dedicated to the victims’ right to information, which is also instrumental for their right to protection. The analysis shows that victims’ rights do not play a role in the assessment of whether or not to forward the certificate or maintain the supervision measures adopted.

Prison suicide/self-inflicted death is an international public health crisis, harming stakeholders including bereaved families, prisoners, prison staff and death investigators. England and Wales' record prison suicide numbers in 2016 cost at least £400 million. Death rates are an indicator of prison safety, and unsafe prisons mean unsafe societies. I present four case studies of people with very severe mental illness who were remanded to prison from police and/or court custody and went on to take their own lives in prison. I use publicly available data from Ombudsman and Coronial death investigations in England and Wales, highlighting that these accessible sources could be more widely mobilized to reduce the substantial harms and costs of prisoner deaths. Case studies include three men (Lewis Francis, Jason Basalat and Dean Saunders) and one woman (Sarah Reed) who took their own lives between January 2016 and April 2017. All four people were clearly very mentally unwell at the time of their alleged offense and remand to prison. I develop the concept of “risky remands” to highlight that people with very severe mental illness being remanded to prison is a particularly problematic practice. I highlight the implications of people with very severe mental illness transitioning into prison in the first place, arguing that being remanded to prison is not an acceptable or safe pathway into healthcare. I illustrate that police custody suites and courts may lack awareness of mechanisms and/ or the practical ability to transfer ill detainees charged with a serious crime to mental health facilities for assessment and/ or treatment. My analysis amplifies and extends recent Criminal Justice Joint Inspection findings that it is unacceptable to use prisons as a “place of safety,” and that the Department of Health and Social Care, NHS England and the Welsh Government must increase the supply of medium and high secure beds. Moreover, Ombudsman investigations did not engage with the remand transition, effectively legitimizing this risky practice for very ill people. As such, my analysis also counters the apparent “problem of implementation” in prison oversight, instead questioning what reviewers recommend, based on which evidence.

What role do extra-legal factors play in whether defendants plead guilty to a criminal offense? In this study, we provide qualitative evidence that pretrial detention is a contributing factor in adjudication outcomes. Many of our subjects reported that the prospect of being held in unsanitary and unsafe jails was sufficient to induce their acceptance of a plea, even when they maintained their innocence. Others worried that being held pre-trial would have a negative impact on employment and family responsibilities, and so chose to plead. Our quantitative analyses bolster these self-reports: in a national sample, defendants held in custody pre-trial are significantly more likely to enter a guilty plea, all else equal. These findings have important implications for individual outcomes, but also for the accountability of the criminal justice system as a whole. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Latin American Law Review is the property of Universidad de los Andes and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

In the Romanian and European doctrine, taking into account the definition given by the European legislator in the normative act itself, the Framework "Decision no. 2002/584/JHA, the European arrest warrant was defined in a similar manner as the legislator did". Thus, one jurisprudential decision states that: "from a legal point of view, the European arrest warrant is defined as a court decision issued by the competent judicial authority of an EU Member State, in order for another state to arrest and hand over a person who is wanted in order to stand for prosecution, trial or the execution of a custodial sentence or a security measure" (European Court of Justice, 2016). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In an unprecedented move, the criminal courts in Ontario closed on March 20th, 2020 in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Bail appearances, however, could not be suspended, resulting in the rapid move to virtual appearances. Despite the dramatic change in the modality of court appearances, remarkably little changed in how the bail court operated or processed bail matters. Observations from 80 days of virtual bail court reveal the obdurate nature of well know issues with the bail process, including the culture of adjournment, reliance on surety supervision, and numerous conditions of release. Problematically, the courts are closed to the public and the accused are rendered invisible in the virtual space, leaving them even more dependent on counsel and the court. Differences in access to technology and private space create additional barriers for the most marginalized. Consistent with Feeley's assessment that 'the process is the punishment,' the virtual model has layered new punitive elements onto an already punishing experience. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

During the employment relationship, there can occur situations that prevent the employee from performing work due to reasons by both the employer and also the employee. Some situations are envisaged by the Slovak Labour Code and, during their existence, the applicable legislation provides the employee with time off and, in specified cases, also with compensation of wages. The employee being taken into custody (pre-trial detention) is one of the reasons of employee’s absence from work; although it is not so frequent, there still exist such cases. Since the Slovak Labour Code does not explicitly link the existence of such a situation to the employer’s obligation to justify absence from work, there are different views on how to deal with such a situation. The paper, therefore, seeks to present a possible solution for employers when their employees are taken into custody – pre-trial detention.

Pre-trial detention results in the isolation of the accused. This article concerns one of the exceptions to this isolation, namely the one provided for in Article 217c § 1 of the Executive Criminal Code, allowing the accused to use a telephone. Analysing the prerequisites for granting consent to use a telephone, and cases in which the detention facility may refuse such consent, there arises a conclusion that there is a contradiction between the regulations of the Executive Penal Code and the regulations governing the implementation of pre-trial detention. Consent to the use of a telephone can apply not only with respect to calling the defence counsel, attorney or representative of the person convicted before the ECtHR and their close relatives and partners, but also to any other person, without the need to prove the existence of an ‘exceptional case’. Refusal to grant such consent may take place only for the reasons provided for in Article 217c § 2 of the Executive Criminal Code, and therefore in the event of a reasonable concern that the consent will be used to unlawfully obstruct the criminal proceedings or to commit a crime, in particular abetting. This provision does not apply to the defence counsel.