ENGAGING THE PROBATION SERVICE IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS IN THE REPUBLIC OF SERBIA BEFORE THE IMPOSITION OF ALTERNATIVE SANCTION

  • Dijana Dobrivoje Jankovic Judge of the Appellate Court in Nis
Keywords: Key words: alternative sanctions, pre-trial reports, Probation Service, personality of the defendant, sentence.

Abstract

Abstract: The topic of the paper is reviewing the relationship between the probation service and the judiciary in the Netherlands and UK, and the possibility of engaging the Probation Service in criminal proceedings in the Republic of Serbia before the imposition of a criminal sanction (in the form of giving reports and recommendations to judges or public prosecutors on the pronouncement of an alternative sanction).  In this regard, the paper discusses the legal possibilities in Serbia: Does the court or public prosecutor under the Serbian Criminal Procedure Code have the authority to request a report on the personality of the defendant from the Probation Officer in the pre-trial criminal proceedings or in the phase of main trial (before the decision on the criminal sanction)? The paper also discusses a possible proposal to amend the Law on the Execution of Non-Custodial Sanctions and Measures and Serbian Criminal Procedure Code in these areas.

 

References

REFERENCES

• Andrews, D.A., Bonta, J. and Wormith, J.S (2011). The Risk-Need-Responsivity (RNR) Model : Does Adding the Good Lives Model Contribute to Effective Crime Prevention?. Criminal Justice and Behavior, Vol. 38(7). 735-755.
• Boone, M. and M. Moerings (2007). Growing Prison Rates’ in: M. Boone and M. Moerings (eds.) Dutch Prisons, 51-76. The Hague: BJu Legal publishers.
• Cabinet Office (2011) Modernising Commissioning: Increasing the role of charities, social enterprises, mutuals and cooperatives in public service delivery, London: Cabinet Office.
• Corstens, G.J.M. (2009) Het Nederlandse Strafprocesrecht. Deventer: Kluwer.
• Clobusa,F. (2018). An introduction on the Dutch probation practice. Matra Rule of Law Training Pregramme,Veenhuizen, Netherlands.
• CPT (2008) Report to the authorities of the Kingdom of the Netherlands on the visits carried out to the Kingdom in Europe, Aruba, and the Netherlands Antilles by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) in June 2007. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.
Available online at: https://www.refworld.org/docid/47a86f912.html (last accessed 19 July 2020).
• Fox, A. (2012). Personalisation: Lessons from Social Care, London: RSA.
• Fox, A., Fox, C. and Marsh, C. (2013). Could personalisation reduce re-offending? Reflections on potential lessons from British social care reform for the British criminal justice system. Journal of Social Policy Vol.42(4). 721 – 741.
• Fox. C, Fox. A., Marsh, C. (2014). Personalisation in the criminal justice system: what is the potential?. Criminal Justice Alliance. March 2014.
• Heard, C., Ford, М. (2015). Alternatives to prison in Europe. United Kingdom, European Prison Observatory, Alternatives to detention, Rome.
• Jacobs, M., M. von Bergh and A.M. van Kalmthout (2006). Toepassing van Bijzondere Voorwaarden bij Voorwaardelijke Vrijheidsstraf en Schorsing van de Voorlopige Hechtenis bij Volwassenen. The Hague: WODC.
• Jescheck, H.H. (1996). Lehrbuch des Strafrechts, AllgemeinerTeil,5. Auflage, Berlin.
• Kalmthout van, A.M. and L. Tigges (2008). The Netherlands in: A.M. van Kalmthout and I. Durnescu (eds.) Probation in Europe, pp. 677-725. Nijmegen: Wolf Legal Publishers.
• Lappi-Seppälä, T., (2012). Explaining national differences in the use of imprisonment “, in: S. Snacken, E. Dumortier, (Eds.), Resisting punitiveness in Europe? Welfare, human rights and democracy, Oxon: Routledge.
• Prison Population Projections 2014 – 2020 England and Wales. (2014). MOJ Statistics Bulletin.
• Prakken, T. and T. Spronken (2007). The Investigative Stage of the Criminal Process in the Netherlands in: E. Cape et al. Suspects in Europe, pp. 155-179. Antwerp-Oxford: Intersentia.
• Policy Briefing by Criminal Justice Alliance, Personalisation in the criminal justice system (2013). Available online at:
http://criminaljusticealliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Personalisation_in_the_CJS.pdf (last accessed 19 July 2020).
• Roxin, C. (1997) Strafrecht, AllgemeinerTeil, Band I.Grundlagen. Der Aufbau der Verbrechenslehre, Verlag C.H.Beck, München.
• Review of efficiency in criminal proceedings, Rt Hon Sir Brian Leveson (January 2015), Available online at: https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/review-of-efficiency-in-criminal-proceedings-20151.pdf (last accessed 19 July 2020).
• Stevens, L. (2013). The Meaning of the Presumption of Innocence for Pre-trial Detention. An Empirical Approach “, Netherlands Journal of Legal Philosophy.
• Stevens, L. (2009). Pre-trial detention: The presumption of innocence and Article 5 of the European convention on human rights cannot and does not limit its increasing use. 165-180. European Journal of Crime, Criminal Law and Criminal Justice.
• United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for Non-custodial Measures - The Tokyo Rules (1990), А/RES/45/110.
• Tak, P.J.P. (2008) The Dutch Criminal Justice System. Nijmegen: Wolf Legal Publishers.
• Tigges L. (2018). The Dutch Probation in European Perspective. Matra Rule of Law Training Pregramme - Detention and Alternative Sanctions, The Hague, October 8th, 2018.
Published
2020-11-27
Section
Criminalistic and Criminal Justice Aspects in Solving and Proving of Criminal Of