DENETİMLİ SERBESTLİK HALA MÜMKÜN MÜDÜR?

Yıl 2014, Cilt: 4 Sayı: 12, 11 - 39, 01.01.2014

Peter Raynor Hakan A. Yavuz , Süleyman Özar

Öz

Bu makale, Cambridge Üniversitesi Kriminoloji Enstitüsü’nde 22 Haziran 2011 tarihinde yapılan 14. Bill McWilliams Memorial Konferansı’nda sunulan tebliğe dayanmaktadır. Çalışma İngiltere ve Galler’deki denetimli serbestlik servislerinin denetimli serbestliğin başlangıçtaki teori ve uygulamasıyla yerleşen temel özellikleri ve 20. yüzyılın son çeyreğindeki iyi sicili ve ünü ile günümüzdeki ve muhtemel gelecekteki durumu arasındaki çelişkiye ilişkindir. Politik ve sosyal değişimler bağlamında İngiltere ve Galler’deki denetimli serbestlik servislerinin yakın tarihi ve ceza siyasetine yardımcı olmaktan uzaklaşan bir kurumun erken dönem perspektifiyle ortak yanlarını an itibariyle ne kadar muhafaza edebileceğine dair kuşkuların izlerini sürer. Son olarak, gelecekteki bazı ihtimaller onları destekleyebilecek ya da engelleyebilecek siyasi koşullar dikkate alınarak tartışılmıştır

Anahtar Kelimeler

özelleştirme, denetimli serbestlik, cezalandırma, cezalandırılma, refah, refah devletleri

Kaynakça

• Andrews, D.A. and Bonta, J. (2010) The Psychology of Criminal Conduct, New Providence, NJ.: Anderson Publishing.
• Bonta, J. (2004) ‘Effective practice: state of the art – or science?’ in: D. Andrews, C. Hollin, P. Raynor, C. Trotter and B. Armstrong, Personal Effectiveness in Working with Offenders, Dinas Powys: Cognitive Centre Foundation.
• Bonta, J., Bourgon, G., Rugge, T., Scott, T., Yessine, A., Gutierrez, L. and Li, J. (2010) The Strategic Training Initiative in Community Supervision: Risk-needresponsivity in the Real World (Corrections Research User Report 2010–01), Ottawa, ON.: Public Safety Canada.
• Bottoms, A.E. and McWilliams, W. (1979) ‘A non-treatment paradigm for probation practice’, British Journal of Social Work, 9, 159–202.
• Bridges, A. (2011) Probation and Youth Offending Work: A Tribute to Those who do it Well, London: HM Inspectorate of Probation.
• Brody, S.R. (1976) The Effectiveness of Sentencing (Home Office Research Study 35), London: HMSO.
• Cavadino, M. and Dignan, J. (2006) Penal Systems: A Comparative Approach, London: Sage.
• Christie, N. (1981) Limits to Pain, Oxford: Martin Robertson. Correctional Service of Canada (2002) Circles of Support and Accountability: A Guide to Training Potential Volunteers, Ottawa, ON.: Correctional Service of Canada.
• Devos, A. (2009) ‘Balans van het 10-jarig bestaan van de justitiehuizen’ [‘Assessing the results of ten years of the Houses of Justice’] (unpublished speech to the ten-year Colloquium of the Houses of Justice, Brussels, 2 December. Translation by Aline Bauwens).
• Dowden, C. and Andrews, D. (2004) ‘The importance of staff practice in delivering effective correctional treatment: a meta-analysis’, International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 48, 203–14.
• Downes, D. and Hansen, K. (2006) Welfare and Punishment: The Relationship Between Welfare Spending and Imprisonment (Briefing 2), London: Crime and Society Foundation.
• Duff, A. (2001) Punishment, Communication and Community, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Durnescu, I. (2011) ‘Pains of probation: effective practice and human rights’, International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 55, 530–45.
• Folkard, M.S., Smith, D.E. and Smith, D.D. (1976) IMPACT Volume II: The Results of the Experiment (Home Office Research Study 36), London: HMSO.
• Garland, D. (1997) ‘Probation and the reconfiguration of crime control’, in: R. Burnett (Ed.), The Probation Service: Responding to Change (Proceedings of the Probation Studies Unit First Colloquium: Probation Studies Unit Report No. 3), Oxford: University of Oxford Centre for Criminological Research.
• Gendreau, P. and Andrews, D. (2001) The Correctional Program Assessment Inventory (CPAI) 2000, Saint John, NB.: University of New Brunswick.
• Grünhut, M. (1952) ‘Probation in Germany’, Howard Journal, 8, 168–74.
• Hart, H.L.A. (1968) Punishment and Responsibility, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Hollis, V. (2007) Reconviction Analysis of Programme Data Using Interim Accredited Programmes Software (IAPS), London: National Offender Management Service.
• Home Office (1984) Probation Service in England and Wales: Statement of National Objectives and Priorities, London: Home Office.
• Home Office (1995) Strengthening Punishment in the Community, Cm. 2780. House of Commons (2011) The Role of the Probation Service (Justice Committee Report), London: House of Commons.
• Ledger, J. (2010) ‘Rehabilitation revolution: will probation pay the price?’, Probation Journal, 57, 415–22.
• Lewis, S. (2005) ‘Rehabilitation: headline or footnote in the new penal policy?’, Probation Journal, 52, 119–35.
• London Probation Trust (2011) Available at: http://www.london-probation. org.uk (accessed 19 June 2011).
• Lopez-Rey, M. (1957) ‘United Nations activities and international trends in probation’, Howard Journal, 9, 346–53.
• Lowenkamp, C., Latessa, E. and Smith, P. (2006) ‘Does correctional program quality really matter? The impact of adhering to the principles of effective intervention’, Criminology and Public Policy, 5, 575–94.
• Mantle, G. (2006) ‘Probation: dead, dying or poorly?’, Howard Journal, 45, 321–4.
• Martinson, R. (1974) ‘What works? Questions and answers about prison reform’, The Public Interest, 35, 22–54.
• McGuire, J. (2004) Understanding Psychology and Crime, Maidenhead: Open University Press.
• McKnight, J. (2009) ‘Speaking up for probation’, Howard Journal, 48, 327–43.
• McNeill, F. (2011) ‘Probation, credibility and justice’, Probation Journal, 58, 9–22.
• McNeill, F., Raynor, P. and Trotter, C. (Eds.) (2010) Offender Supervision: New Directions in Theory, Research and Practice, Abingdon: Willan.
• McWilliams, W. (1983) ‘The mission to the English police courts 1876–1936’, Howard Journal, 22, 129–47.
• McWilliams, W. (1985) ‘The mission transformed: professionalisation of probation between the wars’, Howard Journal, 24, 257–74.
• McWilliams, W. (1986) ‘The English probation system and the diagnostic ideal’, Howard Journal, 25, 241–60.
• McWilliams, W. (1987) ‘Probation, pragmatism and policy’, Howard Journal, 26, 97–121. Merrington, S. and Hine, J. (2001) Evaluating Probation Work with Offenders, London: Home Office.
• Mills, H., Silvestri, A. and Grimshaw, R. with Silberhorn-Armantrading, F. (2010) Prison and Probation Expenditure 1999–2009, London: Centre for Crime and Justice Studies.
• Ministry of Justice (2010a) Offender Management Caseload Statistics 2009, London: Ministry of Justice.
• Ministry of Justice (2010b) Breaking the Cycle: Effective Punishment, Rehabilitation and Sentencing of Offenders, Cm. 7972.
• Ministry of Justice (2011) Criminal Justice Statistics Quarterly Update to December 2010, London: Ministry of Justice.
• National Audit Office (2009) The National Offender Management Information System, London: National Audit Office.
• National Probation Service (2001) A New Choreography, London: National Probation Service for England and Wales.
• Nellis, M. (2004) ‘Into the field of corrections: the end of English probation in the early 21st century?’ Cambrian Law Review, 35, 115–34.
• Oldfield, M. and Grimshaw, R. (2010) Probation Resources, Staffing and Workloads 2001–2008, London: Centre for Crime and Justice Studies.
• Parker, T. (1966) The Unknown Citizen, Harmondsworth: Penguin. Probation Board for Northern Ireland (2011) Available at: http://%20www. pbni.org.uk(accessed 19 June 2011).
• Radzinowicz, L. (Ed.) (1958) The Results of Probation (A Report of the Cambridge Department of Criminal Science), London: Macmillan.
• Ramsbotham, D. (2010) Hansard, House of Lords Debates, vol. 716, part 30, col. 1146, 21January 2010.
• Ravagnani, L. (2011) Personal communication to members of the European Society of Criminology’s Working Group on Community Sanctions, 13 June.
• Raynor, P. (1985) Social Work, Justice and Control, Oxford: Blackwell.
• Raynor, P. (2007) ‘Community penalties: probation, “what works” and offender management’, in: M. Maguire, R. Morgan and R. Reiner (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Criminology, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Raynor, P. (2011) The Jersey Supervision Skills Study (Offender Engagement Research Bulletin), London: Ministry of Justice.
• Raynor, P. and Robinson, G. (2009) Rehabilitation, Crime and Justice, 2nd edn, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Raynor, P. and Vanstone, M. (1997) Straight Thinking On Probation (STOP): The Mid Glamorgan Experiment (Probation Studies Unit Report No. 4), Oxford: University of Oxford Centre for Criminological Research.
• Raynor, P. and Vanstone, M. (2001) ‘Straight Thinking On Probation: evidencebased practice and the culture of curiosity’, in: G. Bernfeld, D. Farrington and A. Leschied (Eds.), Offender Rehabilitation in Practice, Chichester: Wiley.
• Raynor, P., Ugwudike, P. and Vanstone, M. (2010) ‘Skills and strategies in probation supervision: the Jersey study’, in: F. McNeill, P. Raynor and C. Trotter (Eds.), Offender Supervision: New Directions in Theory, Research and Practice, Abingdon: Willan.
• Reid, J. (2006) Speech to Wormwood Scrubs Prison, 7 November. Rex, S. (2005) Reforming Community Penalties, Cullompton: Willan.
• Rotman, E. (1990) Beyond Punishment: A New View of the Rehabilitation of Offenders, Westport, CT.: Greenwood Press.
• Shaw, M. (1974) Social Work in Prisons (Home Office Research Study 22), London: HMSO.
• Sherman, L. and Strang, H. (2007) Restorative Justice: The Evidence, London: The Smith Institute.
• Straw, J. (2008) Speech to Royal Society of Arts, 27 October.
• Taxman, F., Yancey, C. and Bilanin, J. (2006) Proactive Community Supervision in Maryland: Changing Offender Outcomes, Richmond, VA.: Virginia Commonwealth University and University of Maryland.
• Tyler, T. (1990) Why People Obey the Law, New Haven, CT.: Yale University Press. Underdown, A. (1998) Strategies for Effective Offender Supervision: Report of the HMIP What Works Project, London: Home Office.
• Vanstone, M. (1993) ‘A “missed opportunity” re-assessed: the influence of the day training centre experiment on the criminal justice system and probation policy and practice’, British Journal of Social Work, 23, 213–29.
• Vanstone, M. and Raynor, P. (2010) ‘Supervising freedom: the philosophy, values and historical origins of probation’, in: M. Herzog-Evans (Ed.), Transnational Criminology Manual, vol. 3, Nijmegen, the Netherlands: Wolf Legal Publishers.
• Walker, N., Farrington, D. and Tucker, G. (1981) ‘Reconviction rates of adult males after different sentences’, British Journal of Criminology, 21, 357–60.