Solitary Confinement across Borders

2019 ◽  
pp. 59-76
Author(s):  
Sharon Shalev

This chapter looks at the use of solitary confinement in three jurisdictions where the author has conducted research: England and Wales, New Zealand, and the United States. It asks when and why prisoners are placed in solitary confinement in these jurisdictions, and what are the conditions of their confinement. The chapter's main focus is on the long-term use of solitary confinement as a tool for managing individuals classified and labeled as the most dangerous or troublesome in the prison system, including in New Zealand's Management Units and England and Wales’s Close Supervision Centres. Finally, it examines recent developments and asks what learning there might be for other jurisdictions.

2018 ◽  
Vol 67 (3) ◽  
pp. 505-546
Author(s):  
Gabrielle Appleby ◽  
Alysia Blackham

AbstractIn recent years there has been a trend towards independent and more transparent ethical regulation for sitting judges, which is said to promote public confidence in the judicial institution, and reflect a move towards accountability and transparency as judicial values. However, regimes governing sitting judges largely fall away when the judge retires from the bench. Increasing longevity and rising numbers of former judges raise complex ethical regulation questions. Drawing on judicial ethics regimes in England and Wales, Australia, the United States and New Zealand, and instances where the conduct of former judges has reflected poorly on the integrity of the judiciary, this article argues that there are strong reasons for extending ethics regulation beyond judicial retirement. By reference to the principles that inform the rules regulating the conduct of sitting judges, we investigate the extent to which misconduct and disciplining regimes should extend to former judges, and whether there is a stronger role for soft instruments and more formalized processes for regulating former judges. In doing so, we propose a model for the development of ethical regulation for former judges.


2017 ◽  
Vol 46 (4) ◽  
pp. 287-305
Author(s):  
John Hartshorne

In the United States, New Zealand and the Canadian province of Ontario, recognition has been afforded to privacy torts remedying intrusions upon seclusion or solitude, and the creation of such a tort has also been recommended by the Australian Law Reform Commission. In England and Wales, recognition has so far only been afforded to a privacy tort remedying misuse of private information. This article considers the current prospects for the recognition of an intrusion upon seclusion tort within English law. It will be suggested that there is less necessity for such recognition following the apparent recent confirmation by the decisions in Gulati v MGN and Vidal-Hall v Google that misuse of private information claims may still be brought where there is no ensuing publication of wrongly acquired private information. Given that intrusions commonly result in the acquisition of private information, it will be suggested that many of the privacy interests protected by the intrusion torts in other jurisdictions may now therefore be protected in English law through a claim for misuse of private information.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Miranda Grange

<p>This paper outlines the successful development of the traditional mediation template into a community‐based model. The history of community mediation is explored within the context of the United States in the 1960s, and in Australia and New Zealand during the mid‐1980s. Recent developments in New Zealand – with particular emphasis on the promising developments occurring in Christchurch, Waitakere and Dunedin – are evaluated, though this paper acknowledges that there are limited statistics available since these schemes have only been running for a few years at most. Finally this paper takes three foundation models first postulated by Harrington and Merry, and later by Bush and Folger, and applies these models to the existing New Zealand community mediation schemes to evaluate their success.</p>


Criminology ◽  
2013 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ian O'Donnell

Solitary confinement has long been part of the practice of imprisonment in the United States, the United Kingdom, and elsewhere. It has changed over time in terms of the underlying rationale, the enthusiasm with which it is embraced, and the identities of its most ardent advocates. In the early decades of the 19th century, religiously motivated prison reformers were at the forefront. Consensus was widespread about the need for prisoners to live by a rule of silence but disagreement as to whether this required separation at all times from their peers or whether silent association was acceptable (or, indeed, preferable). In the closing decades of the 20th century, there was renewed interest in solitary confinement, but without the concern for prisoner welfare and rehabilitation that had characterized earlier debates. Now the protagonists were prison administrators, and a discourse that had taken place outside the prison gates and featured many voices was replaced by one that was almost entirely internal and one-sided. Typically, there are four kinds of circumstances under which prisoners are isolated. First, there is protective custody, often at the prisoner’s request. A return to the general population can be difficult if a prisoner has been segregated because of vulnerability due to the nature of his or her offense, the accumulation of debts that cannot be discharged, or a perception that he or she has communicated information to staff. Second, there is disciplinary detention for breaking prison rules; generally the duration is relatively short. In some countries a court can impose solitary confinement as part of a sentence and the time period here can be lengthy. Third is administrative segregation. This can be short term (e.g., while an investigation is being carried out or pending transfer) or long term (if a prisoner is thought to present a threat to institutional order). Fourth, there are occasions when prisoners seek the respite of the solitary cell as a way of easing psychological pressures. In such cases the stay tends to be brief and prisoners return to their usual place of abode afterward. Long-term administrative segregation in the United States in facilities that have been described as offering “supermax” custody has generated concern on human rights grounds as well as for reasons of economy and efficacy.


2013 ◽  
Vol 46 (3) ◽  
pp. 455-479 ◽  
Author(s):  
Julian V Roberts ◽  
Oren Gazal-Ayal

In 2012 the Knesset approved a new sentencing law. Israel thus became the latest jurisdiction to introduce statutory directions for courts to follow in sentencing. The approach of the United States to structuring judicial discretion often entails the use of a sentencing grid with presumptive sentencing ranges. In contrast, the Sentencing Act of Israel reflects a less prescriptive method: it provides guidance by words rather than numbers. Retributivism is clearly identified as the penal philosophy underpinning the new law, which takes a novel approach to promoting more proportionate sentencing. Courts are directed to construct an individualised proportionate sentencing range appropriate to the case in hand. Once this is established, the court then follows additional directions regarding factors and principles related to sentencing. Although other jurisdictions have placed the purposes and principles of sentencing on a statutory footing, this is the first such legislative declaration in Israel. The statute also contains a methodology to implement a proportional approach to sentencing as well as detailed guidance on sentencing factors. This article describes and explores the new Sentencing Act, making limited comparisons to sentencing reforms in other jurisdictions – principally England and Wales, New Zealand and the United States. In concluding, we speculate on the likely consequences of the law: will it achieve the goals of promoting more consistent and principled sentencing?


2019 ◽  
pp. 1-26
Author(s):  
John Gardner

This chapter focuses on the law of torts, not in the United States, but in other major common law jurisdictions (England and Wales, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand) in which tort cases are normally adjudicated by judges sitting without juries. It considers the so-called classical interpretation of the common law of torts by John Goldberg and Ben Zipursky, and how they tend to equivocate on an important point of law in a way that puts them at odds with some writers with whom they would do better to make common cause. It suggests that this equivocation is where the law of the United States parts company with the law in the rest of the common law world. The problem, an English lawyer might then teasingly say, is with American tort law rather than with the Goldberg and Zipursky rendition of it.


Author(s):  
Mustafa Mashal ◽  
Alessando Palermo

<p>The paper provides an overview of the technologies and connections proposed and tested for accelerated bridge construction (ABC) in seismic regions from New Zealand and the United States in the last seven years. These solutions can be divided in terms of emulative and non‐emulative cast‐in‐place connections. Emulative cast‐in‐place connections aim to achieve a similar seismic performance to that of conventional cast‐in‐place construction during an earthquake. A variety of emulative connections have been tested in New Zealand and in the United States, with some being implemented in actual bridges. These connections include grouted ducts, member socket, pocket, splice‐sleeve, and other connections. Similarly, various non‐emulative connection were tested using large‐scale specimens. These include dissipative controlled rocking, hybrid sliding‐rocking, shape‐memory alloys, and pre‐tensioned rocking. From these, only the dissipative controlled rocking and shape‐memory alloys, have been recently implemented in construction of actual bridges in seismic regions in New Zealand and in the United States, respectively. The paper discusses the aspects associated with emulative and non‐emulative connections.</p>


2000 ◽  
Vol 31 (2) ◽  
pp. 231
Author(s):  
Valentine Korah

Drawing on recent developments in Australian, United Kingdom and United States jurisprudence, Professor Korah casts doubt on the approach recently taken by New Zealand courts in one of the most controversial areas of competition law: the access to its facilities that a corporation in a dominant position must give to its would-be competitors.  She argues that before imposing such obligations courts ought to be more sophisticated in assessing the economic effects of such obligations and especially the need to preserve an incentive to make the considerable investment required to create such facilities.  Professor Korah was the 1999 Chapman Tripp Fellow. This article is an edited version of a paper presented at the offices of Chapman Tripp during the tenure of the Fellowship.  


Author(s):  
Wally Penetito

Place-based education (PBE) is not an overly familiar term in the New Zealand education context but it has a rapidly developing profile within the United States and parts of Canada, mainly as an outreach of the environmentalist movement. At the practical level "place-based education" sets out to answer two fundamental questions: "What is this place?" and "What is our relationship with it?" It is hypothesized that the New Zealand education system (including its students, teachers, learning institutions and curriculum) is seriously remiss in not providing adequate structured opportunities for all New Zealanders to have a consistent and long-term ontological identification with what Geoff Park (1996, p. 323) refers to as "the two cosmologies – the two landscapes" that co-exist in New Zealand. This article explores some of the theories and practices embedded in a place-based education for Aotearoa New Zealand and recommends a set of principles for advancing the practice. Areas of research are suggested as appropriate starting points for tertiary institutions.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document