Usulan kriteria pemulangan pasien (patient release) kedokteran nuklir di Indonesia

Nuclear medicine procedures are carried out by applying a radioactive substance to the patient’s body. Thus, the patient can be assumed to be a ‘radiation source’ and needs to follow special provisions so that his presence does not expose nearby individuals unnecessarily. Therefore, when the patient is released from the hospital, it must ensure that the patient’s radiation exposure does not expose the individuals in the vicinity. However, several related regulations have not regulated this in detail. In this paper, a study is carried out regarding the criteria considered in the release of nuclear medicine patients. The method used is a literature study. The study results recommend release criteria through two approaches based on the estimated maximum effective dose that the public may accept, namely conditional release with a calculated dose of less than or equal to 5 mSv and unconditional release with an estimated dose of less than or equal to 1 mSv. Conditional release is the release of a patient provided with post-release guidance, while unconditional release is the release of the patient without being supplied with post-release advice. Keywords: nuclear medicine, patient release, conditional release, unconditional release

Efektivitas Kerjasama Pihak Ketiga Dalam Proses Pembinaan Warga Binaan Berbasis Masyarakat (Community Based Corrections) Lapas Terbuka Nusakambangan

Collaborate with third parties between the Nusakambangan Open Prison and PT Noerman in the form of implementing the Community Based Correction concept in order to prepare social reintegration as mandated by PERMENKUMHAM No. 3 of 2018 concerning Conditions and Procedures for Granting Remission, Assimilation, Leave to Visit Family, Conditional Release, Leave Prior to Release, and Conditional Leave with reference to the 5 (five) principles put forward by P. Corney, namely the availability of employment opportunities, the existence of selection, not being exploited, minimum security, and responsibility for the transfer of Prisoner. This research was conducted to see the extent of the cooperation of third parties in implementing the concept of Community Based Correction in order to prepare towards social reintegration. The results of this study a comprehensive coaching and mentoring process because of the Terms of Reference (KAK) agreed upon by the Open Prison with PT Noerman which is stated in Number: PAS-19. HH 05.05 of 2019, Number: 01/PTNJA/PKS/IV/2019 of 2019 the Independence Development Program for correctional Prisoner in the field of Aquaculture Industry. This research was conducted using juridical-empirical research methods. This method is a research method that examines the applicable legal provisions and what happens in actual reality to find facts that are used as research data, which are then analyzed to identify problems and ultimately to solve problems. The approach used is a mixed approach between the rule of law and case studies.

Long-Term Sentence in the Laws of the Former SFRY and Contemporary European Criminal Law

Life imprisonment is the term for a prison sentence based on which a convicted person remains in prison for their whole life. After the death penalty, it is the severest criminal sanction. Many countries have introduced it in their legislation as a substitute for the death penalty. On the other hand, many legislations have, along with the long-term sentence, introduced the possibility of the convicts’ release, most often conditional release. From the second half of the 20th century onwards, life imprisonment as well as the death penalty has most often been regarded an inhumane and inefficient sanction, given that people sentenced to life imprisonment are considered permanently excluded from society, that is, losing any kind of interest in rehabilitation. This paper analyses the issues related to long-term sentences - life imprisonment in the countries of the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (SFRY) and in the contemporary European criminal law.

Features of the appointment and execution of life imprisonment: experience of foreign countries

The article reveals various approaches to the appointment and execution of sentences in the form of life imprisonment in a number of foreign countries. The author examined the criminal legislation of Armenia, Denmark, Bulgaria as well as a number of Western European countries: Belgium, France, Switzerland. Attention is focused on the features of parole from serving the punishment specified in the article. Most of those serving life sentences are subject to a range of parole conditions / restrictions. Persons released from life imprisonment may be subject to individual restrictions in relation to place of residence, movement, property, alcohol consumption and control of behavior by state agencies. International standards emphasize that the purpose of conditional release is to help prisoners reintegrate into society. In addition the author proposes a recommendation for improving the current Russian criminal legislation.

USLOVNI OTPUST KOD KAZNE DOŽIVOTNOG ZATVORA – KRITIČKO PREISPITIVANJE NOVIH NORMATIVNIH REŠENJA U SRPSKOM KRIVIČNOM ZAKONODAVSTVU –

The amendments and supplements of the Criminal Code of 2019 introduced into Serbian criminal legislation a life imprisonment as the most severe sentence in the criminal sanctions system. These novelties confirm the continuity of a multi-year process of (inconsistent) changes in criminal legislation that tightens the legislature’s criminal policy, broadens the limits of criminal repression, supplements the purpose of punishment, narrows the possibility of mitigating the punishment, in other words, continues to expand the retributive concept of punishing. The introduction of the life imprisonment required the amendments of several other provisions of the Criminal Code, including those relating to the purpose of punishment, impossibility of conditional release of persons sentenced to this life imprisonment, as well as the duration limit on conditional release. In most states where it forms part of the sentence system the possibility of (early, or) conditional release of prisoners is provided. It is indisputable that there are also rare exceptions to this rule. However, the paradigm of human rights protection, in particular the protection of the rights of persons deprived of their liberty, as well as the mechanisms for their protection (e.g. the jurisprudence of the ECHR), indicate that the possibility of conditional release of persons sentenced to life imprisonment in national legislations already represents an “established standard”. From a penological point of view, the implementation of treatment and treating of the prisoners sentenced to life imprisonment and the idea of their resocialization and social reintegration, is directly correlated with the possibility of their conditional release. Therefore, prescribing the possibility of conditional release of prisoners sentenced to life imprisonment, as visible to them “a path to release”, is a necessary prerequisite for the execution of the sentence.

PRILOG RASPRAVI O KAZNI DOŽIVOTNOG ZATVORA I MEĐUNARODNIM PRAVNIM STANDARDIMA

The latest amendments to the Criminal Code of the Republic of Serbia have quite a lot of controversy among the professional public. The subject of this paper is a critical review of various propositions for overcoming legislative omissions in relation to the sentence of life imprisonment without conditional release for certain criminal offences. Furthermore, this paper deals with prison sentences for crimes for which the conditional release is legally excluded. The intention is to encourage the professional public to find the best solutions for overcoming legally untenable prohibition of conditional release for people sentenced to life imprisonment. The author estimates that pardon, in our legislation, does not represent an effective legal remedy, nor an alternative to conditional release.

KAZNA DOŽIVOTNOG ZATVORA BEZ PRAVA NA USLOVNI OTPUST

The introductory part of the paper indicates dilemmas regarding life imprisonment punishment. Further it defines the concept of punishment and determines the purpose of punishment, stating the essential characteristics of life imprisonment punishment. The life imprisonment punishment for criminal offenses in which conditional release is not possible has been taken under special consideration, indicating the legislator’s omissions, and offering suggestion, so that the observed omissions could be corrected. The legal institute of conditional release, the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, in the context of life imprisonment punishment, were discussed, followed by a critical review of the conclusions of the Expert Meeting held in Belgrade on September 25, 2020. An explanation has been given as to why it is not necessary to change the existing solution in our criminal legislation; with notice that even if the position derived from these conclusions should be accepted, that the existing legal solution ought to be changed, proposed implementation would not be acceptable, because the intent (which the author of this paper does not advocate for) would not be achieved by the proposals from that conclusions, as it is emphasized in this paper. Furthermore, the purpose of this paper is to find plausible arguments for the existing solution in our criminal legislation, meaning that for certain criminal offenses or the most serious forms of heinous crimes, offenders can be sentenced to life imprisonment without the right to parole. In addition, the objective is to specify that the conclusions of the Expert Meeting which was held in Belgrade on September 25, 2020, and especially the proposals attained from those conclusions are not admissible in relation to our criminal law.

“Victims’ participation rights in the post-sentencing phase: The Netherlands in comparative perspective”

Victims’ rights have proliferated rapidly over the past decades. However, the development of rights in the post-sentencing phase has lagged behind. In this article, we argue that victims’ rights may contribute to the acknowledgement of victims, something that victimological research suggests is important for victims’ well-being at every stage of criminal proceedings. We review a new Dutch law and a legislative proposal aiming to improve victims’ rights in the post-sentencing phase in relation to conditional release from prison and conditional discharge from forensic psychiatric hospital. More specifically, we compare these (proposed) victims’ participatory rights with those existing in the Canadian, Belgian and German framework. We argue for a strengthened position of the victim in the post-sentencing phase. We close by showing that the practical effectiveness of these proposed rights is put at risk by COVID-19 and states’ response to the same.

DUTY TO CORRECT - MAIN DUTY OF CONVICTS

В статье актуализируется вопрос отсутствия в российском уголовно-исполнительном законодательстве главной обязанности осужденных - исправиться. Включение в Уголовно-исполнительный кодекс Российской Федерации данной обязанности обусловлено гуманным отношением государства к лицу, причинившему существенный вред человеку, обществу и государству, цивилизованными условиями отбывания наказания, соответствующими международным стандартам, теми огромными затратами, которые тратит государство на содержание осужденных и в целом на функционирование уголовно-исполнительной системы. Отсутствие у осужденных обязанности исправиться лишает весь процесс отбывания наказания какого-либо смысла, превращая исправительный процесс в юридическую фикцию. Нормативная регламентация обязанности осужденных исправиться имеет важное значение для эффективного достижения целей уголовного наказания и уголовно-исполнительного законодательства, определяет фундаментальную основу развития уголовно-исполнительной политики. Только такая мера будет способствовать стимулированию осужденных к реальному исправлению и, как следствие, снижению повторной и рецидивной преступности в стране. В силу этого считаем необходимым включить обязанность исправиться в перечень обязанностей осужденных, предусмотренных ст. 11 Уголовно-исполнительного кодекса Российской Федерации, нормативно регламентировать перечень критериев исправления осужденных, а исправление осужденного предусмотреть в качестве основания для его освобождения не только в случае условно-досрочного освобождения. Срок наказания должен быть динамичной категорией. Если он может сокращаться в случае предоставления осужденному условно-досрочного освобождения, то исходя из здравого смысла он должен и продлеваться в силу того, что осужденный не исправился. Именно поэтому невыполнение осужденным рассматриваемой обязанности исправиться, то есть его не исправление, должно стать условием продления судом срока назначенного ему наказания, поскольку цель исправления еще не достигнута. The article actualizes the issue of the absence of the main duty of convicts in the Russian penal legislation to reform. The inclusion of this obligation in the Criminal Executive Code of the Russian Federation is due to the humane attitude of the state towards the person who caused significant harm to a person, society and the state, civilized conditions for serving sentences, consistent with international standards, the enormous costs that the state spends on the maintenance of convicts and on the whole functioning penal system. The absence of the duty of the convicts to reform deprives the whole process of serving a sentence of any meaning, turning the correctional process into a legal fiction. The normative regulation of the duty of convicts to reform is important for the effective achievement of the goals of criminal punishment and penal legislation; it defines the fundamental basis for the development of penal policy. Only such a measure will help stimulate convicts to real correction and, as a result, reduce repeated and recidivism in the country. By virtue of this, we consider it necessary to include the obligation to improve in the list of duties of convicted persons provided for in 11 of the Penal Code of the Russian Federation, to regulate normatively the list of criteria for the correction of convicted persons, and to provide for the correction of the convicted person as a basis for his release, not only in the case of conditional release. The sentence should be a dynamic category. If it can be reduced if the convicted person is given parole, then on the basis of common sense, he should be extended because the convicted person has not recovered. That is why the failure of the convicted person to fulfill the duty to reform, i.e. its not correction, should become a condition for the extension of the term of punishment assigned to it by the court, since the purpose of correction has not yet been achieved.