Uyuşturucu Bağımlılığı İle Mücadelede Tedavi ve Denetimli Serbestlik Uygulamaları: Türkiye, Birleşik Devletler, Almanya ve İrlanda Örnekleri

Year 2019, , 318 - 337, 30.09.2019

Sunay Fırat , Mehmet Aykut Erk

https://doi.org/10.18863/pgy.501939

Abstract

Denetimli serbestlik kavramı ülkemizde ve dünyada hükmün verilmesi, hükümlünün sürece uygun-luğunun tespit edilmesi, sürecin içeriği, süreçte rol oynayan elemanlar, sürecin içeriğindeki unsurlar ve uygulamalarda yaşanan sıkıntılar bakımından farklılıklar göstermektedir. Bu farklılıklardan dolayı bölgesel yönetim sistemine sahip Amerika Birleşik Devletleri ve Federal Almanya Cumhuriyeti, merkezi yönetim sistemine sahip İrlanda Cumhuriyeti ve ülkemizdeki denetimli serbestlik sistemindeki “tedavi ve denetimli serbestlik tedbirleri” uygulamalar karşılaştırılmıştır. Ülkemizde özellikle uyuşturucu kullan-ma, bulundurma gibi suçlardan haklarında tedavi ve denetimli serbestlik tedbiri konulmuş bireylere yönelik eğitim, iyileştirme ve denetim alanlarına katkı sağlamak amacıyla, ülkelerin uygulamalarının, benzerlikleri ve farklılıkları incelenmiştir.

Keywords

Madde kullanım bozukluğu, tedavi ve denetimli serbestlik, denetimli serbestlik süreci, hükümlü

Treatment and Probation Practices in Combating Drug Addiction: Turkey, United States, Germany and Ireland Samples

Abstract

Probation in Turkey and in the world is different in giving a decision, determining the convict’s suitability to the process, content, and elements in the process, components in the content of the process and problems in the implementations. Due to these differences, treatment and probation measures in the United States and the Federal Republic of Germany, the Republic of Ireland, which has a central administration system, and the probation system in our country have been compared. In order to contribute to the fields of education, improvement and supervision for individuals who have been treated for probation and probation measures for crimes such as drug use and possession in our country, the similarities, and differences of the practices of the countries have been examined.

Keywords

Substance use disorder, rehabilitation and probation, probation process, offender

References

• §§ 29 Law on Traffic in Narcotics BtMG (2018) Offenses. Berlin, Federal Law Gazette [Bundesgesetzblatt].
• §§ 31a Law on Traffic in Narcotics BtMG (2018) Refrain from the persecution. Berlin, Federal Law Gazette [Bundesgesetzblatt].
• §§ 35 Law on Traffic in Narcotics BtMG (2018) Withdrawal of the sentence. Berlin, Federal Law Gazette [Bundesgesetzblatt].
• §§ 36 Law on Traffic in Narcotics BtMG (2018) Credit and suspension for probation. Berlin, Federal Law Gazette [Bundesgesetzblatt].
• §21 German Youth Courts Law (2017) Suspension of sentence. Berlin, Federal Law Gazette [Bundesgesetzblatt].
• §56 German Criminal Code StGB (2013) Power of court to suspend sentence. Berlin, Federal Law Gazette [Bundesgesetzblatt].
• §67b German Criminal Code StGB (2013) Immediate order for suspended measure. Berlin, Federal Law Gazette [Bundesgesetzblatt].
• 18 U.S. Code § 3563 (1987) Conditions of probation. Washington D.C., US Government.
• Akbaş GE, Mutlu E (2016) Madde bağımlılığı tedavisi gören kişilerin bağımlılık ve tedavi deneyimleri. Toplum ve Sosyal Hizmet, 27:1-33.
• Alexander M, Lowenkamp CT, Robinson C (2014) Probation and parole practices. In Encyclopedia of Criminology and Criminal Justice (Eds G Bruinsma, D Weisburd):3973-3979. New York, Springer.
• Allard TJ, Wortley RK, Stewart AL (2003) Role conflict in community corrections. Psychol Crime Law, 9:279-289.
• Altın D (2015) Denetimli serbestlik hizmetlerinde personel gelişimi ve eğitimine genel bakış. In Türkiye’de Denetimli Serbestlik 10. Yıl Uluslararası Sempozyumu, Uluslararası Yaklaşımlar (Ed D Ozyoruk):1-7. Ankara, T.C. Ceza ve Tevkif Evleri Genel Müdürlüğü.
• Asthal BS (2006) İngiltere ceza sisteminden sorumlu Devlet Bakanı Baroness Scotland of Asthal’ın konuşma metni. In Türkiye’de Denetimli Serbestlik Hizmetlerinin Geliştirilmesi Projesi Açılış Konuşma Metinleri. Ankara, Adalet Bakanlığı Yayınları.
• Burrell WD (2010) Probation in the United States. Transnational Criminology, 3:721-739.
• Ceza ve Tevkif Evleri Genel Müdürlüğü (2009) Çocuk ve Genç Adalet Sistemi Almanya Çalışma Ziyareti Raporu. Ankara, T.C. Ceza ve Tevkif Evleri Genel Müdürlüğü.
• Clarke A, Eustace A (2016) Review of Drug and Alcohol Treatment Services for Adult Offenders in Prison and in the Community. Dublin, Eustace Patterson Limited.
• Coester M, Marks E (2009) International Perspectives of Crime Prevention 2, Contributions from The 2nd Annual International Forum. Mönchengladbach, Forum Verlag Godesberg GmbH.
• Cullen FT, Jonson CL, Nagin DS (2011) Prisons do not reduce recidivism: The high cost of ignoring science. Prison J,. 91(suppl 3):48S-65S.
• Décarpes P, Durnescu I (2014) Probation and community sanctions. In Encyclopedia of Criminology and Criminal Justice (Eds G Bruinsma, D Weisburd):3957-3963. New York, Springer.
• Dessecker A (2012) Research on offender supervision practice in Germany: a review. Wiesbaden: KrimZ, Posjećeno, 12:1-116.
• Geiran V (2011) Defining what we do: the meaning of ‘supervision'in probation. Irish Probation Journal, 8:6-27.
• Gendreau P, Smith P, French SA (2006) The theory of effective correctional intervention: Empirical status and future directions. In Taking Stock: The Status of Criminological Theory (Eds FT Cullen, M Coleman):419-446. Piscataway, NJ: Transaction Press.
• Hamilton S (2016) Reset: An opportunity to enhance offender resettlement and rehabilitation through mentoring. Irish Probation Journal, 13:134-142.
• Human Rights Watch (2018) “Set up to Fail” The Impact of Offender-Funded Private Probation on the Poor. Washington D.C., Human Rights Watch.
• Işık E (2015) Türkiye’de denetimli serbestlik uygulamaları. In Türkiye’de Denetimli Serbestlik 10. Yıl Uluslararası Sempozyumu, Uluslararası Yaklaşımlar (Ed D Ozyoruk):1-7. Ankara, T.C. Ceza ve Tevkif Evleri Genel Müdürlüğü..
• Jehle JM (2015) Criminal Justice in Germany: Facts and Figures, 6th edition. Berlin, Federal Ministry of Justice and Consumer Protection.
• Loschnig-Gspandl M, Kilchling M (1997) Victim/offender mediation and victim compensation in Austria and Germany: Stocktaking and perspectives for future research. European Journal of Crime, Criminal Law and Criminal Justice, 5:58-78.
• Markman JA, Durose MR, Rantala RR, Tiedt AD (2016) Recidivism of offenders placed on federal community supervision in 2005: Patterns from 2005 to 2010. Bur Justice Stat Spec Rep, 1-16.
• Martyn M (2012) Drug and alcohol misuse among adult offenders on probation supervision: findings from the ‘Drugs and Alcohol Survey 2011’. Irish Probation Journal, 9:75-92.
• McKenzie DL (2002) Probation and parole: history, goals, and decision-making. In Encylopedia of Crime and Justice (Ed J Dressler). New York, MacMillan.
• Miller J (2015) Contemporary modes of probation officer supervision: The triumph of the “synthetic” officer? Justice Q, 32:314-336.
• Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı (2018) Adalet: Denetimli Serbestlik Bürosu Gözlem İşlemleri. Ankara, Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı.
• Mutz J (2008) Germany. In Probation in Europe (Eds AM van Kalmthout, I Durnescu):381-417. Nijmenegen, NL, Wolf Legal Publishers.
• Mutz J (2009) Welcome speech for the Workshop Probation meets Prevention within the German Congress on Crime Prevention. In International Perspectives of Crime Prevention 2 Contributions from the 2nd Annual International Forum (Eds M Coester, E Marks): 137-141. Monchengladbach, Verlag Godesberg GmbH.
• O’Connell S (2005) Staff supervision within the probation and welfare service (Doctoral dissertation). Dublin, University of Dublin.
• Örüm MH, Kara MZ, Eğilmez OB, Özen ME, Kalenderoğlu A (2018) Evaluation of probation implementations of drug users in Adiyaman University training and research hospital: A one-year retrospective study. Medicine Science, 7:1-5.
• Resmi Gazete (2004) Ceza ve Güvenlik Tedbirlerinin İnfazı Hakkında Kanun No. 5275, 29.12.2004. Ankara, TC Başbakanlık.
• Resmi Gazete (2005) Denetimli Serbestlik Hizmetleri Kanunu No. 5402 , 03.07.2005. Ankara, TC Başbakanlık.
• Sağlık Bakanlığı (2015) Sağlık Hizmetleri Genel Müdürlüğü, 23 Mart 2015 Tarih ve 14500235/010.06.02/450 Sayılı, Denetimli Serbestlik Tedavi Hizmetleri 2015/11 Genelgesi. Ankara, T.C. Sağlık Bakanlığı.
• Smith P, Gendreau P, Goggin C (2002) The Effects of Prison Sentences and Intermediate Sanctions on Recidivism: General Effects and Individual Differences. Ottawa, ON, Public Works and Government Services Canada.
• Subramanian R, Shames A (2013) Sentencing and Prison Practices in Germany and The Netherlands: Implications for the United States Center on Sentencing and Corrections. New York, NY, Vera Institute of Justice.
• Teague M (2016) Profiting from the poor: Offender-funded probation in the USA. British Journal of Community Justice, 14:99-111.
• The Probation Service (2015) Annual Report 2015. Dublin, The Probation Service, 2015.
• The Probation Service (2016) Annual Report 2016. Dublin, The Probation Service, 2016.
• The Probation Service (2017) Annual Report 2017. Dublin, The Probation Service, 2017.
• The Probation Service (2018) Assessment for probation supervision. Available from http://www.probation.ie/EN/PB/ WebPages/ WP16000033. (Accessed: 18.04.2018).
• Tongzhi Y (2008) Contemporary recidivism and its control in China. In 135th International Senior Seminar Participants’ Papers, 109-114.
• Trotter C (1996) The impact of different supervision practices in community corrections: cause for optimism. Aust N Z J Criminol, 29:29–46.
• Tuncer G, Duru MN (2011) İş doyumu denetimli serbestlik şubelerinde çalışan personel örneği. İstanbul Aydın Üniversitesi Dergisi (İAÜD), 10:115-142.
• United States v. Carter (1998) 159 F3d 397 United States v. Carter. Available from https://www.leagle.com/decision/1998556159f3d3971502. (Accessed: 16.04.2018)
• United States v. Schave (1999) 3d 839 - United States v. Karl C. Schave 990 F. Available from https://www.legal-tools.org. (Accessed 16.04.2018)
• United States v. Stephenson (1991) 928 F2d 728. https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/training/online-learningcenter/supporting-materials/Revocation-of-Probation-and-Supervised-Released.pdf. (Accessed: 16.04.2018)
• United States v. Stoural (1993) d 372 – United States v. O Stoural. Available from https://www.legal-tools.org/en/doc/c18557/ (Accessed 16.04.2018).
• Williams v. Hunter (1957) 165 F. (2d) 924; 24 C.J.S., Criminal Law, § 1572. Available from https://www.atg.wa.gov/ago-opinions/courts-deferred-imposition-sentence-crimes modificationand-revocation-probation.(Accessed: 16.04.2018).
• Wood H, Brown G (2014) Psychoanalytically-informed clinical supervision of staff in probation services. Psychoanal Psychother, 28:330-344.
• Yıldız E, Tiryaki M (2015) Denetimli serbestlik sisteminde meslek elemanlarının eğitim ve iyileştirme sürecinde yaşadığı sorunlar ve çözüm yolları, In Türkiye’de Denetimli Serbestlik 10. Yıl Uluslararası Sempozyumu, Uluslararası Yaklaşımlar (Ed D Ozyoruk):1-7. Ankara, T.C. Ceza ve Tevkif Evleri Genel Müdürlüğü.
• Zorlu AS (2014) Denetimli serbestlik uzmanlarının tükenmişlik düzeyleri (Yüksek lisans tezi). Hacettepe Üniversitesi, Ankara.