Journals / Law and Justice Review / 2019 / Cilt: 0 - Sayı: 18

WHAT PROCESS IS DUE FOR PRISONERS SEEKING PAROLE? AN EXAMINATION OF ENGLISH AND AMERICAN LAW

Denetimli Serbestlik Talep Eden Hükümlülere Hangi Usuli Haklar Tanınmalıdır? İngi̇li̇z ve Ameri̇kan Hukukuna Dai̇r Bi̇r İnceleme

Pages
205–221
Publication Date
2022-10-18
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Although it is difficult to defineexhaustively, the following rights shouldcome into play: the right to a court trial,the right to have an oral hearing, the rightto access to a lawyer, the right to access tothe dossier and the right to challenge thedecision.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This article has pondered critically onwhether there should be procedural rightsafforded to the offender in considerationof conditional release with reference toEnglish and American judicial decisionsand European standards.
📊
Key Findings & Data:It has beenmaintained that the parole board directlyaffects the freedom of the prisoner in theparole decision-making process, so oneshould hold the view that there is a libertyinterest, as articulated in the decisions ofthe European Court of Human Rights.Thus, due process safeguards should begranted to the prisoner, as clearly regulatedin the European Recommendation,regardless of whether decision makingauthorities have a judicial or administrativecharacter.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Although it is difficult to defineexhaustively, the following rights shouldcome into play: the right to a court trial,the right to have an oral hearing, the rightto access to a lawyer, the right to access tothe dossier and the right to challenge thedecision.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

This article has pondered critically onwhether there should be procedural rightsafforded to the offender in considerationof conditional release with reference toEnglish and American judicial decisionsand European standards. It has beenmaintained that the parole board directlyaffects the freedom of the prisoner in theparole decision-making process, so oneshould hold the view that there is a libertyinterest, as articulated in the decisions ofthe European Court of Human Rights.Thus, due process safeguards should begranted to the prisoner, as clearly regulatedin the European Recommendation,regardless of whether decision makingauthorities have a judicial or administrativecharacter. Although it is difficult to defineexhaustively, the following rights shouldcome into play: the right to a court trial,the right to have an oral hearing, the rightto access to a lawyer, the right to access tothe dossier and the right to challenge thedecision.

Özet

Bu makalede İngiliz ve Amerikan ulusal yargı kararları ve Avrupa standartları gözetilerek denetimli serbestlik talep eden hükümlülerin usuli haklara sahip olup olmadığına ilişkin değerlendirme yapılmıştır. Denetimli serbestliğin hükümlülerin özgürlüğüne müteaalik şartları düzenlediği ve bu nedenle hükümlülerin Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi’nce de kabul edilen “özgürlük menfaati”ni haiz olduğu tespiti yapılmıştır. Denetimli serbestlik kararını veren merciinin idari ya da yargısal niteliklere sahip olup olmadığına bakılmaksızın hükümlülere Koşullu Salıverilmeye İlişkin Avrupa Önerisi’nde de düzenlendiği gibi belirli usuli haklar tanınması gerektiği ifade edilmiştir. Tahdidi olmayan bu haklar aşağıdaki gibi sıralanmıştır: Bir mahkeme önünde yargılanma hakkı, sözlü bir duruşmaya katılma hakkı, hukuki yardım alma hakkı, dosyaya erişim hakkı ve temyiz hakkı.

🔖

Cite This Article

CESUR, H. (2022). WHAT PROCESS IS DUE FOR PRISONERS SEEKING PAROLE? AN EXAMINATION OF ENGLISH AND AMERICAN LAW. Law and Justice Review, Cilt: 0 - Sayı: 18, 205–221. https://ajindex.com/articles/577288

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (6)

  1. Arnott H, Creighton S, Parole Board Hearings: Law and Practice (Lag Education and Service Trust Limited London 3th Edition 2014) Bing S J, ‘Reconsidering State Parole Board Membership Requirements in Light of Model Penal Code Sentencing Revisions’ 100 Ky. L.J. (2011) 871 Bowman F O, ‘The Failure of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines: A Structural Analysis’ 105 Colum. L. Rev. (2005) 1315 Council of Civil Service Unions v. Minister for the Civil Service [1985] AC 374 Creighton S, King V, Arnott H, Prisoners and the Law (Tottel Publishing, 3rded. 2005) Dershowitz A M, ‘Indeterminate Confinement: Letting the Therapy Fit the Harm’ 123 U. PA. L. REV. (1974) 297 Ditton Paula, Wilson James, ‘Truth in Sentencing in State Prisons’ U.S. Department of Justice, January 1999, https://bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/tssp.pdf
  2. Dunkel F, Smit D V Z, Padfield N, ‘Concluding thoughts’ in Nicola Padfield, Dirk Van ZylSmit, FriederDünkel, Release from Prison: European Policy and Practice (Willian Publishing 2010) Fazel S, ‘Coin-flip Judgment of Psychopathic Prisoners Risk’ in Nᴇᴡ Sᴄɪᴇɴᴛɪsᴛ (Dec. 4, 2013) available at https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22029464- 800-coin-flip-judgement-of-psychopathic-prisoners-risk Forde R A, ‘Risk Assessment in Parole Decisions: A study of Life Sentence Prisoners in England and Wales’ (The PhD Thesis Birmingham 2014)
  3. Galligan D J, Due Process and Fair Procedures: A Study of Administrative Procedures (Oxford University Press Oxford 1997)
  4. Garcia Alva v Germany (2001) 37 EHRR 335 Gold L J, John M. Darley, James L. Hilton and Mark P. Zanna, ‘Children’s Perceptions of Procedural Justice’ 55(5) Child Development (1984) 1752 Graham v. Florida 560 US 48 (2010) Greenholtz v. Inmates of the Nebraska Penal & Corr. Complex 442 U.S. (1979) Greenholtz v. Inmates of the Nebraska Penal & Corr. Complex 442 U.S. (1979)
  5. Heinz A M, Heinz J P, Senderowitz S J, Vance A V, ‘Sentencing by Parole Board: An Evaluation’ 67 J. CRIM. L. & Criminology (1976) Hewitt v. Helms 459 U.S. 460 (1983) House of Commons Constitutional Affairs Committee, The operation of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC) and the Use of Special Advocates, Seventh Report of Session 2004–05,
  6. Volume II, Oral and written evidence Hussain and Singh v UK (1996) 22 EHRR 1 Jewkes Y, Bennett J, (Eds.)Dictionary of Prisons and Punishment (Willian Publishing Devon 2008) Kadish S H, ‘The Advocate and the Expert—Counsel in the Peno-Correctional Process’ 45 MINN. L. REV. (1961) 803 Larkin Jr. P J, ‘Revit