Rehabilitation As A Penal And Prison Policy In The Context Of The European Convention On Human Rights

Abstract

In recent years, penal systems around the world have experienced a paradigm shift, emphasizing the importance of rehabilitation as a fundamental principle of prison and jail policy. It is necessary to explore the evolution of rehabilitation within the criminal justice system and its decisive role in promoting the reintegration of offenders into society. In the context of criminal law, rehabilitation is the removal of a prisoner's desire to commit a crime. By addressing the underlying causes of criminal behavior and providing offenders with education, vocational training and therapeutic interventions, rehabilitation programs aim to facilitate long-term behavioral change and social reintegration. Our study argues that rehabilitation should be the premise of penal and prison management policy. In this context, the issue will be explained in the first part in the context of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights and in the second part according to Article 8 of the Convention. In the last part, the meaning and function of rehabilitation will be emphasized. Sending criminals to prison to punish them is also perceived as an additional punishment that can torture them and create inhumane and degrading punishment. Therefore, it is essential to rehabilitate an offender and try to reintegrate him/her into society.

Keywords

• Rehabilitation
• crime
• penal system
• prison policy
• human rights

References

1. Allen FA, ‘The Decline of the Rehabilitative Ideal: Penal Policy and Social Purpose.’ [1981] New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. google scholar
2. Appleton C and Grover B, ‘The Pros and Cons of Life Without Parole’ (2006) 47 British Journal of Criminology 597. google scholar
3. Bales WD and Mears DP, ‘Inmate Social Ties and the Transition to Society: Does Visitation Reduce Recidivism?’ (2008) 45 Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 287. google scholar
4. Dzehtsiarou K and Fontanelli F, ‘Family Visits and the Right to Hope: Vinter Is Coming (Back)’ (2015) 2 European Human Rights Law Review 163.google scholar
5. Ernst B, ‘The Protection of Human Dignity (Article 1 of the Basic Law)’ (2000) 53 SMU Law Review 443. google scholar
6. ‘European Committee on Crime Problems (CDPC) ,Draft Recommendation Rec(2005)… of the Committee of Ministers to Member States on the European Prison Rules and Commentary, CM(2005)163 Addendum 2 November 2005’ https://search.coe.int/cm/Pages/result_details.aspx?ObjectID=09000016805d9544 accessed 21 June 2020. google scholar
7. Faulkner D, ‘Taking Citizenship Seriously: Social Capital and Criminal Justice in a Changing World’ (2003) 3 Criminal Justice 287. google scholar
8. Freedman BJ and Rice DG, ‘Marital Therapy in Prison: One-Partner “Couple Therapy”’ (1977) 40 Psychiatry 175. google scholar

9. Genders E and Player E, ‘Rehabilitation, Risk Management and Prisoners’ Rights’ (2014) 14 Criminology & Criminal Justice 434. google scholar
10. Howser J, Grossman J and Macdonald D, ‘Impact of Family Reunion Program on Institutional Discipline’ (1984) 8 Journal of Offender Counseling Services Rehabilitation 27. google scholar
11. JUSTICE, ‘The Howard League for Penal Reform and the National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders’ (1972) https://justice.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/LivingItDown.pdf.google scholar
12. Lazarus L, ‘Conceptions Of Liberty Deprivation’ (2006) 69 Modern Law Review 738. google scholar
13. Livingstone S and others, Prison Law (4th ed, Oxford University Press 2008). google scholar
14. Manheim H, The Dilemma of Penal Reform (George Allen & Unwin 1939).google scholar
15. Mavronicola N, ‘What Is an “Absolute Right”? Deciphering Absoluteness in the Context of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights’ (2012) 12 Human Rights Law Review 723. google scholar
16. Mavronicola N, ‘Inhuman and Degrading Punishment, Dignity, and the Limits of Retribution: Inhuman and Degrading Punishment and the Limits of Retribution’ (2014) 77 The Modern Law Review 292. google scholar
17. ——, ‘Crime, Punishment and Article 3 ECHR: Puzzles and Prospects of Applying an Absolute Right in a Penal Context’ [2015] Human Rights Law Review 721. google scholar
18. Packer HL, ‘Making the Punishment Fit the Crime’ 77 Harvard Law Review 1071. google scholar
19. Rada Europy, European Prison Rules (Council of Europe Publ 2006).google scholar
20. Raynor P, Rehabilitation, Crime and Justice. (Palgrave Macmillan 2009) http://public.eblib.com/choice/publicfullrecord.aspx?p=736479_0 accessed 21 June 2020. google scholar
21. Smith VZ, Weatherby and Creighton, ‘Whole Life Sentences’ (2014) 14 H.R.L. Review 59. google scholar
22. ‘The Criminal Executive Code of Ukraine’ (Official web-portal of the Parliament of Ukraine) https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/go/1129-15 accessed 21 June 2020. google scholar
23. Wyatt R, ‘Male Rape in U.S. Prisons: Are Conjugal Visits the Answer?’ (2006) 37 Case W. Res. J. Int’l L. 579. google scholar
24. Abdulaziz v United Kingdom [1985] EHRR 7 471. google scholar
25. Kafklaris v Cyprus [2008] Grand Chamber App No 21906/04. google scholar
26. Vinter and others v United Kingdom [2013] Grand Chamber App Nos 66069/09, 130/10 and 3896/10 google scholar
27. Vinter and othiers v United Kingdomn [2012]. google scholar
28. Crime Sentences Act 1997. google scholar
29. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966. google scholar
30. UN Human Rights Committee, CCPR General Comment No.28: Article 3 (The Equality of Rights Between Men and Women), March 29, 2000, UN Doc.CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.10 at para.15. google scholar