Security Detention Research Articles

The Use and Abuse of Domestic National Security Detention

The Use and Abuse of Domestic National Security Detention

La rétention de sûreté : punir, prévenir et guérir des troubles de la personnalité ?

The law of February 25, 2008 introduced security detention. This is a post-sentence measure intended for offenders who have served their sentence. This may apply to people with personality disorders. Because of these disorders, they are considered too dangerous to be left in society but the importance of the disorders was not sufficient to benefit from the mechanism of criminal irresponsibility. Is the real objective of preventive detention, as indicated in the law, to treat disorders or, more pernicious, to eliminate ex-convicts from society?

Covid-19 Lockdown and The Plights of People Remanded in Security Detention Centres: A Socio Legal Analysis

The researchers analyzed from sociological and legal perspectives the COVID-19 lockdown and the plights of people remanded in security detention centers in Nigeria. The objective of the study is to identify the loopholes in the Constitution of the Federal Republic 1999 as amended and other relevant legal provisions in Nigeria. The study is an exploratory type of research whose goal is to explore the phenomenon under investigation. This research design is considered appropriate for this paper because the COVID-19 lockdown has explored the weaknesses of the extant legal provisions in Nigeria in a situation like the Lockdown. Data were from secondary sources and were subjected to content analysis. The result revealed that during the COVID-19 lockdown in Nigeria, accused persons, awaiting trial persons and prisoners in different detention centers were detained beyond the legal requirements whereas there is no legal provision that clearly stated remedies.Tulisan ini mengkaji hak-hak orang yang ditahan oleh aparat keamanan atau dijebloskan ke dalam lembaga pemasyarakatan oleh Pengadilan sebelum lockdown COVID-19 dan menjalani masa karantina COVID-19 dalam tahanan. Para peneliti mengidentifikasi ketentuan hukum yang terkandung dalam Konstitusi Republik Federal Nigeria 1999 celah di dalamnya yang gagal membuat ketentuan untuk keadaan darurat seperti penguncian. Konsekuensi yang tidak diinginkan dari tindakan purposive oleh Robert Merton diadopsi sebagai penjelasan teoretis. Makalah ini mengadopsi desain penelitian eksplorasi untuk mengeksplorasi kekosongan dalam Hukum Nigeria di mana data bersumber dari sumber sekunder dalam teks terdokumentasi. Makalah ini menemukan bahwa semua Undang-undang dan Undang-undang di Nigeria tidak memiliki ketentuan tentang bagaimana memberi kompensasi kepada orang-orang yang mengalami masalah emosional, keuangan sosial, dan psikologis sebagai akibat dari waktu yang mereka habiskan di sel tahanan di luar waktu yang diharapkan karena penguncian.

Dans l’ornière de la prison : l’institutionnalisation de la rétention de sûreté en France

Cet article propose d’éclairer l’institutionnalisation de la rétention de sûreté en France à travers l’histoire de l’un de ses équipements : le centre socio-médico-judiciaire de sûreté de Fresnes. Cette contribution s’intéresse en particulier à la place et au rôle de la prison dans son édification. À partir de sources publiques, médiatiques, législatives et critiques, et d’un matériau issu d’une enquête de type ethnographique, cet article met en évidence un processus d’isomorphisme singulier, intervenant en dépit des efforts déployés pour distinguer rétention et prison et favorisant finalement la vacuité du dispositif inauguré.

중국 소년사법제도의 문제점 및 개선방안

Since the establishment of the first juvenile court in Illinois, USA in 1899, the juvenile justice system has gradually been accepted all over the world for more than 100 years, especially after World War II. With the establishment of the United Nations, The Convention on the Rights of the Child, The United Nations Minimum Standard Rules for Juvenile Justice (Beijing Rules) and other multilateral treaties and rules have been reached. It has become a consensus that juveniles adopt a judicial system different from adults. Most countries have established juvenile justice systems in line with their national conditions. It has played an important role in safeguarding the legal rights of juveniles and preventing juvenile delinquency.<BR> After the founding of New China in 1949, especially since the reform and opening up in 1979, the Chinese government attaches great importance to the protection of juveniles. It has continued to explore the juvenile justice system and other aspects, forming a preliminary form of a socialist juvenile justice system with Chinese characteristics. In order to make China"s juvenile justice system more perfect, it must be improved from the following aspects. Develop an independent juvenile law. This is a necessary condition for the protection of juvenile justice. Develop an independent juvenile law to unify the provisions on juveniles scattered in other laws. Moreover, juvenile law should contain relevant content of substantive law and procedural law. As the main basis for handling juvenile cases. Identify the age range of teenagers. At present, Chinese laws generally only set an upper limit for juvenile age, but not a lower limit. It is more difficult to make decisions on the protection and punishment of juvenile cases, such as admission, education, and work school education. In addition, it is necessary to expand the age range for teenagers. Drawing on the legislation of other countries, it is reasonable to limit the age range of juveniles to between 10 and 20. Improve the content of juvenile protection and punishment. The juvenile delinquency, juvenile delinquency and juvenile offender behavior are attributed to the juvenile non-business concept. A distinction is made between criminal sanctions and juvenile protection sanctions. Define different approaches. Types of measures to increase protection, such as: government shelters, education at work schools, compulsory detoxification, ordering education, admonitions, public security detention, etc. Establish a judicial system for juvenile cases. Incorporate all processing into judicial process. Juvenile cases are tried and judged by the courts, and the juveniles are given the right to remedy the results of the process.

Living on the edge: precarity and freedom in Darwin, Australia

ABSTRACT The marked increase in the flow of asylum seekers and refugees to nations with white majority cultures is perceived as a crisis that needs to be well managed. The arrival of these ethnic-minority newcomers from countries in Africa, the Middle East, South/Central America and Asia contribute to national security concerns, border protection measures, restrictive immigration policies, everyday anxieties and racism. Australia, however, ‘manages’ the ‘surge’ of these newcomers through institutional practices that recognise their precarity but are oppressive in regulating their freedom to move. This paper engages with the special issue theme of temporariness by centring urban life that shows precarity but also offers brief moments of freedom for refugees and asylum seekers. It focuses on Darwin, a small tropical north Australian city known for its polyethnic history, open-air multicultural markets but also carceral landscapes dotted with prisons, high security detention centres ‘lodges’ and ‘apartments’. The paper draws attention to two weekly activities in public spaces of suburban Darwin that provide brief moments of freedom enabling asylum seekers and refugees to move in the city even though they feel shackled by government laws and policies – ‘Football without Borders’ popular among young men; and ‘My Sisters’ Kitchen’, a collective that welcomes women.

Arriving Aliens, Custody, and Interagency Determinations Post Jennings

Currently, federal statutes and regulations give the Department of Homeland Security vast authority to detain noncitizens in a variety of categories. Immigration authorities have applied that detention authority to persons with a credible claim to U.S. citizenship, a practice that poses grave tensions to the U.S. rule of law because U.S. citizens are guaranteed constitutional and statutory protection from deportation, removal, and immigration detention. This essay argues briefly that the statutory mandatory detention provisions for arriving aliens do not apply to persons with a credible claim to U.S. citizenship. Further, this essay argues that regulations prohibiting or eliminating administrative judicial review of Department of Homeland Security detention decisions of arriving aliens who have a credible claim to U.S. citizenship are inconsistent with the reorganization of immigration functions in 2003 and must be revised to allow for administrative review of the decision whether to detain during the administrative process.

Citizenship, National Security Detention, and the Habeas Remedy

Citizenship, National Security Detention, and the Habeas Remedy

The ICCPR in Armed Conflict: An Appraisal of the Human Rights Committee’s Engagement with International Humanitarian Law

ABSTRACTThe present article examines the Human Rights Committee’s pronouncements on the relationship between the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and international humanitarian law (IHL), taking into account the developments in the jurisprudence of other human rights bodies. The analysis aims to clarify the theoretical underpinnings of the relationship between the ICCPR and IHL, paying special attention to the complementarity perspective and the interpretive principle of systemic integration. The article critically examines the Human Rights Committee’s understanding of how the Covenant applies in armed conflict, specifically in relation to the protection of the rights to life and liberty and the regulation of the use of force and security detention; it considers both the shortcomings and the innovative aspects of the Committee’s interpretations. The analysis concludes by exploring the normative and practical implications deriving from the concurrent application of IHL and the Covenant, particularly with regard to the Committee’s ability to review state action in armed conflict, the duty to investigate violations, and the right to a remedy and reparation for victims.

National security and the right to liberty in armed conflict: The legality and limits of security detention in international humanitarian law

AbstractThis paper examines the legality and limits of security detention in armed conflict situations. It particularly investigates the issues of whether the protection of national security is a legitimate ground to restrict the right to liberty of persons in situations of international or non-international armed conflict, and if so, what are the limits to a State's prerogative to restrict the right to liberty of individuals suspected of threatening its national security. On the basis of a thorough analysis of the relevant extant rules of international law regulating warfare, the paper concludes that security detention is permissible in armed conflict situations regardless of whether the nature of the conflict is international or non-international. However, the prerogative of a State to impose security detention is circumscribed by a plethora of fundamental substantive and procedural safeguards against arbitrariness that are provided in the different rules of international humanitarian law and international human rights law. These safeguards affirm that the search for absolute security is neither desirable nor attainable and that the mere invocation of security concerns does not grant an absolute power to restrict or suspend the liberty of individuals in armed conflict situations. Whenever it is imposed, security detention should be preventive in nature, and must aim at safeguarding the basic national security interests of a State from serious, future, direct and imminent threats related to the armed conflict situation. Detainees should also be able to challenge its legality before a competent organ at the initial or later stage of the detention through a system of periodic review.

Introduction to: Challenges in International Human Rights Law

The website of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) contains a lively section entitled Contemporary Challenges for International Humanitarian Law. It addresses issues such as terrorism, direct participation in hostilities, security detention, multinational forces, occupation, privatization of war and new technologies. It contains discussion papers indicating the state of play on these issues. It therefore provides a useful focus of attention for government officials, scholars and activists. Any prospective PhD candidate looking for a good topic on the law of armed conflict would be wise to start her search here. Unfortunately, no similar list exists for international human rights law. The Geneva-based NGO International Council on Human Rights Policy came closest to playing the ICRC’s role but unfortunately it no longer exists. The website of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights offers a list of “issues” but of course that is not the same as “challenges”. Some of the textbooks on international human rights law contain a chapter on certain challenges, such as transitional justice, non-state actors, terrorism, poverty and climate change but this is intended merely as a selection. This paper is an attempt to sketch a broad research agenda for international human rights law, to provide an overview of the challenges facing the field as a whole and to identify the cutting-edge literature.

Living the chocolate dream

I have been considered disabled and very ill for quite some time. I had been employed as a Juvenile Corrections Officer in a maximum security detention facility and resigned due to my chronic illnesses. I loved my job. During that time, I had the honor of working with a group of very ethical and caring people. Everyday I went to work knowing I was making a difference, even if in a very modest way. So, leaving was very disheartening for me. I did not know what the future held for me. I dealt with many debilitating symptoms daily. Many days, I was unable to get out of bed and if I could it was for short periods of time. In this fashion I took care of the household duties. I had disabling pain, fevers and other symptoms that came upon me without notice, swelling and joint pain that made it impossible to move. The side effects of the medications I took, and continue to take, caused another set of issues for me. At times, I wondered which was worse. I was determined not to let this be my legacy. I wanted to work and be a contributing member of society. So, I began thinking of how to make that a reality. I knew that I would not be able to work at a traditional job or hours. No employer would allow for my symptoms to lessen or subside in order to continue to perform my duties. I could not ask to go home and return later to complete my job. However, if I was self employed, I would be able to work aroundmy illnesses and disabilities. I could be flexible with my hours. The thought gave me great hope for a positive future! 2. Catalyst

The Copenhagen Principles on the Handling of Detainees: Implications for the Procedural Regulation of Internment

The Copenhagen Principles on the Handling of Detainees in International Military Operations were released in October 2012 after a five-year long process involving states and certain organizations. The Principles address a number of issues concerning the handling and transfer of detainees. They apply in military operations conducted by states abroad in the context of non-international armed conflicts and peace operations. This article focuses on those principles that address the procedural regulation of internment (ie preventive, security detention), as it is here that the current law is particularly unclear. On the one hand, the treaty provisions applicable in non-international armed conflicts contain no rules on the procedural regulation of internment, in comparison with the law of international armed conflict. On the other hand, the relevant rules under international human rights law (IHRL) appear derogable in such situations. This article demonstrates that the approach taken to this issue in the Copenhagen Principles is one which essentially draws on the procedural rules applicable to civilian internment in the international armed conflicts. These rules adopt standards that are lower than those under IHRL. Reference is then made to other recent practice, which illustrates that the Copenhagen Principles do not apply in a legal vacuum. In particular, two recent judicial developments highlight the continued relevance of human rights law and domestic law, respectively, in regulating detention operations in the context of international military operations. Compliance with the Copenhagen Principles may not, therefore, be sufficient for detention to be lawful.

The Attachment and Clinical Issues Questionnaire: a new methodology for science and practice in criminology and forensics.

Most modern theories suggest that interpersonal relationships are of central importance in the development of criminal behavior. We tested the parent attachment scales of a new research and clinical measure, the Attachment and Clinical Issues Questionnaire (ACIQ). It is a 29-scale battery assessing attachments to mother, father, partner, and peers, which also includes several related clinical scales. Sixty-one (18-20 years of age) male offenders from a maximum security detention center and 131 contrasts completed the ACIQ. ANOVA demonstrated that mother and father attachments displayed different patterns. The attachment scales also predicted the numbers of crimes within the population of juvenile offenders. Thus, the parent attachment scales of the ACIQ showed promise as an instrument to test dynamic systems approaches to developmental models of criminal behavior.

Calling the Government to Account: Habeas Corpus after Boumediene

In June 2008, the Supreme Court decided Boumediene v. Bush, holding that Guantanamo detainees have a right to habeas corpus under the Constitution's Suspension Clause. In the more than three years since Boumediene, lower federal courts in Washington D.C., have issued nearly eighty decisions addressing the merits of Guantanamo habeas cases. In the process, they have developed an emerging body of national security detention jurisprudence, with implications that transcend the Guantanamo habeas cases. This Article surveys this post-Boumediene jurisprudence and assesses its implications. Although it is too early to draw any definitive conclusions, the growing body of habeas decisions provides a window into Boumediene’s impact and the legacy of the post-9/11 enemy combatant decisions more generally. In particular, the Article describes the significance and limitations of what Boumediene described as a critical function of habeas: calling the government to account by requiring that it provide a lawful basis for a prisoner’s detention.

The Habeas Corpus Suspension Clause and the Right of Natural Liberty

Important recent scholarship shows that the Habeas Corpus Suspension Clause is aimed mainly at substantive legislation that authorizes confinement by the executive that otherwise would be unlawful. Thus a grant of detention authority that leaves the judicial habeas corpus remedy intact can constitute a suspension subject to the clause. This article emphasizes that at the time of the framing the central example of a suspension of the writ was a grant of extremely broad discretion to the executive to confine people the executive believed to be dangerous. It maintains that broad executive discretion to confine is a necessary condition for a grant of detention authority to qualify as a suspension. Therefore legislative authorization of executive detention for reasons of national security is not a suspension as long as the executive’s discretion is substantially bounded; for example, the confinement of enemy aliens during war does not require suspension of the writ. That is true whether the persons to be detained are citizens or aliens. Congressional grants of legally determinate national security detention authority are thus not limited to cases of rebellion and invasion by the Suspension Clause, because they are not suspensions, and may be applied to citizens and aliens alike.

A Norm Conflict Perspective on the Relationship between International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights Law

One of the most powerful methods of inducing changes in outcomes governed by international humanitarian law is to add human rights rules and arguments into the equation. This, indeed, is precisely the point of the whole project of linking these two branches of international law. This article explores the relationship between the two bodies of law, and makes several broad propositions. First, that there is a need for a change in perspective, from examining the relationship of the two regimes as such, to the interaction of particular norms that regulate specific situations. Second, that this interaction will frequently result in a norm conflict, and that we have numerous tools at our disposal for either avoiding or resolving these conflicts. Third, that lex specialis is at best a fairly limited tool of norm conflict avoidance, and that it most certainly cannot be used to describe the relationship between human rights and humanitarian law as a whole. Finally, that there are situations where all of our tools will fail us, where a norm conflict will be both unavoidable and unresolvable due to a fundamental incompatibility in the text, object and purpose, and values protected by the interacting norms, and where the only possible solution to the conflict will be a political one. The article identifies three such possible situations of unresolvable antinomy—targeted killings, preventive security detention, and positive obligations during occupation, and addresses recent cases with a norm conflict component, such as Al-Jedda, Behrami, and Al-Saadoon. Though in most cases harmony between human rights and humanitarian law is possible, and indeed desirable, we should not underestimate the practical and political relevance of situations of true norm conflict, which no amount of academic exposition will be able to fix.

Expert meeting on procedural safeguards for security detention in non-international armed conflict

Expert meeting on procedural safeguards for security detention in non-international armed conflict

Singapore in 2008: Negotiating Domestic Issues, Confrontations and Global Challenges

The Escape Singapore began 2008 in high drama. On the early evening of 27 February, Singaporeans were told of a breakout from the Whitley Road Detention Centre (WRDC). Mas Selamat bin Kastari, an Indonesian-born Singaporean, held under the Internal Security Act, sparked the largest manhunt ever launched in Singapore. He was allegedly the head of the Singapore branch of militant group Jemaah Islamiah (JI) and, according to the Singapore government, was suspected of plotting to attack Singapore Changi Airport in 2002 by crashing a plane into it. Arrested in January 2006 by Indonesian anti-terror squads in Java, Mas Selamat was then deported to Singapore. He was never formally charged with any terrorism-related offences but was held by the state under the Internal Security Act. A nation-wide search involving the Singapore Police Force, the Gurkha Contingent, the Police Tactical Unit and the Police National Service Key Installation Protection Unit was conducted. They were later joined by the Singapore Guards and the Singapore Armed Forces Military Police Command. Response from the public ranged from mild alarm to anger, the latter of which was manifested largely on Internet blogs and forums. Public criticism was directed at several levels. Many were critical of the way a supposedly dangerous terrorist suspect could have so easily slipped out of a high security detention centre and at the misinformation given out to the public by the police. Initial news alerts informed the public that Mas Selamat walked with a limp; later alerts noted that the limp was only visible when he ran. Critics also accused the pro-government

Revisiting the Bicutan Siege

Special Action Forces of the Philippine National Police stormed an attempted jailbreak in a maximum security detention center in Bicutan, Taguig City, Philippines, on March 15, 2005. This article reviews the results of separate investigations conducted by the Commission on Human Rights and the Philippine Alliance of Human Rights Advocates, news coverage, and the official statements of government officials involved. Three possible justifications emerge to explain the death of 23 detainees and a member of the national police: (1) incompetence of prison and police personnel; (2) a breakdown of administrative control over the police assault team; and (3) a premeditated and concerted effort to eliminate identified enemies of the state. The article concludes that the third option is the most credible, which is bolstered by the government's meager response to explain the massacre, and by failing to adopt measures proposed by the Philippine Commission on Human Rights.