• Login
    View Item 
    •   DORA Home
    • Faculty of Business and Law
    • Leicester De Montfort Law School
    • Department of Law
    • View Item
    •   DORA Home
    • Faculty of Business and Law
    • Leicester De Montfort Law School
    • Department of Law
    • View Item
    JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.

    Indeterminate Sentencing: Synthesising public protection, rehabilitation and human rights obligations

    Thumbnail
    Date
    2014
    Author
    Bettinson, Vanessa;
    Dingwall, Gavin
    Metadata
    Show attachments and full item record
    Abstract
    England and Wales, like many comparable jurisdictions, has relied increasingly upon measures designed to protect the public from offenders perceived to pose a danger. Incapacitative sentencing is inherently problematic as prediction is highly unreliable and this leads to manifest injustice when those wrongly categorised are incarcerated for lengthy periods. Alternative objectives are marginalised when public protection is paramount. This is logical: if an offender will never be released, why try to rehabilitate him? Our contention is that incapacitation should not be pursued in isolation. Taking 'natural life' sentences and Imprisonment for Public Protection as examples, we develop an argument that jurisprudence from the European Court of Human Rights allows states to adopt incapacitative strategies only where suitable rehabilitative provision is available. As provision is chronically under-resourced at present, we contend that this jurisprudence jeopardises any strategy which is solely incapacitative. Instead, what is required is a synthesis of the (apparently distinct) objectives of protecting the rights of offenders, including the right to rehabilitation, with protecting public safety.
    Description
    Citation : Bettinson, V. and Dingwall, G. (2014) Indeterminate Sentencing: Synthesising public protection, rehabilitation and human rights obligations. Contemporary Issues in Law, 13 (3), pp. 215-228
    URI
    http://hdl.handle.net/2086/10997
    ISSN : 1357-0374
    Research Institute : Institute for Evidence-Based Law Reform (IELR)
    Peer Reviewed : Yes
    Collections
    • Department of Law [682]

    Submission Guide | Reporting Guide | Reporting Tool | DMU Open Access Libguide | Take Down Policy | Connect with DORA
    DMU LIbrary
     

     

    Browse

    All of DORACommunities & CollectionsAuthorsTitlesSubjects/KeywordsResearch InstituteBy Publication DateBy Submission DateThis CollectionAuthorsTitlesSubjects/KeywordsResearch InstituteBy Publication DateBy Submission Date

    My Account

    Login

    Submission Guide | Reporting Guide | Reporting Tool | DMU Open Access Libguide | Take Down Policy | Connect with DORA
    DMU LIbrary