Prison leave and access to justice: Some insight into Danish and German law in action
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.35295/osls.iisl/0000-0000-0000-1355Keywords:
Access to justice, prison leave, discretion, law in action, comparative criminal justice, Acceso a la justicia, permisos penitenciarios, discrecionalidad, derecho en acción, justicia penal comparadaAbstract
In this article, we use the example of prison leave to discuss prisoners’ access to justice. Based on a functional comparative analysis between Denmark and Germany, we study the law in action. In Germany, prisoners have a legally prescribed right of access to the courts in cases of denial of prison leave. However, in Denmark prisoners face more barriers when trying to access the court. In our analysis, we have compared Danish court cases with letters from German prisoners referring to their struggles with prison administrations and courts. The materials from both countries show more similarities than one would expect, given the significant differences between the substantive law in the two jurisdictions. While acknowledging the need for further empirical investigation, we introduce a concept we term “genuine justice”, with the aim of paving the way for other and more radical remedies supplementing the economic, legal and social measures already in place.
En este artículo, utilizamos el ejemplo de los permisos penitenciarios para analizar el acceso de los presos a la justicia. Basándonos en un análisis comparativo funcional entre Dinamarca y Alemania, estudiamos la ley en acción. En Alemania, los presos tienen un derecho legal de acceso a los tribunales en caso de denegación de permisos penitenciarios. Sin embargo, en Dinamarca, los presos se enfrentan a más barreras cuando intentan acceder a los tribunales. En nuestro análisis, hemos comparado casos judiciales de Dinamarca con cartas de presos alemanes en las que se refieren a sus luchas con las administraciones penitenciarias y los tribunales. Los materiales de ambos países muestran más similitudes de las que cabría esperar, dadas las importantes diferencias entre el derecho sustantivo de las dos jurisdicciones. Aunque reconocemos la necesidad de seguir investigando empíricamente, introducimos un concepto que denominamos “justicia auténtica”, con el objetivo de allanar el camino a otras soluciones más radicales que complementen las medidas económicas, jurídicas y sociales ya existentes.
Available from: https://doi.org/10.35295/osls.iisl/0000-0000-0000-1355
Downloads
Metrics
Downloads:
13(4)_Graebsch_Storgaard_OSLS 241
XML_13(4)_Graebsch_Storgaard_OSLS 17
References
Albiston, C.R., and Sandefur, R.L., 2013. Expanding the empirical study of access to justice. Wisconsin Law Review, 101.
Bahl, E., and Pollähne, H., 2021. Vorbereitung der Entlassung. In: J. Feest, W. Lesting and M. Lindemann, eds., Strafvollzugsgesetze. 8th ed. Cologne: Carl Heymanns, II § 42 LandesR.
Beijersbergen, K.A., Dirkzwager, A.J.E., and Nieuwbeerta, P., 2016. Reoffending After Release: Does Procedural Justice During Imprisonment Matter? Criminal Justice and Behavior, 43(1), pp. 63–82.
Burkhardt, S.U., 2021. Lockerungen zur Erreichung des Vollzugsziels. In: J. Feest, W. Lesting and M. Lindemann, eds., Strafvollzugsgesetze. 8th ed. Cologne: Carl Heymanns, II § 42 LandesR.
Cernko, D., 2014. Die Umsetzung der CPT-Empfehlungen im deutschen Strafvollzug. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot.
Crewe, B., 2011. Depth, weight tightness – Revisiting the pains of imprisonment. Punishment & Society, 13(5), pp. 509–529.
Dragsted, A., and Schiøler, J., 2017. Straffuldbyrdelsesloven med kommentarer. 2nd ed. Copenhagen: Jurist og Økonomforbundets Forlag, pp. 539–570.
Durnescu, I., and Poledna, S., 2020. Prison Leave in Romania and the Power of Street Level Bureaucrats. European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research, 26, pp. 231–246.
Engbo, H.J., 2005. Straffuldbyrdelsesret. 2nd ed. Copenhagen: Jurist og Økonomforbundets Forlag.
Eupretrialrights, 2019. Bringing justice into prison: for a common European approach: White Paper on access to justice for pre‐trial detainees [online]. Available at: http://www.prisonlitigation.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/WHITE-PAPER-final-ENG.pdf
Feest, J. and Murayama, M. 2021. Protecting the Innocent Through Criminal Justice. In: J. Feest, ed., Definitionsmacht, Renitenz und Abolitionismus. Wiesbaden: Springer, pp. 47–75.
Feest, J., Lesting, W., and Selling, P., 1997. Totale Institution und Rechtsschutz: Eine Untersuchung zum Rechtsschutz im Strafvollzug. Opladen: Westdeutscher.
Galli, T., 2011. Lockerungsbegutachtungen im Strafvollzug. Kritik aus kriminologischer Sicht. Wiesbaden: Springer.
Goerdeler, J., 2021. Aufsichtsbehörde. In: J. Feest, W. Lesting and M. Lindemann, eds., Strafvollzugsgesetze. 8th ed. Cologne: Carl Heymanns, II, § 101.
Graebsch, C., 2014. Kontrolle des Strafvollzugs durch unabhängiges Monitoring und die Prävention von Folter und unmenschlicher oder erniedrigender Behandlung oder Strafe. Forum Strafvollzug, 6, pp. 390–396.
Graebsch, C., 2017a. Precrime und Strafvollzug. Resozialisierungsanspruch und Situation von Gefangenen bei prognoseabhängiger Entlassung. Kritische Justiz 50(2), pp. 166–175.
Graebsch, C., 2017b. Resozialisierungsauftrag bei Nichtdeutschen. In: H. Cornel, G. Kawamura-Reindl and B.R. Sonnen, eds., Handbuch Resozialisierung, 4th ed. Baden-Baden: Nomos, pp. 433–448.
Graebsch, C., 2021. Ausländische Gefangene. In: J. Feest, W. Lesting and M. Lindemann, eds., Strafvollzugsgesetze. 8th ed. Cologne: Carl Heymanns, II § 42 LandesR, V II, chapter 3.
Graebsch, C., forthcoming. Access to the judge but still not to justice? In: H. de Suremain, C. Graebsch and A. Le Huérou, eds., Prison without violence? Human rights put to the test by prison policies (Ukraine, Russia, Germany, France). Wiesbaden: Springer.
Johnsen, J.T., 2018. Nordic Legal Aid and Access to Justice. In: O.H. Rønning and O. Hammerslev, eds., Outsourcing Legal Aid in the Nordic Welfare States [online]. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 227–267. Available at: https://library.oapen.org/bitstream/id/454f25b2-9708-4d4b-979c-b2b35f8915a0/1002118.pdf#doi%3A10.1007/978-3-319-46684-2_10
Jordan, B., 2016. Begutachtungsmedizin in Deutschland am Beispiel Bayern. Eine Befragung unter 548 medizinischen und psychologischen Sachverständigen in Bayern [online]. Dissertation. Medizinische Fakultät der Universität München. Available at: https://edoc.ub.uni-muenchen.de/19622/1/Jordan_Benedikt.pdf
Kirs, E., 2021. Complaint procedures and the right to information in prison: A handbook for national preventive mechanisms [online]. Vienna: Institute of Fundamental and Human Rights, in cooperation with the Hungarian Helsinki Committee, the Bulgarian Helsinki Committee and the Associazione Antigone. Available at: https://helsinki.hu/en/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2021/04/handbook_complaint_procedures_and_the_right_to_information_hhc.pdf
Knauer, F., 2021. Überwachung des Schriftwechsels. In: J. Feest, W. Lesting and M. Lindemann, eds., Strafvollzugsgesetze. 8th ed. Cologne: Carl Heymanns, LandesR, II § 34.
Kristiansen, B.L., 2018. Legal Aid in Denmark. In: O.H. Rønning and O. Hammerslev, eds., Outsourcing Legal Aid in the Nordic Welfare States [online]. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 99–124. Available at: https://library.oapen.org/bitstream/id/454f25b2-9708-4d4b-979c-b2b35f8915a0/1002118.pdf#doi%3A10.1007/978-3-319-46684-2_5
Larrauri, E., 2020. Reducing Discretion in the Administration of Prison Leave: In Search of Legitimacy. European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research [online], 26, pp. 141–156. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10610-019-09424-4
Leitch, J.A., 2013. Looking for quality: the empirical debate in access to justice research. Windsor Yearbook of Access to Justice [online], 31(2), pp. 229–255. Available at: https://doi.org/10.22329/wyaj.v31i2.4421
Liebling, A., 2000. Prison officers, policing and the use of discretion. Theoretical Criminology, 4(3), pp. 333–357.
Liebling, A., and Price, D., 2011. Prison officers and the use of discretion. In: L. Gelsthorpe and N. Padfield, eds., Exercising discretion: Decision-making in the criminal justice system and beyond. London/New York: Routledge.
Michaels, R., 2006. The Functional Method of Comparative Law. In: M. Reimann and R. Zimmermann, eds., The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Law. Oxford University Press, pp. 340–382.
Morgenstern, C., and Dünkel, F., 2018. Monitoring prisons in Germany: The role of the European Court of Human Rights. In: G. Cliquennois and H. de Suremain, eds., Monitoring Penal Policy in Europe. London: Routledge, pp. 17–35.
Nelken, D., 2010. Comparative Criminal Justice. London: Sage.
Nelken, D., and Feest, J., 2001. Adapting Legal Cultures. Oxford: Hart.
Rhode, D.L., 2013. Access to Justice: An Agenda for Legal Education and Research. Journal of Legal Education, 62, pp. 531–50.
Robert, L., and Larrauri, E., 2020. Prison Leave Across Europe: Some Reasons to Think About it. Kriminologie – Das Online/Criminology – The Online Journal [online], 2(2), pp. 251–263. Available at: https://doi.org/10.18716/ojs/krimoj/2020.2.9
Schoultz, I., 2018. Legal Aid in Sweden. In: O.H. Rønning and O. Hammerslev, eds., Outsourcing Legal Aid in the Nordic Welfare States [online]. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 43–76. Available at: https://library.oapen.org/bitstream/id/
f25b2-9708-4d4b-979c-b2b35f8915a0/1002118.pdf#doi%3A10.1007/978-3-319-46684-2_3
Spader, D.J., 1984. Rule of law v. rule of man: The search for the golden zigzag between conflicting fundamental values. In: Journal of Criminal Justice, 12, 4, 1984, pp. 379–394.
Storgaard, A., 2020. Prison Leave in Denmark: How a Tradition of Combining Rehabilitation with Discipline Developed into Putting Access to Justice at Risk. European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research, 26(2), pp. 213–229.
Zweigert, K., and Kötz, H., 1998. Introduction to comparative law. Trans.: T. Weir. 3rd ed. Oxford University Press.
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2023 Christine Graebsch, Anette Storgaard
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
OSLS strictly respects intellectual property rights and it is our policy that the author retains copyright, and articles are made available under a Creative Commons licence. The Creative Commons Non-Commercial Attribution No-Derivatives licence is our default licence, further details available at https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0 If this is not acceptable to you, please contact us.
The non-exclusive permission you grant to us includes the rights to disseminate the bibliographic details of the article, including the abstract supplied by you, and to authorise others, including bibliographic databases, indexing and contents alerting services, to copy and communicate these details.
For information on how to share and store your own article at each stage of production from submission to final publication, please read our Self-Archiving and Sharing policy.
The Copyright Notice showing the author and co-authors, and the Creative Commons license will be displayed on the article, and you must agree to this as part of the submission process. Please ensure that all co-authors are properly attributed and that they understand and accept these terms.
