Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Introduction

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Alternatives to Imprisonment in England and Wales, Germany and Turkey

  • 618 Accesses

Abstract

This study attempts to shed light on the alternatives to imprisonment, as one dimension of arguably one of the central problems of Turkish penal policy: the over-reliance of imprisonment as a sentencing option and a corresponding inexorable increase in the prison population which hitherto has not exclusively, but mainly, been responded to with the enactment of amnesty laws and construction of new prison buildings. So far, this approach has resulted in a gloomy picture of penal justice. Currently, Turkish prisons accommodate one of the largest prison populations in Europe.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    See for the Turkish figures, the Turkish General Directorate of Penal Execution Institutions and Remand Houses the following web page http://www.cte.adalet.gov.tr (Access Date: March 2010), and the figures of the International Prison Studies, King’s College London, the following web page: http://www.kcl.ac.uk/depsta/law/research/icps/worldbrief/wpb_country.php?country=119 (Access Date: March 2010).

  2. 2.

    See e.g., Cumhuriyet, 25.8.2007, Hürriyet, 3.4.2007, Radikal, 26.7.2009, Hürriyet, 31.8.2009.

  3. 3.

    For a critical English account on the theme, see, Green, P. (2002) Turkish Jails, Hunger Strikes and the European Drive for Prison Reform, Punishment and Society, vol. 4, no 1, pp. 97–101.

    See Neziroglu, I. (2006) ‘A Comparison of Law and Practice within the Turkish Prison System with Relevant International Prison Standards with Special Reference to F-Type High Security Prisons’, Turkish Studies, vol. 7, no 3, pp. 421–450.

  4. 4.

    Jescheck, H.-H. (ed.) (1983–1984) Die Freiheitsstrafe und ihre Surrogate im deutschen und ausländischen Recht, vol. 1–3, Nomos, Baden Baden, Albrecht, H.-J. and Kalmthout, A., M. (eds.) (2002) Community Sanctions and Measures in Europe and North America, Max-Planck-Institut für ausländisches und internationales Strafrecht, Freiburg, see also, Dünkel, F. and Spiess, G. (1983) Alternativen zur Freiheitsstrafe: Strafaussetzung zur Bewährung und Bewährungshilfe im internationalen Vergleich, Max-Planck-Institut für ausländisches und internationales Strafrecht, Freiburg, van Kalmthout, A., M. (1989) Sanction Systems in the Member-States of the Council of Europe, Kluwer, Deventer, Zvekic, U. (1994) Alternatives to Imprisonment (United Nations Interregional Crime and Justice Research Institute), Nelson-Hall Publishers, Chicago, Tas-Junger, J. (1994) Alternatives to Prison Sentences: Experiences and Developments, Kugler Publications, Amsterdam.

  5. 5.

    Hereinafter this study will refer to the jurisdiction of England and Wales as ‘England’.

  6. 6.

    See Neziroglu, op. cit., pp. 421–450. For indication of relevant supranational case law concerning prison conditions in Turkey, see van Zyl Smit, D. and Snacken, S. (2009) Principles of European Prison Law and Policy, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 126–175.

  7. 7.

    See chapter 4.

  8. 8.

    Hoegen, E. and Brienen, M (2000) Victims of Crime in 22 European Criminal Justice Systems, Wolf Legal Production in cooperation with the Global Law Association, Nijmegen, pp. 960, Chapter 24.

  9. 9.

    Bozkurt, G. (1996) ‘Alman Arsiv Belgelerine Göre Alman Hukuku’nun Türk Hukuku’na Etkisi’, Ankara Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, vol. 45, no 4, pp. 29–40, p. 29.

  10. 10.

    Law no 1412, date 4/4/1929, Official Gazette 20/4/1929, See Önder, A. (1974) Der Einfluss des deutschen Rechts auf das türkische Strafprozessrecht, Annales de la Facultés de Droit d’Istanbul, vol. 38, pp. 367–385 and (1981) Die türkische Strafprozessordnung, Annales de la Facultés de Droit d’Istanbul, vol. 44, pp. 178–196.

  11. 11.

    See, Sözüer, A. (2007) Die Reform des türkischen Strafrechts, Zeitschrift für die gesamte Strafrechtswissenschaft, vol. 119, no 3, pp. 712–749.

  12. 12.

    Alacakaptan, U. (1958) Ingiliz Ceza Hukukunda Suc ve Cezalarin Kanuniligi Prensibi, Ankara Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Yayinlari, Ankara.

  13. 13.

    An English prison administrator and reformer, Ruggles-Brise, famously noted that “It is a remarkable fact, at least so far as my observation and experience goes that foreign countries look to England with anxiety and curiosity for the practical solution of the penal problem”. Cited in Radzinowicz, L. (1991) ‘Penal Regressions’, Cambridge Law Journal, vol. 50, pp. 422–444, p. 439.

  14. 14.

    On the penal establishments in England and Wales, see e.g., Gölcüklü, F. (1962a) ‘Ingiltere ve Gal Eyaleti’nde Hürriyeti Baglayici Cezalar ve Cezaevi Sistemleri’, Ankara Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, vol. 17, no 1, pp. 159–202. From the same author on the English Judicial Mechanism, see (1955) ‘Ingiliz Adli Teskilati’, Ankara Üniversitesi Siyasal Bilgiler Fakültesi Dergisi, vol. 10, no 1, pp. 160–185.

  15. 15.

    Bottoms, A., E. (1987) ‘Limiting Prison Use: Experiences in England and Wales’, Howard Journal, vol. 26, no 3, pp. 177–202, p. 177.

  16. 16.

    For an early account, see Tak, P.J.P. (1986) Community Service Orders in Western Europe – A Comparative Survey – in Albrecht, H-J. and Schädler, W. (eds.) Community Service, Max-Planck-Institut für ausländisches und internationales Strafrecht, Freiburg.

  17. 17.

    Frankenberg views comparative learning process as involving two stages: ‘distancing’ and ‘differencing’: He defines ‘distancing’ as “an attempt to break away from firmly held beliefs and settled knowledge and as an attempt to resists the power of prejudice and ignorance”. And goes on to state that “from a distance old knowledge can be reviewed and new knowledge can be distinguished as it is in its own right…Mere distance, however, neither opens our eyes nor makes us see clearly. As long as foreign places only look like or unlike home, as long as foreign legal cultures only appear to be un-common or un-civil, and as long as they are treated as same or other, they do not speak for themselves. In order to break the unconscious spell that holds us to see others by the measure of ourselves without abandoning the benefits of criticism, travelling as well as comparison has to be an exercise in difference”. Frankenberg, G. (1985) Critical Comparisons: Rethinking Comparative Law, Harvard International Law Journal, vol. 26, no 2, pp. 411–455.

  18. 18.

    Other alternatives are ‘community based penal measures’, ‘community-based penal measures’, ‘community-based dispositions’, ‘community care programmes’, ‘community corrections’, ‘community correctional programmes’, ‘supervision in the community’, ‘punishment in the community’. Vass, A. (1990) Alternatives to Prison: Punishment, Custody and the Community, Sage, London, p. xv.

  19. 19.

    See e.g., most recently, Dünkel, F. and Pruin, I. (2009) ‘Community Sanctions and the Sanctioning Practice in Juvenile Justice Systems in Europe’ in Junger-Tas, J. and Dünkel, F. (eds.) Reforming Juvenile Justice, Springer, Dordrecht.

  20. 20.

    Recommendation No(2000)22 of the Ministers to Member States on Improving the Implementation of the European Rules on Community Sanctions and Measures (adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 29 November 2000 at the 731 st meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies) http://www.justizia.net/Docuteca/Ficheros.asp?intcodigo=1204&IdDoc=SP&Idio.ma=sp (Access Date: December 2009).

  21. 21.

    E.g., Braithwaite, J. (1989) Crime, Shame and Reintegration, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

  22. 22.

    Recommendation (1992) 16 of The Committee of Ministers to Member States on the European Rules (adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 19 October 1982 at the 482 nd meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies) https://wcd.coe.int/com.instranet.InstraServlet?command=com.instranet.CmdBlobGet&InstranetImage=574882&SecMode=1&DocId=605174&Usage=2 (Access Date: December 2009).

  23. 23.

    See, Crawford, A. (1997) The Local Governance of Crime: Appeals to Community and Partnerships, Clarendon Press, Oxford, Chapter 5, Brownlee, I. (1998) Community Punishment: A Critical Introduction, Harlow, Wesley Longman, pp. 56–59, Cavadino, M., Crow, I. and Dignan, J. (1999) Criminal Justice 2000: Strategies for a New Century, Waterside Press, Winchester, pp. 97–98, Worall, A. and Hoy, C. (2005) Punishment in the Community: Managing Offenders and Making Choices, Sage, London, pp. 57–70.

  24. 24.

    See, Raynor, P. (2001) Community Penalties and Social Integration: ‚Community’ as Solution and as Problem in Bottom et al. (eds.), pp.183–199, Crawford, A. (2000) Contrasts in Victim Offender Mediation and Appeals to Community in France and England, in Nelken, D. (ed.) Contrasting Criminal Justice, Ashgate, Aldershot, pp. 205–229, p. 220.

  25. 25.

    Crawford (2000), op. cit., p. 220.

  26. 26.

    Jung, H. (1999) Die “European Rules on Community Sanctions and Measures” in Feuerhelm, W., Schwind, H.-D. und Bock, M. (eds.) Festschrift für Alexander Böhm zum 70. Geburtstag am 14. Juni 1999, de Gruyter, Berlin, pp.69–79, Albrecht, H.-J. (2002)’Community Sanctions in the Federal Republic of Germany’, in Albrecht and Kalmthout op. cit., pp.243–270, p. 244, see also Lacey, N. and Zedner, L. (1995) Discourses of Community on Criminal Justice, Journal of Law and Society, vol. 22, pp. 301–325.

  27. 27.

    In this context, see also Crawford (2000), op. cit., p. 205.

  28. 28.

    Jung, op. cit., p. 72 ‘gemeinwesenorientiert’.

  29. 29.

    Bottoms et al. (2004) op. cit., p.13. In this context, see also, Roberts, J., V. (2004) The Virtual Prison: Community Custody and the Evolution of Imprisonment, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

  30. 30.

    Bottoms, A., E., Gelsthorpe, L. and Rex, S. (eds.) (2001) Community Penalties: Change and Challenges, Willan Publishing, Cullompton, p. 1, see also Nellis, M. (2001) Community Penalties in Historical Perspective in Bottoms et al. (2001), pp. 16–40.

  31. 31.

    Tonry, M. and Lynch, M. (1996) Intermediate Sanctions, Crime and Justice, vol. 20, pp. 99–144.

  32. 32.

    Harding, J. (2003) ‘Which Way Probation? A Correctional or Community Justice Service?’, Probation Journal, vol. 54, no. 4, pp. 369–373, Bottoms et al. (2004), p. 9, Hughes, G. ( 2001) ‘The Competing Logics of Community Sanctions: Welfare, Rehabilitation and Restorative Justice’, McLaughlin, E. and Muncie, J. (eds.) Controlling Crime, Sage, London, pp. 249–297, p. 291.

  33. 33.

    Albrecht, A. and Kalmthout, A., M. (2002) ‘Intermediate Penalties: European Developments in Conceptions and Use of Non-Custodial Criminal Sanctions’ in Albrecht and Kalmthout op. cit., pp. 1–11, p. 4.

  34. 34.

    Vass, op. cit., p. xv.

  35. 35.

    See, for example, with regard to England, Gelsthorpe, L. and Morris, A. (1994) Juvenile Justice 1945–1992 in Maguire, M., Morgan, R. and Reiner, R. (eds.) the Oxford Handbook of Criminology, Clarendon Press, Oxford, Young, J. and Matthews, R. (2003) The New Politics of Crime and Punishment, Cullompton, Willan, p. 82, Mair, G. (2004) Diversionary and Non-Supervisory Approaches to Dealing with Offenders in Bottoms et al. (2004) pp. 135–161, see also Allen, R. (1991) Out of Jail : The Reduction in the Use of Penal Custody for Male Juveniles 1981–1988, Howard Journal, vol. 30, no 1, pp. 30–52, pp. 33–36.

    With regard to Germany, see Graham, J. (1987) The Declining Prison Population in the Federal Republic of Germany, Home Office Research Bulletin, no 24, London pp. 47–52 and (1990) Decarceration in the Federal Republic of Germany: How Practitioners are Succeeding Where Policy Makers Have Failed?, British Journal of Criminology, vol. 30, no 2., pp. 47–52.

    See also, Mayerhofer-Ludwig, W. (1995) Sentence without Conviction Notes on Diversion from the Juvenile Court in the Federal Republic of Germany, pp. 108–109 in Albrecht, G. and Ludwig-Mayerhofer, W. (eds.) Diversion and Informal Social Control, de Gruyter, Berlin, Muncie, J. and Sparks, R. (1991) Expansion and Contraction in European Penal Systems in Muncie and Sparks (eds) Imprisonnment European Perspectives, Prentice Hall, New York, pp. 89–108, p. 101.

  36. 36.

    See for example, Jeschek, H.-H. (1979) Die Krise der Kriminalpolitik, Zeitschrift für die gesamte Strafrechtswissenschaft, vol. 91, pp. 1060–1061, Feltes, T. (1982) Alternativen zur Jugendstrafe in Sievering, U., O. (ed.) Alternativen zur Freiheitsstrafe, Haag Herchen, Frankfurt, pp. 79–87, p. 83.

  37. 37.

    On‚ ‘Zweispurigkeit’, see Jescheck, H.-H. and Weigend, T. (1996) Lehrbuch des Strafrechts, 5th edition, Duncker & Humblot, Berlin, p. 83, Streng, F. (2002) Strafrechtliche Sanktionen, 2nd edition, Kohlhammer, Stuttgart, p. 150, Schöch, H. (2008) On Section 61, in Leipziger Kommentar pp. 215–229 in Laufhütte, H. W, Rissing-van Saan, R. and Tidemann, K. (eds.) 12th edition, vol.3, pp. 215–402, pp. 215–229, Eser, A. (2001) Zur Entwicklung von Maßregeln der Besserung und Sicherung als zweite Spur im Strafrecht in Britz, G. (ed.) Grundfragen des staatlichen Strafens, Beck, München, pp. 213–236.

  38. 38.

    Nelken, D. (2000) Just Comparing in Nelken (ed.), op. cit., pp. 3–22 and (2007) Comparing Criminal Justice in Maguire, M., Morgan, R. and Reiner, R. (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Criminology, 4 th edition, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

  39. 39.

    Truly, “foreign laws can (indeed) be understood correctly only with their history and with relevant criminological data”. Weigend, T. (2006) ‘Criminal Law and Criminal Procedure’, Elgar Encyclopaedia of Comparative Law, Smits, J. (ed.), Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, pp. 214–227, p. 218.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Istanbul, Turkey

    Dr. Öznur Sevdiren

Authors
  1. Dr. Öznur Sevdiren
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Öznur Sevdiren .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2011 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Sevdiren, Ö. (2011). Introduction. In: Alternatives to Imprisonment in England and Wales, Germany and Turkey. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-17351-6_1

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation