High levels of remand or pre-trial detention (PTD) is a matter of growing concern in many countries, and at a European level. Despite being responsible for a significant part of the prison population, PTD practice is rarely the focus of criminological and criminal justice research. This book examines pre-trial detention practices and different ways of reducing its use across Europe. Offering a range of country-specific studies, this book also offers comparative studies of major issues across the continent. In particular, this book illustrates and examines how the actors (judges, public prosecutors, defence lawyers) work in pre-trial proceedings and make decisions; the common challenges in PTD decision-making; the factors which explain higher and lower rates of PTD across Europe; similarities and differences in practice; and the ways in which cross-border cases in Europe influence policy and practice. Offering suggestions and recommendations for how to bring down the use of PTD in Europe, this book is essential reading for all those engaged with European penal research and practice.

This publication examines the rules in force in Europe governing prisons and the treatment of prisoners, including the use of force, the selection of prison staff and the protection of prisoners' human rights, based on Recommendation Rec (2006) 2 on the European Prison Rules (which was adopted by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe in January 2006). It contains the text of the recommendation with a detailed commentary on it, together with a report which considers recent developments and analyses the effectiveness of these rules and of imprisonment as a form of punishment.

Is there something distinctive about penology in Europe? Do Europeans think about punishment and penal policy in a different way to people in other parts of the globe? If so, why is this the case and how does it work in practice? This book addresses some major and pressing issues that have been emerging in recent years in the interdisciplinary field of 'European penology', that is, a space where legal scholarship, criminology, sociology and political science meet - or should meet - in order to make sense of punishment in Europe. The chapters in European Penology? have been written by leading scholars in the field and focus in particular on the interaction of European academic penology and national practice with European policies as developed by the Council of Europe and, increasingly, by the European Union.

The use of pre-trial detention has been criticized and debated frequently in Europe, and especially in the Netherlands. Questions are raised whether pre-trial detention is used too often and whether the practice of pre-trial detention is in line with standards set by the ECtHR. This research on pre-trial detention in the Netherlands is part of a broader EU wide research project on the application of pre-trial detention in a selected number of EU member states. Goal of the research project is collecting information on the legal framework on pre-trial detention and its application in practice in a selection of member states. This in order to inform the debate on the European level on the necessity of EU-legislation in this field. The research findings are based on questionnaires filled in by defence lawyers, observing pre-trial detention hearings, reviewing case files of closed cases and inter views with judges and prosecutors. The main conclusion of the Dutch research is that the Dutch legislation on pre-trial detention generally is in conformity with European standards. However, the practice of applying pre-trial detention falls somewhat short of these standards; especially the high percentage of pre-trial detention being ordered, the limited reasoning of decisions and the infrequent use of alternatives to pre-trial detention are noteworthy. (Series: Meijers Research Institute and Graduate School of the Leiden Law School of Leiden University) [Subject: Criminal Law and Procedure]

Every year, millions of people across Europe - innocent and guilty - are arrested and detained by the police. For some, their cases go no further than the police station, but many others eventually appear before a court. Many will spend time in custody both before and following trial. Initial attempts by the European Union to establish minimum procedural rights for suspects and defendants failed in 2007, in the face of opposition by a number of Member States who argued that the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) rendered EU regulation unnecessary. However, with ratification of the Lisbon Treaty, criminal defense rights are again on the agenda. Based on a three year research study, this book explores and compares access to effective defense in criminal proceedings across nine European jurisdictions (Belgium, England/Wales, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Poland, and Turkey) that constitute examples of the three major legal traditions in Europe: inquisitorial, adversarial, a

Is there really an over-representation of foreign citizens in European prisons? Is the presence of foreign inmates comparable across regions and countries of Europe? How can one explain the differences in the trends shown by the absolute numbers and the percentages of foreign inmates from 2005 to 2015? Do foreign citizens have less access than nationals to alternatives to imprisonment? Do the data available allow researchers to establish whether the growth in the use of community sanctions and measures since the 1990s plays a role in the fluctuations observed in the percentage of foreign inmates? The answers to these and many other questions can be found in this book, which compiles and updates a series of specific indicators collected over 11 years through the Council of Europe Annual Penal Statistics (better known as the SPACE statistics), and accompanies the two volumes on prisons in Europe 2005-2015 in this collection. This volume includes maps and tables illustrating the state of prison (2005-2015) and probation agencies (2009-2015). In addition, the situation is analysed through individual country profiles, which include key facts and graphs covering the years 2005-2015.

It is estimated that at any one time 4,500 EU nationals are held in custody in countries other than their normal place of residence. As they are less likely to be granted bail (because of a greater perceived of absconsions) the Commission has proposed a European supervision order (ESO), which would mean that authorities in a person's home State would also be responsible for returning them for trial. This report examines the proposal in detail and makes some recommendations for improvement. The Committee welcome the proposal and think it deserves prompt attention by Member States.

In India, a man spent 54 years behind bars in pretrial detention, waiting for a trial that would never happen because his file had been lost. In Nigeria, one study estimated that the average detainee waits over three years for his day in court. In Russia, pretrial detainees have begged for the chance to plead guilty, just so they can receive medical care. And in the United States, juvenile pretrial detainees have been forced to fight each other for their guards' amusement. Around the world, millions are effectively punished before they are tried. Legally entitled to be considered innocent and released pending trial, many accused are instead held in pretrial detention, where they are subjected to torture, exposed to life threatening disease, victimized by violence, and pressured for bribes. It is literally worse than being convicted: pretrial detainees routinely experience worse conditions than sentenced prisoners. The suicide rate among pretrial detainees is three times higher than among convicted prisoners, and ten times that of the outside community. Pretrial detention harms individuals, families, and communities; wastes state resources and human potential; and undermines the rule of law. The arbitrary and excessive use of pretrial detention is a massive and widely ignored pattern of human rights abuse that affects-by a conservative estimate-15 million people a year. The right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty is universal, but at this moment some 3.3 million people are behind bars, waiting for a trial that may be months or even years away. No right is so broadly accepted in theory, but so commonly violated in practice. It is fair to say that the global overuse of pretrial detention is the most overlooked human rights crisis of our time. Presumption of Cuilt examines the full consequences of the global overuse of pretrial detention. Combining statistical analysis, first-person accounts, graphics, and case studies of successful reforms, the report is the first to comprehensively document this widespread but frequently ignored form of human rights abuse. Book jacket.

"African Policing Civilian Oversight Forum."

Key recommendations -- Methodology -- I. Background -- II. Pretrial detention in California -- II. Bail leads to jailing people who are not guilty -- III. Bail and jail result in an unfair justice system -- IV. Bail devastates poor and middle-income defendants and households -- V. Does bail in California serve the legitimate purposes of pretrial detention? -- VI. Profile-based risk assessment -- VII. A better way: increased cite and release and individualized risk assessment -- IX. International human rights law.