1917

WHAT PROCESS IS DUE FOR PRISONERS SEEKING PAROLE? AN EXAMINATION OF ENGLISH AND AMERICAN LAW

This article has pondered critically onwhether there should be procedural rightsafforded to the offender in considerationof conditional release with reference toEnglish and American judicial decisionsand European standards. It has beenmaintained that the parole board directlyaffects the freedom of the prisoner in theparole decision-making process, so oneshould hold the view that there is a libertyinterest, as articulated in the decisions ofthe European Court of Human Rights.Thus, due process safeguards should begranted to the prisoner, as clearly regulatedin the European Recommendation,regardless of whether decision makingauthorities have a judicial or administrativecharacter. Although it is difficult to defineexhaustively, the following rights shouldcome into play: the right to a court trial,the right to have an oral hearing, the rightto access to a lawyer, the right to access tothe dossier and the right to challenge thedecision.

Denetimli Serbestlik Talep Eden Hükümlülere Hangi Usuli Haklar Tanınmalıdır? İngi̇li̇z ve Ameri̇kan Hukukuna Dai̇r Bi̇r İnceleme

Bu makalede İngiliz ve Amerikan ulusal yargı kararları ve Avrupa standartları gözetilerek denetimli serbestlik talep eden hükümlülerin usuli haklara sahip olup olmadığına ilişkin değerlendirme yapılmıştır. Denetimli serbestliğin hükümlülerin özgürlüğüne müteaalik şartları düzenlediği ve bu nedenle hükümlülerin Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi’nce de kabul edilen “özgürlük menfaati”ni haiz olduğu tespiti yapılmıştır. Denetimli serbestlik kararını veren merciinin idari ya da yargısal niteliklere sahip olup olmadığına bakılmaksızın hükümlülere Koşullu Salıverilmeye İlişkin Avrupa Önerisi’nde de düzenlendiği gibi belirli usuli haklar tanınması gerektiği ifade edilmiştir. Tahdidi olmayan bu haklar aşağıdaki gibi sıralanmıştır: Bir mahkeme önünde yargılanma hakkı, sözlü bir duruşmaya katılma hakkı, hukuki yardım alma hakkı, dosyaya erişim hakkı ve temyiz hakkı.

PDF

___

Arnott H, Creighton S, Parole Board Hearings: Law and Practice (Lag Education and Service Trust Limited London 3th Edition 2014)

Bing S J, ‘Reconsidering State Parole Board Membership Requirements in Light of Model Penal Code Sentencing Revisions’ 100 Ky. L.J. (2011) 871

Bowman F O, ‘The Failure of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines: A Structural Analysis’ 105 Colum. L. Rev. (2005) 1315

Council of Civil Service Unions v. Minister for the Civil Service [1985] AC 374

Creighton S, King V, Arnott H, Prisoners and the Law (Tottel Publishing, 3rded. 2005)

Dershowitz A M, ‘Indeterminate Confinement: Letting the Therapy Fit the Harm’ 123 U. PA. L. REV. (1974) 297

Ditton Paula, Wilson James, ‘Truth in Sentencing in State Prisons’ U.S. Department of Justice, January 1999, https://bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/tssp.pdf

Dunkel F, Smit D V Z, Padfield N, ‘Concluding thoughts’ in Nicola Padfield, Dirk Van ZylSmit, FriederDünkel, Release from Prison: European Policy and Practice (Willian Publishing 2010)

Fazel S, ‘Coin-flip Judgment of Psychopathic Prisoners Risk’ in Nᴇᴡ Sᴄɪᴇɴᴛɪsᴛ (Dec. 4, 2013) available at https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22029464- 800-coin-flip-judgement-of-psychopathic-prisoners-risk

Forde R A, ‘Risk Assessment in Parole Decisions: A study of Life Sentence Prisoners in England and Wales’ (The PhD Thesis Birmingham 2014)

Galligan D J, Due Process and Fair Procedures: A Study of Administrative Procedures (Oxford University Press Oxford 1997) Garcia Alva v Germany (2001) 37 EHRR 335

Gold L J, John M. Darley, James L. Hilton and Mark P. Zanna, ‘Children’s Perceptions of Procedural Justice’ 55(5) Child Development (1984) 1752 Graham v. Florida 560 US 48 (2010)

Greenholtz v. Inmates of the Nebraska Penal & Corr. Complex 442 U.S. (1979)

Greenholtz v. Inmates of the Nebraska Penal & Corr. Complex 442 U.S. (1979)

Heinz A M, Heinz J P, Senderowitz S J, Vance A V, ‘Sentencing by Parole Board: An Evaluation’ 67 J. CRIM. L. & Criminology (1976)

Hewitt v. Helms 459 U.S. 460 (1983)

House of Commons Constitutional Affairs Committee, The operation of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC) and the Use of Special Advocates, Seventh Report of Session 2004–05, Volume II, Oral and written evidence

Hussain and Singh v UK (1996) 22 EHRR 1

Jewkes Y, Bennett J, (Eds.)Dictionary of Prisons and Punishment (Willian Publishing Devon 2008)

Kadish S H, ‘The Advocate and the Expert—Counsel in the Peno-Correctional Process’ 45 MINN. L. REV. (1961) 803

Larkin Jr. P J, ‘Revitalizing the Clemency Process’ 39 Harv. J. L. &Pub. Pol. (2016) 833

Lippke R L, Taming the Presumption of Innocence (Oxford University Press 2016)

Loughlin M, Quinn P, ‘Prisons, Rules and Courts’ 56(4) Modern Law Review (1993) 497

Meeropol R, ‘Communication Management Units: The Role of Duration and Selectivity in the Sandin v. Conner Liberty Interest Test’ 1(1) UCLA Criminal Justice Law Review (2017)

Morrissey v. Brewer 408 U.S. 471 (1972)

Obi M, Prison Law a Practical Guide (Law Society 2008)

Opinion of Advocate General Bot 4 April 2017 (1) Case C‑612/15, ECLI:EU:C:2017:257

R AT0 v Parole Board [2004] EWHC 515

Osborn and Booth v Parole Board [2013] UKSC 61

Palacios V J, ‘Go and Sin No More: Rationality and Release Decisions by Parole Boards’ 45 S.C. L. REV. (1994) 567

Petersilia J, ‘Parole and Prisoner Re-entry in the United States’ 26 Crim & Jus. (1999) 479

Polinsky A M, ‘Deterrence and the Optimality of Rewarding Prisoners for Good Behaviour’ 44 INT’L REV. LAW & ECON (2015) 1

R (Black) v Secretary of State for Justice [2009] UKHL 1

R (James, Lee, Wells) v Parole Board [2009] UKHL 22

R (McGetrick) v Parole Board [2013] EWCA Civ 182

R (Roberts) v Parole Board [2005] UKHL 45 37 Tex. Admin

R oao Brooks v The Parole Board [2004] EWCA Civ 80 R oaoSim v Parole Board [2004] QB 1288

R v Lichniak and Pyrah [2002] UKHL 47

R v Parole Board and Home Secretary, ex p Oyston (2000) 1 March CA QBCOF 1999/1107/C

R v Parole Board ex p Lodomez (1994) 26 BMLR 162

Recommendation (Rec (2003)22) of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe to member states on conditional release (parole)

Regina v. Parole Board (Respondents) ex parte Smith (FC) (Appellant) Regina v. Parole Board (Respondents) ex parte West (FC) (Appellant) (Conjoined Appeals)

Reingold P D, Thomas K A, ‘From Grace to Grids: Rethinking Due Process Protections for Parole’ 107(2) J. Crim. L. & Criminology (2017) 213

Richardson G, Law, Process and Custody: Prisoners and Patients (Orion Publishing Group London 1993)

Russel S F, ‘Review for Release: Juvenile Offenders, State Parole Practices, and the Eighth Amendment’ 89 Indiana Law Journal (2014) 373

Sandin v. Conner 515 U.S. 472 (1995)

Schlanger M, ‘Inmate Litigation’ 116 Harv. L. R. (2003) 1555

Smit D V Z, Spencer J R, ‘The European dimension to the release of sentenced prisoners’ in Nicola Padfield, Dirk Van ZylSmit, FriederDünkel, Release from Prison: European Policy and Practice (Willian Publishing 2014)

Swarthout v. Cooke 562 U.S. 216 (2011)

The Parole Board Rules, No. 2947, 2011

The European Convention of Human Rights, Article 5/4.

Weeks v. UK (1988) 10 EHRR 293

Wolff v. McDonnell 418 U.S. 539 (1974)