Parole: Legal and penological analysis

Djordje Ignjatovic

doi:10.5937/analipfb1601031i

Abstract

This paper firstly points out to historical and comparative state of parole in American and European law, which is an introduction into analysis of transformation in its regulation in criminal substantial, procedural and enforcement law in Serbia. Today there are two models (obligatory and discretionary) of parole, which is allowed after 2/3 of the served sentence of imprisonment. At the same time special Code on prevention of sexual victimization of juveniles - contrary to the Criminal Code- abolishes a possibility of earlier release of all offenders of sexual crimes against juveniles. The author argues in favor of abolishment of parole prohibition for any category of offenders; restoration of the rule that half of the served sentence of imprisonment is a condition for consideration of request to be released on parole (only exceptionally for recidivists and those whose criminal habit has been proven conditional release would be allowed after 2/3 of served sentence); proposes specification of substantial requirements for approval; retention of solution that the court decides on conditional release, but with obligatory invitation of convicted person who would be entitled to comment on allegations made at hearing; judge for execution should also attend the procedure; an explanation must be justified by precise reasons which were decisive for the court; the appellate court should not only deal with formal aspects of procedure in deciding on contested verdict, but also with merits of arguments on which it is based; politicians should publicly explain the importance of parole in situations that make the public concerned because of media reporting about incidents in which conditionally released persons commit serious crimes; finally criminological sciences should be engaged in research that would help in searching for a suitable model of parole, which would be in accordance with international instruments and jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights.

Highlights

Када се ради о материјалном супстрату који представља основ за доношење одлуке, постоје такође два модела: по једном, за доношење одлуке о одобравању условног отпуста потребно је утврдити позитивне чињенице
This paper firstly points out to historical and comparative state of parole in American and European law, which is an introduction into analysis of transformation in its regulation in criminal substantial, procedural and enforcement law in Serbia
The author argues in favor of abolishment of parole prohibition for any category of offenders; restoration of the rule that half of the served sentence of imprisonment is a condition for consideration of request to be released on parole (only exceptionally for recidivists and those whose criminal habit has been proven conditional release would be allowed after 2/3 of served sentence); proposes specification of substantial requirements for approval; retention of solution that the court decides on conditional release, but with obligatory invitation of convicted person who would be entitled to comment on allegations made at hearing; judge for execution should attend the procedure; an explanation must be justified by precise reasons which were decisive for the court; the appellate court should deal with formal aspects of procedure in deciding on contested verdict, and with merits of arguments on which it is based; politicians should publicly explain the importance of parole in situations that make the public concerned because of media reporting about incidents in which conditionally released persons commit serious crimes; criminological sciences should be engaged in research that would help in searching for a suitable model of parole, which would be in accordance with international instruments and jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights

Summary

ИСТОРИЈСКИ И КОМПАРАТИВНИ ОСВРТ

Зачетке овог института налазимо у пракси која је у неким државама успостављена још у време настанка казне затвора као кривичне санкције. Када се ради о материјалном супстрату који представља основ за доношење одлуке, постоје такође два модела: по једном, за доношење одлуке о одобравању условног отпуста потребно је утврдити позитивне чињенице (да се понашање осуђеног у тој мери поправило да се може очекивати да неће вршити кривична дела; по другом (као у Немачкој и Белгији) оне су негативне – условни отпуст ће бити одобрен осим ако специфични индикатори говоре против таквог решења. Два разлога говоре у прилог таквог решења: први је то што Европски суд за људска права изричито наглашава да при одлучивању о предметима који се односе на условни отпуст примењује не само три цитиране конвенције Савета Европе, него и правила две наведене препоруке које третира као „меко право“ (soft law);[53] други је зато што ћемо касније, после приказа решења за које се определило наше право, покушати да укажемо колико су она у складу с идејама прокламованим у наведеним препорукама. Ако сматрамо да је он за то време на издржавању казне у другачијем амбијенту (ова концепција се последњих деценија фактички оснажује праксом да му се – уз забрану да поново изврши кривично дело – намећу све бројније обавезе) може се легитимно поставити и питање зашто се време док је испуњавао обавезе не призна бар делимично и остатак казне скрати урачунавањем у пропорцији на пример 2: 1 (два дана у режиму условне осуде према један дан боравка у заводу).[57]

УСЛОВНИ ОТПУСТ У СРБИЈИ

ЗАКЉУЧАК

Summary