Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: November 22, 2024 Fri
Time: 12:22 pm
Time: 12:22 pm
Results for preventive detention
7 results foundAuthor: Bharadwaj, Priti Title: Pre-trial Detention and Access to Justice in Orissa Summary: Under the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India, prisons come under the State List. These custodial institutions are governed by the Prisons Act of 1894 and the rules prepared by the state governments and the governments of the union territories. Each state has its own prison manual with detailed rules for administration and management, regulating every aspect of prison life, both for prisoners as well as prison staff. India has 3,76,396 prisoners in its 1,276 prisons. Of these prisoners, only 31.9 per cent have been proved guilty. The remaining 68.1 per cent are undertrials, detained but innocent in the eyes of the law. Orissa has the ninth highest prison population in the country with 15,368 prisoners. The undertrial population towers at 72 per cent which is higher than the average undertrial population of India. Undertrial prisoners are accused for offences ranging from petty offences such as ticket-less railway travel to higher gravity offences such as murder. “The primary reason for incarcerating people presumed to be innocent, therefore lies in the requirement to ensure the availability of the accused to meet the criminal charges against them.” They are among the most vulnerable sections in the prisons, whose right to liberty has been curtailed before their conviction. With imprisonment, a radical transformation comes over a prisoner, which can be described as prisonisation. He loses his identity. He is known by a number. He loses personal possessions. He has no personal relationships. Psychological problems result from loss of freedom, status, possessions, dignity and autonomy of personal life. Most undertrial prisoners are first-time offenders and their initial encounter with the harsh realities of our justice delivery system makes them disconcerted. It leaves an indelible mark not only on the prisoner’s personal and professional life, but also on those dependent on him/her. Since they are oblivious of their fundamental rights, it is the state’s responsibility to ensure that the inmates are made aware of their rights and the process of the delivery of justice. The Prison Reforms Programme of Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative (CHRI) has established its presence in various states, such as Andhra Pradesh, Delhi, Karnataka, Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtra, to name a few. This study is our first intervention in Orissa and hence it is intended to be a focused one. CHRI commenced this study to assess the implementation of Sections 436 and 436A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973 for the release of those undertrial prisoners who have been detained for an undue length of time. The study also aims to examine whether the prisons in Orissa house undertrial prisoners under the Preventive Detention Sections 107, 109 and 110 of the CrPC. It further seeks to identify the existing systemic provisions which, if revived, could facilitate the implementation of the above mentioned CrPC amendments. The National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) defines an undertrial prisoner as “a person kept in prison (judicial custody) while the charges against him are being tried”. It also defines another category – detenues as those “in prison on the orders of competent authority under the relevant preventive detention law”. For the purposes of this study, undertrial prisoners comprise both these categories and denote all those un-convicted prisoners, who have been detained in prison during the period of investigation, inquiry or trial for the offences they are accused to have committed. The study was conducted in two phases. In the first phase it focused primarily on those undertrial prisoners who would fall under the purview of Sections 436 and 436A of the CrPC as well as those under the Preventive Sections across two circle jails. On completion of the first phase, we felt the need to expand the scope of the study to include other types of prisons. To substantiate our findings and to be able to generalise it to the rest of the prisons in the state, CHRI designed Phase II of the study. In Phase II, we expanded our study to cover several other districts and obtained data from all categories of prisons, viz. circle jails, district jails, sub-jails, special jails and special sub-jails. Details: New Delhi: Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative, 2010. 71p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 31, 2011 at: http://www.humanrightsinitiative.org/publications/prisons/pre_trial_detention_&atj_in_orissa.pdf Year: 2010 Country: India URL: http://www.humanrightsinitiative.org/publications/prisons/pre_trial_detention_&atj_in_orissa.pdf Shelf Number: 123183 Keywords: Pretrial Detention (India)Preventive DetentionPrisonersPrisons |
Author: Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. Rapporteurship on the Rights of Persons Deprives of Liberty Title: Report on the Use of Pretrial Detention in the Americas Summary: For more than a decade, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter "the IACHR", "the Inter-American Commission" or "the Commission") has considered the arbitrary and illegal use of pretrial detention a chronic problem in many countries of the region. In its recent Report on the Human Rights of Persons Deprived of Liberty in the Americas, the IACHR listed the excessive use of pretrial detention among the most serious and widespread problems in the region and noted that this dysfunctionality in criminal justice systems is in turn the cause of other problems such as overcrowding and the failure to separate detainees awaiting trial from the convicted. Along with other structural problems linked to the respect for and the guarantee of the rights of persons deprived of liberty, this situation has also been systematically identified in the Americas by United Nations monitoring mechanisms, whose mandate includes safeguarding the human rights of persons under criminal prosecution and/or deprived of liberty, such as: the Human Rights Committee (HRC), the Committee against Torture (CAT), the Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture (SPT), the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention (WGAD) and the Special Rapporteur on Torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (SRT). Similarly, other qualified actors such as the United Nations Latin American Institute for the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders (ILANUD), have deemed that "[e]specially serious within the issue of the accelerated increase of prison populations is the case of prisoners awaiting trial"; therefore, "the region must continue its efforts to maintain more prudent levels of unconvicted prisoners." The Report on the High Level Expert Group Meeting on the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the treatment of prisoners, which was held in Santo Domingo, laid out some of the common causes at the regional level for the high proportion of prisoners awaiting trial, such as delays in bringing criminal defendants to trial, the absence of adequate legal advice, the influence of public opinion and the "tendency for prosecutors and judges to order that those awaiting trial should be held in detention, rather than making other arrangements for pre-trial supervision in the community." The excessive use of pretrial detention in the Americas has also been acknowledged by other bodies of the Organization of American States (OAS), such as at the Third Meeting of Officials Responsible for Penitentiary and Prison Policies, where reference was made to the "excessive use of preventive detention," and it was estimated that in the region "more than 40% of the prison population is on pretrial detention". The foregoing situation exists in spite of binding international norms that are very clear in recognizing the presumption of innocence and the exceptional nature of pretrial detention; the broad recognition of these rights at the constitutional level in the region; and the political will expressed at the highest level by the States twenty years ago in the framework of the Summits of the Americas, where governments made the commitment to "[t]ake the necessary steps to remedy inhumane conditions in prisons and to minimize the number of pretrial detainees" (The Miami Plan of Action, 1994). In this context, the Inter-American Commission considers that the excessive use of pretrial detention runs contrary to the very essence of the democratic rule of law, and that implementing this measure as a form of expeditious justice that results in a kind of anticipated sentence is flagrantly contrary to the provisions of the American Convention and Declaration, and the principles from which the Charter of the Organization of American States has drawn inspiration. Moreover, the use of pretrial detention is an important measure of the quality of the administration of justice and, as such, has a direct bearing on the quality of democracy. The IACHR recognizes the duty of States to maintain public order and protect all persons under their jurisdiction from crime and violence. Nonetheless, the Commission reiterates the longstanding principle enshrined in the Inter-American system that "irrespective of the nature or gravity of the crime prosecuted, the investigation of the facts and the eventual trial of specific persons should be carried out within the limits and according to the procedures that permit public safety to be preserved, with full respect for the human rights." Additionally, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (hereinafter "the Inter-American Court" or "the Court") has held that "[t]he concept of rights and freedoms as well as that of their guarantees cannot be divorced from the system of values and principles that inspire it. In a democratic society, the rights and freedoms inherent in the human person, the guarantees applicable to them and the rule of law form a triad. Each component thereof defines itself, complements and depends on the others for its meaning." As is covered in depth in this report, excessive use of pretrial detention is a complex problem caused by a variety of factors, such as: issues of legal design, structural deficiencies in administration of justice systems, interferences with judicial independence and deeply rooted tendencies in judicial culture and practice. Details: Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 6, 2014 at: http://www.oas.org/en/iachr/pdl/reports/pdfs/Report-PD-2013-en.pdf Year: 2014 Country: International URL: http://www.oas.org/en/iachr/pdl/reports/pdfs/Report-PD-2013-en.pdf Shelf Number: 132910 Keywords: Criminal ProcedureHuman Rights AbusesPretrial DetentionPreventive DetentionPrisoners |
Author: Open Society Foundations Title: Presumption of Guilt: The Global Overuse of Pretrial Detention Summary: Around the world, millions are effectively punished before they are tried. Legally entitled to be considered innocent and released pending trial, many accused are instead held in pretrial detention, where they are subjected to torture, exposed to life threatening disease, victimized by violence, and pressured for bribes. It is literally worse than being convicted: pretrial detainees routinely experience worse conditions than sentenced prisoners. The suicide rate among pretrial detainees is three times higher than among convicted prisoners, and ten times that of the outside community. Pretrial detention harms individuals, families, and communities; wastes state resources and human potential; and undermines the rule of law. The arbitrary and excessive use of pretrial detention is a massive and widely ignored pattern of human rights abuse that affects - by a conservative estimate - 15 million people a year. The right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty is universal, but at this moment some 3.3 million people are behind bars, waiting for a trial that may be months or even years away. No right is so broadly accepted in theory, but so commonly violated in practice. It is fair to say that the global overuse of pretrial detention is the most overlooked human rights crisis of our time. Presumption of Guilt examines the full consequences of the global overuse of pretrial detention. Combining statistical analysis, first-person accounts, graphics, and case studies of successful reforms, the report is the first to comprehensively document this widespread but frequently ignored form of human rights abuse. Details: New York: Open Society Foundations, 2014. 269p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 24, 2014 at: http://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/sites/default/files/presumption-guilt-09032014.pdf Year: 2014 Country: International URL: http://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/sites/default/files/presumption-guilt-09032014.pdf Shelf Number: 133401 Keywords: Human Rights AbusesPretrial Detention (International)Preventive Detention |
Author: Hamilton, Melissa Title: Back to the Future: The Influence of Criminal History on Risk Assessment Summary: Evidence-based practices providing an empirical basis for predicting recidivism risk have become a primary focus across criminal justice decision points. Criminal history measures are the most common and heavily weighted factors in risk assessment tools, yet is such substantial reliance fully justified? The empirical and normative values placed on criminal history enjoy such commendation by criminal justice officials, practitioners, and the public that these practices are rarely questioned. This paper fills the gap by introducing and exploring various issues from legal, scientific, and pragmatic perspectives. As a general rule, a common assumption is that past behavior dictates an individual's likely future conduct. This axiom is often applied to criminal behavior, more specifically, in that prior offending is considered a primary driver to predict future recidivism. Criminal justice officials have a long history of formally and informally incorporating risk judgments into a variety of criminal justice decisions, ranging from bail, sentencing, parole, supervisory conditions, and programming. A more contemporary addendum represents empirically informed risk assessment practices that integrate actuarial tools and/or structured professional judgments. Various criminal history measures pervade these newer evidence-based practices as well. Instead of presuming the value and significance of prior crimes in judging future recidivism risk, this Article raises and critically analyzes certain unexpected consequences resulting from the significant reliance upon criminal history in risk assessment judgments. Among the more novel issues addressed include: (1) creating a ratchet effect whereby the same criminal history event can be counted numerous times; (2) resulting in informal, three-strikes types of penalties; (3) counting nonadjudicated criminal behaviors and acquitted conduct; (4) proportionality of punishment; (5) disciplining hypothetical future crime; (6) punishing status; and (7) inadequately accounting for the age-crime curve. In the end, criminal history has a role to play in future risk judgments, but these issues represent unanticipated outcomes that deserve attention. Details: Unpublished Paper, 2015. 57p. Source: Internet Resource: U of Houston Law Center No. 2015-A-1 : Accessed January 28, 2015 at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2555878 Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2555878 Shelf Number: 134484 Keywords: Criminal History RecordsEvidence-Based Practices (U.S.)Juvenile RecordsPreventive DetentionRecidivismRisk Assessment |
Author: Subramanian, Ram Title: Incarceration's Front Door: The Misuse of Jails in America Summary: Local jails, which exist in nearly every town and city in America, are built to hold people deemed too dangerous to release pending trial or at high risk of flight. This, however, is no longer primarily what jails do or whom they hold, as people too poor to post bail languish there and racial disparities disproportionately impact communities of color. This report reviews existing research and data to take a deeper look at our nation's misuse of local jails and to determine how we arrived at this point. It also highlights jurisdictions that have taken steps to mitigate negative consequences, all with the aim of informing local policymakers and their constituents who are interested in in reducing recidivism, improving public safety, and promoting stronger, healthier communities. Details: New York: Vera Institute of Justice, 2015. 56p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 11, 2015 at: http://www.vera.org/sites/default/files/resources/downloads/incarcerations-front-door-report.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://www.vera.org/sites/default/files/resources/downloads/incarcerations-front-door-report.pdf Shelf Number: 134589 Keywords: Jails (U.S.)Pretrial DetentionPreventive DetentionRacial Disparities |
Author: Ackermann, Marilize Title: Survey of Detention Visiting Mechanisms in Africa Summary: People held in places of detention are at risk of suffering violations of human rights because they are usually detained out of sight and their well-being is not prioritised by states. Domestic and international laws prescribe the procedures through which and conditions under which people may be held in detention. The function of detention oversight institutions is to ensure that state institutions comply with these human rights laws and are held accountable for any non-compliance. In most democracies which embrace the separation of powers, Parliament exercises oversight over the implementation of laws. Ministers and Cabinet are collectively answerable to Parliament for the implementation of and adherence to laws, primarily through the mechanisms of public reports made available to Parliament and the answering of Parliamentary questions, which may lead to the removal from office of ministers or state officials. Because of the particular risks posed by places of detention, traditional Parliamentary oversight has been supplemented by additional institutions exercising detention oversight employing a variety of oversight mechanisms. Some of these have arisen from international law while others are established by domestic laws. Two supra-national international oversight institutions have arisen though the United Nations Convention Against Torture (UNCAT) and the Optional Protocol to the UN Convention against Torture (OPCAT): - UNCAT creates the Committee against Torture (CAT), which monitors implementation of UNCAT through four mechanisms: the submission of regular reports by state parties; the considering of individual complaints or communications from individuals claiming that their rights under the Convention have been violated the undertaking of inquiries; and the considering of inter-state complaints. - OPCAT creates the Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture (SPT), which has a mandate to visit places where persons are deprived of their liberty in the states which are party to OPCAT. In addition, OPCAT requires that states that are party to OPCAT designate or establish an independent "national preventive mechanism" (NPM) for the prevention of torture at domestic level. NPMs need not consist of a single institution, but must have the mandate to inspect places of detention, monitor the treatment of and conditions for detainees and make recommendations regarding the prevention of ill-treatment. NPMs must also publish an annual report. African states which are party to OPCAT have designated existing National Human Rights Institutions (NHRIs) as their (NPM). The term "National Human Rights Institution" refers to independent state-funded institutions which promote and monitor the effective implementation of international human rights standards at national level and which comply with the Paris Principles. The Paris Principles do not explicitly require NHRIs to have a mandate to visit places of detention; however designation of an NHRI as a state's NPM would require the NHRI to have such a mandate. Regionally, a supra-national oversight institution in the form of the Special Rapporteur on Prisons and Conditions of Detention in Africa has arisen. It has the mandate to visit places of detention. The Committee for the Prevention of Torture in Africa, another regional body, is not strictly an oversight institution but seeks to support the development of national institutions. At national level, there exist detention oversight institutions specifically mandated to oversee places of detention, such as South Africa's Judicial Inspectorate of Correctional Services. There also exist rights institutions which have broad mandates, such NHRIs and Public Protectors (or Ombudspersons), whose mandates nevertheless may include responsibility for exerting oversight over places of detention. Broader mandates still, such as those of Parliament and the judiciary, may also include obligations to exert oversight over detention. All of these institutions may employ a range of mechanisms in carrying out detention oversight. Monitoring of places of detention through visits is one of the most important methods employed by oversight institutions or institutions which have oversight functions. Other methods may include compulsory reporting systems (for example, on deaths or punishments in custody), and complaints receiving systems. Associated oversight powers accorded to oversight institutions may include the power to make public reports and to: conduct investigations, make recommendations, impose disciplinary proceedings, and refer cases of abuse for prosecution. The extent to which oversight institutions are independent of the state and of the institutions over which they seek to exert oversight varies, as do the mechanisms of oversight and accountability with which they are empowered. This report seeks to describe selected oversight institutions and the oversight mechanisms they have adopted in Africa, in order to better understand detention oversight in Africa. This report also seeks to survey what monitoring and oversight have uncovered regarding conditions of detention in Africa. Details: South Africa: Civil Society Prison Reform Initiative, Community Law Centre, 2013. 52p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 4, 2017 at: http://acjr.org.za/resource-centre/survey-of-detention-visiting-mechanisms-in-africa Year: 2013 Country: Africa URL: http://acjr.org.za/resource-centre/survey-of-detention-visiting-mechanisms-in-africa Shelf Number: 146695 Keywords: Detention CentersHuman Rights AbusesPretrial DetentionPreventive DetentionPrison Visitation |
Author: Victoria State Government Title: Expert Panel on Terrorism and Violent Extremism Prevention and Response Powers. Report 2 Summary: In June 2017, the Victorian government established the independent Expert Panel on Terrorism and Violent Extremism Prevention and Response Powers ('Expert Panel'), led by former Victoria Police Chief Commissioner, Ken Lay AO, and former Victorian Court of Appeal Justice, the Hon David Harper AM. The panel was tasked with examining and evaluating the operation and effectiveness of Victoria's key legislation and related powers and procedures of relevant agencies to prevent, monitor, investigate and respond to terrorism. This second report from the panel extends the focus of the first report to include the full spectrum of policies and programs to prevent and intervene early in relation to emerging risks of violent extremism, or to respond rapidly to risks after they have eventuated. It contains 26 recommendations relating to: countering violent extremism; enhancing disengagement programs; changing the definition of a terrorist act; creating a support and engagement order; creating an offence for the possession of terrorism related material; extending the preventative detention scheme to minors; and creating a post-sentence supervision scheme for high-risk terrorist offenders. Details: Melbourne: Department of Premier and Cabinet, 2017. 121p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 21, 2017 at: http://apo.org.au/system/files/120241/apo-nid120241-482731.pdf Year: 2017 Country: Australia URL: http://apo.org.au/system/files/120241/apo-nid120241-482731.pdf Shelf Number: 148285 Keywords: Counter-terrorism Extremist GroupsHomeland Security Preventive DetentionTerrorism TerroristsViolent Extremism |