Challenging the Ongoing Injustice of Imprisonment for Public Protection: James, Wells and Lee v The United Kingdom
The Government has recently abolished Imprisonment for Public Protection, a highly controversial form of indeterminate sentence. Yet, at the time of writing, nearly 6,000 inmates are still serving such sentences, all of whom will have to convince a Parole Board that detention is no longer necessary...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Modern law review 2013-11, Vol.76 (6), p.1094-1105 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 1105 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 6 |
| container_start_page | 1094 |
| container_title | Modern law review |
| container_volume | 76 |
| creator | Bettinson, Vanessa Dingwall, Gavin |
| description | The Government has recently abolished Imprisonment for Public Protection, a highly controversial form of indeterminate sentence. Yet, at the time of writing, nearly 6,000 inmates are still serving such sentences, all of whom will have to convince a Parole Board that detention is no longer necessary for the protection of the public. This paper evaluates recent European Court of Human Rights jurisprudence which considered the legality of post-tariff detention in the absence of suitable rehabilitative provision. The Court held that there would be a violation of Article 5(1) if prisoners were held without access to such provision. Consideration is given to the implications of this ruling for those serving such sentences and, more broadly, to the impact it may have on risk-based sentencing policies. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1111/1468-2230.12041 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>jstor_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1464513402</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><informt_id>10.3316/agispt.20200722033858</informt_id><jstor_id>24029790</jstor_id><sourcerecordid>24029790</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-j4401-90fbf084d7aa5ce01daa0b33012ab00df5ad4625b5dac9617a2a37aff590a3b93</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNkU1v1DAQhi0EEkvhzAnJEhcOBMZfccINraBdWNQKteJoOYmTdZTYi-2A-u_rdKEHTvji8eidxzPvIPSSwDuSz3vCy6qglOUnBU4eoc1D5jHaANCykHVJnqJnMY4AIKiQGxS2Bz1Nxg3WDTgdDL50g1_jnRuXmGxrsO_xbj4GG72bjUu49wFfLc1kW3wVfDJtst59wF_0bOJb_MNMU8TadXhvDP6FrzPzxtlkOvw1czs_P0dPej1F8-LPfYZuPn-63l4U-8vz3fbjvhg5B1LU0Dc9VLyTWovWAOm0hoYxIFQ3AF0vdMdLKhrR6TYPJjXVTOq-FzVo1tTsDL05cY_B_1xMTGq2sc3taWf8ElW2hwvCOND_kZKS11CWWfr6H-nol-DyIFnFJReVlOvf4qT6bSdzq7J7sw63ioBad7XyKrVuRt3vSn3bf78Pct3FqS7MNik92HhMKhod2oOyLju_pn0YVOftSmOMlH9lFCiApBQYq0SVUa9OqDEmHx5aoHneWtbA7gD8yqmM</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1447458779</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Challenging the Ongoing Injustice of Imprisonment for Public Protection: James, Wells and Lee v The United Kingdom</title><source>Wiley Journals</source><source>HeinOnline Law Journal Library</source><source>JSTOR Archive Collection A-Z Listing</source><creator>Bettinson, Vanessa ; Dingwall, Gavin</creator><creatorcontrib>Bettinson, Vanessa ; Dingwall, Gavin</creatorcontrib><description>The Government has recently abolished Imprisonment for Public Protection, a highly controversial form of indeterminate sentence. Yet, at the time of writing, nearly 6,000 inmates are still serving such sentences, all of whom will have to convince a Parole Board that detention is no longer necessary for the protection of the public. This paper evaluates recent European Court of Human Rights jurisprudence which considered the legality of post-tariff detention in the absence of suitable rehabilitative provision. The Court held that there would be a violation of Article 5(1) if prisoners were held without access to such provision. Consideration is given to the implications of this ruling for those serving such sentences and, more broadly, to the impact it may have on risk-based sentencing policies.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0026-7961</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1468-2230</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/1468-2230.12041</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Oxford: John Wiley & Sons Ltd</publisher><subject>Article 5 ECHR ; Court decisions ; Criminal justice ; Criminal justice, Administration of ; Criminal law ; Criminal sentences ; Criminal sentencing ; Criminals ; Determinate sentences ; Europe ; European Court of Human Rights ; Imprisonment ; Imprisonment for Public Protection ; Indeterminate sentences ; Jurisprudence ; Modern law ; Parole boards ; Prisoners ; Prisons ; Rehabilitation ; risk‐based sentences ; Sentenced offenders ; Tariffs ; United Kingdom</subject><ispartof>Modern law review, 2013-11, Vol.76 (6), p.1094-1105</ispartof><rights>copyright © 2013 The Modern Law Review Limited</rights><rights>2013 The Authors. The Modern Law Review © 2013 The Modern Law Review Limited</rights><rights>2013 The Modern Law Review Limited</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/24029790$$EPDF$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/24029790$$EHTML$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,803,1417,27924,27925,45574,45575,58017,58250</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Bettinson, Vanessa</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dingwall, Gavin</creatorcontrib><title>Challenging the Ongoing Injustice of Imprisonment for Public Protection: James, Wells and Lee v The United Kingdom</title><title>Modern law review</title><description>The Government has recently abolished Imprisonment for Public Protection, a highly controversial form of indeterminate sentence. Yet, at the time of writing, nearly 6,000 inmates are still serving such sentences, all of whom will have to convince a Parole Board that detention is no longer necessary for the protection of the public. This paper evaluates recent European Court of Human Rights jurisprudence which considered the legality of post-tariff detention in the absence of suitable rehabilitative provision. The Court held that there would be a violation of Article 5(1) if prisoners were held without access to such provision. Consideration is given to the implications of this ruling for those serving such sentences and, more broadly, to the impact it may have on risk-based sentencing policies.</description><subject>Article 5 ECHR</subject><subject>Court decisions</subject><subject>Criminal justice</subject><subject>Criminal justice, Administration of</subject><subject>Criminal law</subject><subject>Criminal sentences</subject><subject>Criminal sentencing</subject><subject>Criminals</subject><subject>Determinate sentences</subject><subject>Europe</subject><subject>European Court of Human Rights</subject><subject>Imprisonment</subject><subject>Imprisonment for Public Protection</subject><subject>Indeterminate sentences</subject><subject>Jurisprudence</subject><subject>Modern law</subject><subject>Parole boards</subject><subject>Prisoners</subject><subject>Prisons</subject><subject>Rehabilitation</subject><subject>risk‐based sentences</subject><subject>Sentenced offenders</subject><subject>Tariffs</subject><subject>United Kingdom</subject><issn>0026-7961</issn><issn>1468-2230</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2013</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNqNkU1v1DAQhi0EEkvhzAnJEhcOBMZfccINraBdWNQKteJoOYmTdZTYi-2A-u_rdKEHTvji8eidxzPvIPSSwDuSz3vCy6qglOUnBU4eoc1D5jHaANCykHVJnqJnMY4AIKiQGxS2Bz1Nxg3WDTgdDL50g1_jnRuXmGxrsO_xbj4GG72bjUu49wFfLc1kW3wVfDJtst59wF_0bOJb_MNMU8TadXhvDP6FrzPzxtlkOvw1czs_P0dPej1F8-LPfYZuPn-63l4U-8vz3fbjvhg5B1LU0Dc9VLyTWovWAOm0hoYxIFQ3AF0vdMdLKhrR6TYPJjXVTOq-FzVo1tTsDL05cY_B_1xMTGq2sc3taWf8ElW2hwvCOND_kZKS11CWWfr6H-nol-DyIFnFJReVlOvf4qT6bSdzq7J7sw63ioBad7XyKrVuRt3vSn3bf78Pct3FqS7MNik92HhMKhod2oOyLju_pn0YVOftSmOMlH9lFCiApBQYq0SVUa9OqDEmHx5aoHneWtbA7gD8yqmM</recordid><startdate>201311</startdate><enddate>201311</enddate><creator>Bettinson, Vanessa</creator><creator>Dingwall, Gavin</creator><general>John Wiley & Sons Ltd</general><general>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</general><scope>8BJ</scope><scope>FQK</scope><scope>JBE</scope><scope>K7.</scope><scope>7U1</scope><scope>7U2</scope><scope>C1K</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201311</creationdate><title>Challenging the Ongoing Injustice of Imprisonment for Public Protection: James, Wells and Lee v The United Kingdom</title><author>Bettinson, Vanessa ; Dingwall, Gavin</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-j4401-90fbf084d7aa5ce01daa0b33012ab00df5ad4625b5dac9617a2a37aff590a3b93</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2013</creationdate><topic>Article 5 ECHR</topic><topic>Court decisions</topic><topic>Criminal justice</topic><topic>Criminal justice, Administration of</topic><topic>Criminal law</topic><topic>Criminal sentences</topic><topic>Criminal sentencing</topic><topic>Criminals</topic><topic>Determinate sentences</topic><topic>Europe</topic><topic>European Court of Human Rights</topic><topic>Imprisonment</topic><topic>Imprisonment for Public Protection</topic><topic>Indeterminate sentences</topic><topic>Jurisprudence</topic><topic>Modern law</topic><topic>Parole boards</topic><topic>Prisoners</topic><topic>Prisons</topic><topic>Rehabilitation</topic><topic>risk‐based sentences</topic><topic>Sentenced offenders</topic><topic>Tariffs</topic><topic>United Kingdom</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Bettinson, Vanessa</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dingwall, Gavin</creatorcontrib><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>ProQuest Criminal Justice (Alumni)</collection><collection>Risk Abstracts</collection><collection>Safety Science and Risk</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><jtitle>Modern law review</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Bettinson, Vanessa</au><au>Dingwall, Gavin</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Challenging the Ongoing Injustice of Imprisonment for Public Protection: James, Wells and Lee v The United Kingdom</atitle><jtitle>Modern law review</jtitle><date>2013-11</date><risdate>2013</risdate><volume>76</volume><issue>6</issue><spage>1094</spage><epage>1105</epage><pages>1094-1105</pages><issn>0026-7961</issn><eissn>1468-2230</eissn><abstract>The Government has recently abolished Imprisonment for Public Protection, a highly controversial form of indeterminate sentence. Yet, at the time of writing, nearly 6,000 inmates are still serving such sentences, all of whom will have to convince a Parole Board that detention is no longer necessary for the protection of the public. This paper evaluates recent European Court of Human Rights jurisprudence which considered the legality of post-tariff detention in the absence of suitable rehabilitative provision. The Court held that there would be a violation of Article 5(1) if prisoners were held without access to such provision. Consideration is given to the implications of this ruling for those serving such sentences and, more broadly, to the impact it may have on risk-based sentencing policies.</abstract><cop>Oxford</cop><pub>John Wiley & Sons Ltd</pub><doi>10.1111/1468-2230.12041</doi><tpages>12</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0026-7961 |
| ispartof | Modern law review, 2013-11, Vol.76 (6), p.1094-1105 |
| issn | 0026-7961 1468-2230 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1464513402 |
| source | Wiley Journals; HeinOnline Law Journal Library; JSTOR Archive Collection A-Z Listing |
| subjects | Article 5 ECHR Court decisions Criminal justice Criminal justice, Administration of Criminal law Criminal sentences Criminal sentencing Criminals Determinate sentences Europe European Court of Human Rights Imprisonment Imprisonment for Public Protection Indeterminate sentences Jurisprudence Modern law Parole boards Prisoners Prisons Rehabilitation risk‐based sentences Sentenced offenders Tariffs United Kingdom |
| title | Challenging the Ongoing Injustice of Imprisonment for Public Protection: James, Wells and Lee v The United Kingdom |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-29T07%3A19%3A24IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-jstor_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Challenging%20the%20Ongoing%20Injustice%20of%20Imprisonment%20for%20Public%20Protection:%20James,%20Wells%20and%20Lee%20v%20The%20United%20Kingdom&rft.jtitle=Modern%20law%20review&rft.au=Bettinson,%20Vanessa&rft.date=2013-11&rft.volume=76&rft.issue=6&rft.spage=1094&rft.epage=1105&rft.pages=1094-1105&rft.issn=0026-7961&rft.eissn=1468-2230&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/1468-2230.12041&rft_dat=%3Cjstor_proqu%3E24029790%3C/jstor_proqu%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1447458779&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_informt_id=10.3316/agispt.20200722033858&rft_jstor_id=24029790&rfr_iscdi=true |