scholarly journals The content of the preventive measure of home detention

2022 ◽  
Vol 16 ◽  
pp. 642-648
Author(s):  
Mihai-Alexandru Stanciu
Keyword(s):  
Preventive Measures ◽  
Preventive Measure ◽  
Intermediate Form ◽  
Judicial Control ◽  
House Arrest ◽  
At Home

The criminal procedural provisions in Romania regulate a number of 5 preventive measures, of which 3 are custodial and two restrictive. Of these, the measure of house arrest, regulated as a novelty at the beginning of 2014, seems to be an intermediate form between judicial control and pre-trial detention, borrowing elements of content from both measures. Compared to the obligations that can be imposed on the defendant arrested at home, certain situations can be left uncovered by the legislator, which can make the measure seem ineffective in practice.

scholarly journals House Arrest as a Preventive Measure in Accordance with the New Criminal Procedure Code

2016 ◽  
Vol 22 (2) ◽  
pp. 344-348
Author(s):  
Silviu Jîrlăianu
Keyword(s):  
European Community ◽  
Preventive Measures ◽  
Preventive Measure ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
National Legislation ◽  
Judicial Control ◽  
Community Law ◽  
House Arrest ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
Set Up

Abstract Romania's participation in European Community imposed realities of our country harmonization of national legislation in relation to Community law. Such national legislation, in terms of criminal procedure were introduced through preventive measures, house arrest, judicial and Judicial control on bail. In relation to the same European context, Romanian police set up surveillance units of judicial duties in order to enforce these measures.

Features of the election of such preventive measure as house arrest in relation to minors

2020 ◽  
Vol 2020 (2) ◽  
pp. 153-157
Author(s):  
Ekaterina Manohina
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Preventive Measures ◽  
Preventive Measure ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
House Arrest ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
A Minor

In the article, the author turns to the study of the peculiarities of choosing such a preventive measure as house arrest for minors. Due to the fact that the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation does not precisely define cases when a court must elect a house arrest in relation to minors, in practice there are often difficulties in which cases to choose such a preventive measure as detention, and in which house arrest. In the work, the author attempts to determine the essence of such a preventive measure as house arrest and the peculiarities of his election in relation to minors, and also considers the prohibitions and (or) restrictions to which minors cannot be subjected. The positions contained in the resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court “On the practice of the application by the courts of legislation on preventive measures in the form of detention, house arrest and bail” are analyzed. The author expresses the opinion that it is inadvisable to choose such a preventive measure as house arrest for minors. Based on the study, the author makes recommendations on the possibility, at the discretion of the court, to make adjustments to the prohibitions and (or) restrictions to which a minor suspect or accused will be subjected to whom such a preventive measure as house arrest is chosen.

scholarly journals Practical Application of the Provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure Regarding the Measure of Preventive Arrest

2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 24-32
Author(s):  
Nicolae Silviu Pana ◽  
Ana Maria Pana
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Preventive Measures ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Practical Application ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Individual Liberty ◽  
Judicial Control ◽  
House Arrest ◽  
Procedure Code

Preventive measures are coercive criminal law enforcement institutions, aimed at the deprivation or restriction of individual liberty, by which the suspect or defendant is prevented from undertaking certain activities that would adversely affect the conduct of the criminal proceedings or the achievement of its purpose. They have been instituted by the legislator for specific purposes, namely: to ensure the proper conduct of criminal proceedings, to prevent the abstraction of the suspect or defendant from trial and to prevent the commission of new offenses (art. 202 para. 1 of the Criminal Procedure Code). Preventive measures are not inherent in any ongoing criminal trial, but are exceptional measures (art. 9 para. 2 of the Criminal Procedure Code), and the court can decide to sease the measure or make use of the measure in the light of the specific circumstances of each case. Of the five preventive measures, three are deprivation of liberty - detention, house arrest and pre-trial detention, and two are non-custodial: judicial control and judicial control on bail. All these measures are only applicable to the natural person. Specific preventive measures may be taken against legal persons, but those are regulated by the provisions of art. 493 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

scholarly journals A New System of Preventive Measures Alternative to Remand in Custody: First Results of Application, Development Prospects

2020 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 242-255
Author(s):  
Lev Bertovskij ◽  
Aleksandr Kvyk
Keyword(s):  
Preventive Measures ◽  
Preventive Measure ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Theory And Practice ◽  
Federal Law ◽  
Application Development ◽  
Criminal Process ◽  
House Arrest ◽  
European Court ◽  
First Results

We currently witness a heightened interest for the humanization of penalization measures, specifically, preventive measures, both in the theory and practice of Russian criminal procedure. There is well-grounded criticism of the fact that the number of remands in custody used as preventive measures is high and that their terms are prolongated many times, and on similar grounds, both in the Russian criminal procedure sphere and in the European Court of Human Rights during the examination of specific complaints. The analyzed statistical information showed that in 2015, remand in custody as a preventive measure in the criminal cases of grave and especially grave crimes was used for every second suspect or accused. It could not but contribute to the development of a system of preventive measures alternative to detention, and to the emergence of its new types. The authors analyze changes in the strict hierarchical system of preventive measures in view of Federal Law № 72-ФЗ enacted on April 18, 2018, which changed the procedure of applying the preventing measures of house arrest and bail and provided a measure that is completely new for Russian criminal process - the prohibition of certain actions. A considerable variety of restrictive measures included in the prohibition of certain actions, and the possibility of applying them in combination with a bail created a situation paradoxical for Russian criminal process when the application of a measure of prohibition of certain actions, that is a milder one in the hierarchy of restrictive actions, may restrict the rights and liberties of a person to a greater degree than a bail, which is a stricter measure. Besides, the legislative definition of the essence of house arrest as complete isolation of a person from the society and the prohibition of certain actions as partial isolation has created a competition between these preventive measures when they are enforced in practice. The authors present convincing arguments to show that it is impossible to ensure complete isolation of a person form the society without placing that person in the pre-trial detention facility, which makes it possible to equal house arrest with a prohibition to leave a dwelling in a certain period within the framework of prohibiting certain actions. Although there are some questions regarding the application of preventive measures alternative to remand in custody, we should commend the efforts of lawmakers to develop a system of these measures, and the practice of their enforcement will certainly allow to eliminate the existing competition and solve specific problems of their selection and application.

scholarly journals A Brief Analysis On Preventive Measures Involving Deprivation Of Liberty

2015 ◽  
Vol 21 (2) ◽  
pp. 398-402
Author(s):  
Denisa Barbu
Keyword(s):  
Judicial Review ◽  
Preventive Measures ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
General Nature ◽  
Individual Freedom ◽  
Judicial Control ◽  
House Arrest ◽  
The Individual ◽  
General Conditions

Abstract Preventive measures are divided by the legislator in 2 categories: imprisonment (detention, house arrest, preventive arrest) and restrictive of rights (judicial review and judicial control on surety). An absolute novelty is the introduction of house arrest. There is some controversy concerning the conditions which must be fulfilled in order to be disposed by the judge of rights and freedoms, the judge of preliminary Chamber or Panel of judges either the house arrest or the measure of preventive arrest. Whereas the establishment of preventive measures involves undermining the individual freedom, the national and the European laws have created a series of legal guarantees to prevent arbitrariness or abuse in making or extend/maintain them. There are also a number of provisions of a general nature, applicable to all preventive measures, namely, termination, revocation or replacement thereof. For all measures involving deprivation of liberty, general conditions must be fulfilled, stipulated by article 202, of the Code of Criminal Procedure, but for house arrest and detention in addition to the General conditions, special conditions should be fulfilled foreseen by article 223 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, conditions which must be cumulatively met. Not fulfilling the cumulative criteria laid down in national and European norms cannot be replaced by other considerations of the judge.

House arrest in the system of procedural preventive measures against minors (in genesis)

2020 ◽  
Vol 2020 (3) ◽  
pp. 133-139
Author(s):  
Ol'ga Tuchina
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Large Scale ◽  
Preventive Measures ◽  
Preventive Measure ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
House Arrest ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
Scientific Analysis ◽  
The Russian Federation

To implement the norms of international law into the practice of Russian legal system while choosing a preventive measure against an accused minor or a suspect, to decide on the most humane preventive measure is the issue of great importance. This position is reflected in Art. 423 of the Criminal Procedure Code providing the fundamental foundations of criminal procedure provisions concerning preventive measures against minors. When making a decision on restraint measures related to isolation from society, the possibility of applying an alternative, more humane preventive measure should be taken into account. The article describes the ratio of house arrest to detention. It has been justified that in the system of preventive measures house arrest should be recognized as a measure not related to isolation from society, and as a more common alternative to detention. The legislator periodically attempts to improve the procedural situation of minors involved in criminal procedure. Problems are connected with unstructured placement of norms regarding juvenile suspects and accused in the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation. Secondly, it is linked with the absence of features of house arrest of minors. All this makes the author state that despite the large-scale judicial and legal reform, the legal regulation of preventive measures against minors needs to be further improved. The subject of the study is a scientific analysis of the sources of criminal procedure legislation on the legal regulation of house arrest in the system of preventive measures against minors. The purpose of the study is to provide scientific analysis of the features of house arrest applied to minors and to form an author’s position on this issue. Research methods cover systemic analysis, structural, logical, and comparative scientific methods. The results achieved are the analysis of the system of preventive measures against minors with the identification of the specifics of house arrest, the recognition of this measure as a preventive means not related to isolation from society, and the formation of the author’s version of the norm of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation governing this preventive step.

scholarly journals House Arrest of the Accused (Suspect): Full Isolation and the Right to Walk

2020 ◽  
pp. 43-46
Author(s):  
Valentina N. Gaponova ◽  
◽  
Varsenik A. Vinogradova ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Preventive Measures ◽  
Preventive Measure ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
House Arrest ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Right

The article analyzes the changes in the legal regulation of the house arrest and the practice of its imposition. Particular attention is given to the controversial issue of the right of the accused under house arrest to leave the premises for a walk. The authors note that the Normative Transformation of House Arrest, which brought it closer to detention, set the law enforcement task to overcome the established stereotypes in the interpretation of specific provisions related to the essence of this preventive measure. First, it concerns the “regime” of isolation, specifically, the possibility of the accused to take walks. Today, when the house arrest implies ultimate isolation of the accused with the right to live in their home, the court’s permission for the accused to leave the place of residence is not based on the law. The authors conclude that the positive decision of the court is permissible only because of applying the law by analogy. At the same time, it is necessary to take into account the legal positions of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation on the responsibility of the state to take care of the health of persons whose possibilities in this part are limited due to the election of preventive measures with isolation from society.

scholarly journals Public Interest in Preventive Measures of Coronavirus Disease 2019 Associated With Timely Issuance of Statewide Stay-at-Home Orders

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-4
Author(s):  
Benjamin Greiner ◽  
Ryan Ottwell ◽  
Matt Vassar ◽  
Micah Hartwell
Keyword(s):  
Public Interest ◽  
Preventive Measures ◽  
Preventive Measure ◽  
State Level ◽  
Hand Washing ◽  
Hand Sanitizer ◽  
Search Volume ◽  
2016 Election ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
At Home

ABSTRACT Introduction: One method of monitoring public preparedness is through measuring public interest in preventive measures. The objective of this study was to analyze public interest in the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) preventive measures and to identify variables associated with timely stay-at-home (SAH) orders issued by governors. Methods: State-level search volume was collected from Google Trends. Average preventive measure interest was calculated for the query terms “hand sanitizer,” “hand washing,” “social distancing,” and “COVID testing.” We then calculated the delay in statewide SAH orders from March 1, 2020, to the date of issuance and by-state presidential voting percentage. Bivariate correlations were computed to assess the relationship between interest in preventive measures and SAH order delay. Results: The correlation between average preventive measure interest and length of time before the SAH order was placed was −0.47. Average preventive measure interest was also inversely related to voting for a Republican presidential nominee in the 2016 election (R = −0.75), the latter of which was positively associated with longer delays in SAH orders (R = 0.48). Conclusions: States with greater public interest in COVID-19 preventive measures were inversely related to governor issuance of timely SAH orders. Increasing public interest in preventive measures may slow the spread of the virus that causes COVID-19, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), by improving preparedness.

scholarly journals A General Overview on the Ethics of Pre-trial Detention

2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 09-20
Author(s):  
Denisa Barbu ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Preventive Measures ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Title V ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Individual Liberty ◽  
Judicial Control ◽  
House Arrest ◽  
Procedural Law ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
General Part

The measure of pre-trial detention is one of the five preventive measures regulated by the legislator in Title V of the general part of the new Criminal Procedure Code, adopted by Law no. 135/2010 and implemented on February 1st, 2014, along with detention, judicial control, judicial control on bail and house arrest. Preventive measures are institutions of criminal procedural law, and have a coercive character, aimed at the deprivation or the restriction of individual liberty, whereby the suspect or defendant is prevented from undertaking certain activities that would adversely affect the proper conduct of criminal proceedings or achieving the purpose of the criminal trial. Regarding the cases of pre-trial detention and the conditions that must be met in order to take the measure of pre-trial detention, it must be said that they result from the corroborated examination of the provisions of art. 202 para. 1 and 3, and art. 223 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Article 202 of the Criminal Procedure Code regulates the general conditions for taking preventive measures, in general, and the provisions of art. 223 of the Criminal Procedure Code regulates the specific conditions for taking the measure of pre-trial detention.

DETENTION AND HOME ARREST: THEORETICAL AND LEGAL ANALYSIS OF THE APPLICATION

2021 ◽  
Vol 14 (4) ◽  
pp. 308-317
Author(s):  
DANILA ILIN ◽  
◽  
◽  
Keyword(s):  
Preventive Measures ◽  
General Rule ◽  
Preventive Measure ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Legal Analysis ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
House Arrest ◽  
Historical Continuity ◽  
Level Of Use

The article presents the results of a comparative legal analysis of the use of preventive measures in the form of detention and home arrest. Both of these measures are forms of isolation from society of suspects, accused persons, and defendants in criminal proceedings. Thus, detention as a preventive measure, as a general rule, is applied by a court decision against a suspect or accused of committing crimes for which the criminal law provides for a penalty of imprisonment for a term of more than three years, if it is impossible to apply another, more lenient, preventive measure. When choosing a preventive measure in the form of detention, the judge's decision must specify the specific, factual circumstances on the basis of which the judge made such a decision. Such circumstances may not be data that has not been verified during the court session, in particular the results of operational search activities, submitted in violation of the requirements of Article 89 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation. At the same time, house arrest, along with detention, is classified as a preventive measure that restricts freedom. These measures are identical in terms of preventing consequences. However, this circumstance is often not taken into account by the court. This conclusion is supported by statistics showing a low level of use of home arrest. The article examines the evolution of the legal regulation and application of detention and home arrest. The conclusion is made about the historical continuity of both positive and negative experiences. In particular, the use of detention as a means of influence to obtain "necessary evidence", a punitive measure, which does not follow from its essence, is traced. Unfortunately, this practice still exists today, as confirmed by the examples given in the article. The article examines the conceptual aspects of the use of detention and home arrest as an alternative to isolation from society. Proposals for amendments to the criminal procedure legislation aimed at minimizing abuses in the appointment and execution of procedural preventive measures in the form of detention and home arrest are formulated and justified.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document