Przedterminowe zwolnienie z kary pozbawienia wolności skazanych za ludobójstwo, zbrodnie przeciwko ludzkości i wojenne na mocy orzeczeń międzynarodowych trybunałów karnych „ad hoc” oraz ich sukcesora w postaci Mechanizmu Rezydualnego ONZ

In the last decade of the 20th century, a war in the former Yugoslavia broke out, once again making Europe a witness to an armed conflict. Almost at the same time, another local ethnic bloodshed started, but this time in distant Africa — in Rwanda. Both these events included the most horrifying international crimes against humanity: genocide and war crimes. To prosecute the most important commanding figures involved in these conflicts and hold them criminally responsible, two ad hoc United Nations tribunals were created: International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia in Hague and International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda in Arusha. They finished their operation in 2017 and 2015, respectively. The tasks of conducting and completing all ongoing proceedings, including law enforcement, after the completion of their mandates have been entrusted to the UN International Residual Mechanism. One of the crucial assignments of the tribunals and later the Redisual Mechanism was to deal with the request on behalf of the convicted for granting them early release. Although none of the statutes of the aforementioned courts provided any ground for early release, soon it was accepted that both tribunals, as well as their successor, were entitled to proceed despite this issue. As soon as in 2001, the first convict was granted early release, but with no conditions. It is estimated that, to date, more than 2/3 of all convicted by the Tribunals have been released before the termination of their sentence. This should raise the question of how to rehabilitate that kind of offender, convicted of genocide, war crimes, or crimes against humanity, to ensure they do not pose a threat to society anymore. Especially since the offenders serve their punishment outside the country of their origin — meaning, different rules apply according to the domestic law regulation of the state that voluntarily agreed to enforce the sentence. This article analyzes the juridical approach of the tribunals and the Residual Mechanism on the issue of early release of the convicts involved in the armed conflicts in the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda.

The Depravity Standard for Violent Crimes

In violent crime cases, aggravating factors in United States criminal codes, such as “heinous,” “atrocious,” or “depraved,” are used to distinguish elements of the crime warranting more severe sentencing. These aggravating terms are vaguely defined and applied arbitrarily in violent cases. This paper details the development of a 25 item Depravity Standard to operationalize an evidence-based approach to distinguishing the worst of violent crimes. The items were applied to 393 detailed case files drawn from several American jurisdictions to develop and refine the item definitions, determine interrater reliability, and mine for the frequency of each item’s occurrence. This information was combined with 1,590 participant responses ranking the relative depravity of each item to develop a straightforward scoring system for measuring depravity in violent cases. The Depravity Standard guide can seamlessly be applied to identify the worst violent crimes, and provide support for those cases that may deserve leniency or early-release.

Wireless Substitution: Early Release of Estimates From the National Health Interview Survey, January-June 2021

Using National Health Interview Survey data from the first six months of 2021, this Early Release report provides preliminary estimates of the percentages of adults and children living in homes with only wireless telephones.

What We Talk About When We Talk About Early Release in International Criminal Law: The Sui Generis Nature of the Reduction of Sentence Under the Rome Statute

Early release has been regularly granted by the ad hoc tribunals for over 20 years. However, it could be argued that some issues still remain contentious. In fact, in May 2020, the Practice Direction ruling early release in the Mechanism of the International Criminal Tribunals was amended. This was intended to clarify key matters, such as the time needed to be served before early release, the possibility of imposing conditions upon those released, and the unappealable character of the resulting decision. At a glance, it could be argued that the International Criminal Court is better equipped to confront the many challenges posed by early release. This is owing to its detailed regulation, which may consequently lead to a more reasoned and solid case law. After comparatively examining ten features key to the application of early release, however, this paper argues that the ultimate problem lies within the nature generally conferred to early release in the Rome Statute.

Technology of the application of conditional early release in the aspect of social and educational work with convicted persons

The article examines the issue of the institute of conditional early release from serving a sentence as one of the means of stimulating the convict’s behavior in terms of social and educational work. Social and educational work with persons, who are in places of deprivation of liberty is aimed at correction and resocialization, where a special role in correcting the convicts’ behavior is played by methods of motivation and stimulation of behavior, which include various incentives and benefits. The long-term practice of existence and application of the institution of conditional early release from serving a sentence has proved that the formations in the convicts’ minds of real prospects of conditional early release from serving a sentence creates favorable conditions for more effective correction and achievement of the criminal law purposes. To apply this norm, there must be 2 signs: the formal (legal) one presupposes the fact that the convict has served the part of the sentence, provided by law and factual (subjective) one, which presupposes that the convict must prove his correction by conscientious behavior and attitude to work. Conscientious behavior, conscientious attitude to work and to study, active participation in the work of amateur organizations is recognized as a reference point for determining that the convict “proved his correction”. Conscientious behavior should provide not only for the convict to have incentives but also to prove that the convict gives an example of behavior for other convicts. Conscientious attitude to work implies the convict’s desire to exceed the established norms of production or exemplary performance of work, as well as compensation for damages caused by the crime and the provision of material assistance to the family or the payment of claims. However, despite the relevance and duration of the process of conditional early release from serving a sentence, there are a number of issues regarding the technology of its application, determining the degree of correction in deciding on the application of this benefit, consideration of materials by the court at the request of the convict, along with the preparation of necessary materials for the court. Key words: social and educational work, conditional early release, technology of application, stimulation of behavior of convicts.

Discretion in the U.S. Parole System

Parole in the United States serves as both a mechanism of early release from incarceration, as well as the period of supervision that may follow release, early or otherwise. Attached to the concept of parole, writ large, are multiple, seemingly irreconcilable perspectives regarding its purpose. Yet, evidence exists to suggest that all these perspectives are simultaneously reflected in the microlevel discretionary actions of parole practitioners and the macrolevel policies of the parole system. This is suggestive of a complex interplay between the individual discretion exercised by parole practitioners and the formalized legal reforms that, in some cases, attempt to limit such discretion. This article examines three stages of parole—release, supervision, and revocation—to explicate how practitioners use their discretion to resist or subvert reforms designed to curtail that discretion. Ultimately, these forms of resistance have both practical and theoretical implications for the future of parole and policies aimed at its reform.

Wireless substitution : early release of estimates From the National Health Interview Survey, July-December 2020

Using National Health Interview Survey data from the second six months of 2020, this Early Release report provides preliminary estimates of the percentages of adults and children living in homes with only wireless telephones.