PREVENTION OF CRIMINAL OFFENSES AMONG PERSONS WHO ARE ON THE RECORD OF THE AUTHORIZED BODY FOR PROBATION ISSUES (ANALYSIS OF FOREIGN POSITIVE PRACTICES)
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.32782/2709-9261-2022-1-5-25Keywords:
prevention of criminal offenses, authorized body on probation issues, repeated criminal offenses, determinants of crime, best correctional practices.Abstract
The article is devoted to the analysis of foreign positive practices in the prevention of criminal offenses among persons who are on the record of the authorized body for probation issues. The author analyses the best practices of foreign countries where the probation system is already successfully functioning. The main determinants of repeated criminal offenses, which can be committed by persons who are on the records of the authorized body on probation issues, are investigated. The author draws attention to various factors that can influence the commission of repeated offenses, such as a criminal past, being in places of isolation and interacting with a criminal subculture. The impact of economic conditions, social environment, drug and alcohol use, as well as control and supervision by probation services on reducing the risk of reoffending is taken into account. The study reflects the importance of social adaptation and support in reducing criminal behaviour. Attention is drawn to the best correctional practices that can be used by national institutions in order to improve the prevention of criminal offenses among persons who are on the record of an authorized probation authority.
References
Колодчин Д., Кухар В. Уповноважений орган з питань пробації як суб’єкт запобігання кримінальним правопорушенням. Право.ua. 2022. № 4. С. 96–103.
Laub J.H. & Sampson R.J. The Sutherland-Glueck Debate: On the Sociology of Criminological Knowledge. American Journal of Sociology. 1991. № 96 (6). Р 1402–1440.
Халимон С.І. Запобігання злочинам серед осіб, які перебувають на обліку в кримінально-виконавчій інспекції : дис. … канд. юрид. наук : 12.00.08. Дніпропетровськ, 254 с.
Robert L. Dugdale, The Jukes: A Studyin Crime, Pauperism, Disease, and Heredity. New York : G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1891. P. 127.
Goring C. The English Convict (Montclair N.J.: Patterson Smith, 1972, first published in 1913).
Whitehead P. and Statham R. The History of Probation: Politics, Power and Cultural Change 1876–2005. Crayford: Shaw & Sons. 2006. P. 327.
Maguire M., Raynor P., Vanstone M. et al. Voluntary after-care and the probation service: A case of diminishing responsibility. The Howard Journal of Criminal Justice. 2000. № 39 (3). Р. 234–248.
Maguire M. The resettlement of ex-prisoners. Gelsthorpe L and Morgan R (eds) Handbook of Probation. Cullompton : Willan. 2007. Р. 398–424.
Raynor P. Opportunity, motivation and change: some findings from research on resettlement. Burnett R and Roberts C (eds) What Works in Probation and Youth Justice. Cullompton : Willan. 2004. Р. 217–233.
Deering J. and Feilzer M. Transforming Rehabilitation: Is Privatisation the End of the Probation Deal? Bristol : Policy Pressю 2015. P. 112.
Petersilia J. When Prisoners come Home: Parole and Prisoner Reentry. New York : Oxford University Press. 2003. P. 278.
Wilson J.Q. Thinking About Crime. New York : Basic Books 1975. P. 250.
Wilson J.Q. and Kelling G.L. Broken windows. Atlantic Monthly, March, 1982. Р. 29–38.
Fernando R. Desistance from crime and probation supervision: Comparing experiences of English and French probationers. Probation Journal. № 68 (2). 2021. P. 224–242. URL: https://doi.org/10.1177/02645505211012062
Phillips J., Albertson K., Collinson B., and Fowler A. Delivering desistancefocused probation in community hubs: Fivekey ingredients. Probation Journal. 2020. Vol. 67 (3). Р. 264–282. DOI: 10.1177/0264550520939176
Dominey J. The Use of Community Hubs to Deliver Probation Supervision. Cambridge: Institute of Criminology. URL: https://www.ccgsj.crim.cam.ac.uk/research/community-hubs.
Ягунов Д.В. Пенітенціарна політика як складова соціального контролю : дис. … докт. політ. наук. Вінниця, 2021. 460 с.
Ehrlich I. On the Usefulness of Controlling Individuals: An Economic Analysis of Rehabilitation, Incapacitation and Deterrence. American Economic Review. № 71 (3). 1981. Р. 307–322.
Buonanno P. The Socioeconomic Determinants of Crime. A Review of the Literature. Working paper series. Department of economics university of Milan – Bicocca, 2003. P. 33.
Western B. Homeward: life in the Year After Prison. New York : Russell Sage, 2018. P. 234.
Hirschi T. & Rudisill D. The Great American Search: Causes of Crime 1876–1976. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. № 423 (1). 1976. Р. 14–22. URL: https://doi.org/10.1177/000271627642300103
Dowden C. and Andrews D. The importance of staff practice in delivering effective correctional treatment: a metaanalytic review of core correctional practice. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology. № 48 (2). 2004. P. 203–214.
Sanders M., Jones L., & Briggs E. A What Works Centre for Probation: Challenges and possibilities. Probation Journal. № 69 (1) 2022. P. 107–114. URL: https://doi.org/10.1177/02645505211025077
Шеремета О.С. Органи місцевого самоврядування як субєкт запобігання злочинам : автореф. дис. … докт. юрид. наук : 12.00.08. Харків, 2018. 38 с.
Виконання покарань, не пов’язаних з позбавленням волі, та основи пробації: Курс лекцій / під ред. І.Г. Богатирьова. Чернігів : Просвіта, 2007. 336 с.
Haas, S.M. & Spence, D.H. Use of Core Correctional Practice and Inmate Preparedness for Release. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology. № 61 (13). 2017. P. 1455–1478. URL: https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X15625992.
