Széchenyi István University
Doctoral School of Law and Political Sciences
Hordósi Ágnes
THESES OF DOCTORAL DISSERTATION
ALTERNATIVES TO RESOLVE THE OVERCROWDING OF THE PRISONS IN HUNGARY
Consultants: Dr. Németh Imre Phd.
Győr, 2020.
CONTENTS
Introduction……. 1
I. The topic and aim of the research 1
II. The research method forming the basis
of the dissertation 3
III. The dissertation’s structure and the
hypotheses 3
IV. Summary of research results 4
V. Bibliografy of the dissertation 10
VI. Publications 22
1 Introduction
The Helsinki Committee pays great attention to the situation of how crowded Hungarian penal institutions are. According to news published in December 2015 the European Court of Human Rights ruled 231 million forint compensation to 43 prisoners due to unfavorable prison conditions. Though according to it in the year in question over-crowdedness decreased, there is still no remedy to the situation caused by it in Hungary. Thousands of procedures are in progress against Hungary – the country having the most over-crowded prison system in Europe – due to the bad prison conditions and the lack of legal remedy – at least according to them. Only 6 months before the news was published the decision of the Strasbourg Court announced on 10 March 2015 1 became final, which gave 6 months to Hungary to create effective remedy and work out a plan to resolve the situation. According to the situation existing at the time of writing this article the state did not establish any kind of domestic legal remedy and in its absence victims can only turn to the international court.
At the same time, in the past few years 1600 new places were established, only this year about a 1000, so the general rate of over-crowdedness decreased from 144% to 128%, which is a significant improvement. According to plans five new prisons are going to be built until 2019, so this situation can probably be normalized. The Helsinki Committee has warned many times that the slow and costly process of building prisons does not guarantee the significant decrease of over-crowdedness in itself, in order to achieve the wished result our criminal policy also needs to be changed. We do not have any such plans of the government; civil organizations do not have any information whether the government has handed in its action plan which was ordered by the Strasbourg Court. Though this could not reverse the massive trespasses already done in the past. In cases that are dealt by the Strasbourg Court the general free space for one prisoner is only 2,5 square meters, while the lowest was 1,6 square meters. For comparison: based on Hungarian regulations it is forbidden to permanently keep a big pet animal on less than 20 square meters.2
In the past few years such and similar documents were published in the media many times3, highlighting that the majority of the society is interested in this problem and it is a real situation that needs to be solved in Hungary.
When starting my PhD. Studies at the Postgraduate Doctoral School of Law and Political Sciences at Széchenyi István University, we set the theme of my doctoral dissertation as the system of law enforcement. The choice of the topic was greatly influenced by that the new act on law enforcement came into effect which innovations aiming at changing the previous system caught my attention.
At the beginning of the research we aimed at presenting the whole system, to be more exact, discovering its hidden problematic areas. As the result of this complex research we came to the conclusion that all problems of law-enforcement in Hungary originate from one single cause.
I. The topic and aim of the research
Due to the fact of over-crowdedness the European Court of Human Rights condemned Hungary many times. In this regard the first application to the ECHR was handed in by László
1 CASE OF VARGA AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY (Application nos. 14097/12, 45135/12, 73712/12, 34001/13, 44055/13, and 64586/13)
2 https://www.helsinki.hu/strasbourgi-figyelmeztetes-negyedmilliard-43-magyar-rabnak/
3 See further: https://www.helsinki.hu/cimke/tulzsufoltsag-bortonben/, https://demokrata.hu/vilag/tovabbra-
is-tulzsufoltak-az-europai-bortonok-94598/, https://nepszava.hu/tag/bortonok/
2 Szél in 2006 with regards to the Budapest Penitentiary and Prison, where the rate of over- crowdedness in the given period was more than 150%. The ECHR brought a condemnatory judgment and Hungary was obliged to pay 12 000 Euros as compensation with regards to the 5-year sentence of the applicant. The last judgment in this matter ruled by the ECHR became famous as „Varga and others v. Hungary”, which, having regard to that the situation of over- crowdedness is a system-like problem in Hungary became a „pilot” judgment,4 through which the ECHR obliged Hungary to find a solution. As a result of this the legal institution of compensation procedure was born, which was found suitable by the ECHR during its investigation in the procedure of Domján v. Hungary considering the legal institution adequate to provide remedy for the violation of agreements caused by the situation of prisons violating basic human rights.
With the dissertation we aimed at presenting the problem of over-crowdedness, as well as demonstrating the bases and aim of imprisonment together with placing it in the whole system in order to get a complete picture of the legal background of the topic.
The dissertation also provides an overview of the expectation by the international legal background, including various international contracts, recommendations and judgments of the ECHR. Having regard to these we also examined Hungarian legal institutions that were born in the meantime and aim at the improvement of the system.
After the above mentioned topics we also deal with the possible reasons and effects of over- crowdedness.
We also cover those legal institutions in our legislation in effect which may serve as solutions for the problem of over-crowdedness in the widest possible sense. Therefore, we also took existing legal institutions of substantive and procedural penalty law into account, as well as those of only originating from law-enforcement.
After carefully examining the above mentioned topics we got into the position to discover the possible solutions as thoroughly as possible and perhaps even make a suggestion to the problem.
Based on the topic of the dissertation it becomes clear that the problem of over-crowdedness of penalty institutions has a long history, from various reasons it has almost existed from the appearance of imprisonment. However, it does not mean that we do not have to deal with this existing problem which also has an impact on all the segments of the system of law enforcement. That is exactly why we need to find a solution. With regards to this we can ask whether the solution should come from law-enforcement, substantive criminal law or procedural law, or, it affects all areas of criminal law and a change affecting a single area would not be even enough.
Therefore, in the dissertation we examined all legal institutions which can provide any kind of solution. In order to have a complex examination in the topic of imprisonment we also covered the obligation of aiming at successful reintegration, with special regards to that all legal institutions aiming at this also serve the relief of institutions in the second place.
It should be noted that due to the nature of the problem besides fixed-term imprisonment we also deal with the rules of actual life imprisonment, as well as the legal institution of pre-trial detention and all forms of confinement. Furthermore, we also examined several other legal institutions which via their frequent application or via strict criminal law may contribute to the present situation of over-crowdedness.
Thus, during the research we examined all such legal institutions which may have relevance in the formation of over-crowdedness, however, the examination only covers adult prisoners
4See further: p. 148.
3 as being the typical circle of detainees. We did not examine youngsters, people being under compulsory therapy, or the education of young offenders.
II. The research method forming the basis of the dissertation
The topic itself basically determined the research method, to be more exact, its descriptive, analytic, historical and comparative nature.
Having regard to that the problem is complex and requires an examination covering all fields of criminal law, in frames of the analytic research we aimed at the discovery of all relevant legislations, decisions of the Constitutional Court, court decisions and international legal sources, and as secondary source, the wide examination of criminal special law connected to this subject.
The historical and legal historical method was applied carefully due to the nature of the topic, while the method of legal comparison was applied to present the international environment in which frames – due to the knowledge of the given languages – mainly English and German sources were studied, which besides Anglo-Saxon and German solutions also served as the basis for the possibilities existing in other countries.
In the study the dogmatic method assisted in the determination of such legal institutions which understanding is inevitable in order to discover the problem and search for solutions.
In order to have an as complete picture as possible, we visited the Sopronkőhida Prison with the permission of the Hungarian Prison Service Headquarters. Here we asked for and received information with regards to the problem of over-crowdedness in a conversation with István Kónya reintegration official and Tamás Nyitra Commander; and we also had the chance to visit the prison itself. This experience greatly contributed to the real understanding of the problem.
As for the new legal institutions we had the chance to examine the theory in practice with the permission of the General Court of Győr; the examination covered the legal institutions of compensation and reintegration custody.
III. The dissertation’s structure and the hypotheses
As for the structure of the dissertation I must note that in order to understand the problem of over-crowdedness we wanted to present it via focusing on the Hungarian situation, as well as dealing with some European and neighboring countries.
We also wanted to cover those existing legal institutions which provide the bases of the problem and were formed in frames of the dominant criminal law aspect. Meanwhile we also took the relevant substantive and procedural legal institutions, as well as the area of law- enforcement into account.
We examined the trio of criminal policy, criminal law and criminology together their relevant questions. In frames of the theoretical bases we also mentioned theories dealing with the bases and aim of imprisonment, then placed imprisonment in the penalty system, and last but not least, based on the domestic situation of criminal law we established the current tendency of restrictive rules.
When examining the substantive law side of imprisonment we provided a review regarding the rules of the new criminal code, also mentioning fixed-term imprisonment and life imprisonment, as well as the problem of actual life imprisonment.
We wanted to summarize rules connected to all types of recidivists but we also presented preliminary detention and custodial arrest mentioned in the criminal code as institutions
4 connected to the problem of over-crowdedness. As for the area of procedural law, we mentioned the rules of pre-trial detention and detention, having regard to its frequent usage.
We also believe that the presentation of the international legal environment was significant, then afterwards we reviewed the reasons and effects of the Hungarian penalty institutions’
over-crowdedness.
Afterwards we took those legal institutions into account which are well-known and exist in the Hungarian legal system and may be the pillars of the solution for over-crowdedness. Here we also dealt with the institutions of compensational procedure, reintegration custody and clemency proceeding, as well as with the institution of partially suspended sentence which only existed in the Hungarian legal system for a short period of time, then we discussed deferral and the possibility of expanding places. We wanted to present such solutions which may be worth to deal with further in this regard.
IV. Summary of research results
During our research we disclosed the problem of over-crowdedness, dealt with the existing legal institutions providing its bases that were formed in frames of the dominant criminal policy. Here we examined all the relevant substantive, procedural law legal institutions but also reviewed the area of law-enforcement.
We dealt with the trio of criminal policy, criminal law and criminology, as well as their relevant questions regarding out topic. In frames of the theoretical bases we also mentioned theories dealing with the bases and aim of imprisonment, then placed imprisonment in the penalty system, and last but not least, based on the domestic situation of criminal law we established the current tendency of restrictive rules.
When examining the substantive law side of imprisonment we provided a review regarding the rules of the new criminal code, also mentioning fixed-term imprisonment and life imprisonment, as well as the problem of actual life imprisonment. We summarized rules connected to all types of recidivists but we also presented preliminary detention and custodial arrest mentioned in the criminal code as institutions connected to the problem of over- crowdedness. As for the area of procedural law, we mentioned the rules of pre-trial detention and detention, having regard to its frequent usage.
We also believe that the presentation of the international legal environment was significant, then afterwards we reviewed the reasons and effects of the Hungarian penalty institutions’
over-crowdedness.
Afterwards we took those legal institutions into account which are well-known and exist in the Hungarian legal system and may be the pillars of the solution for over-crowdedness. Here we also dealt with the institutions of compensational procedure, reintegration custody and clemency proceeding, as well as with the institution of partially suspended sentence which only existed in the Hungarian legal system for a short period of time, then we discussed deferral and the possibility of expanding places among alternative sanctions.
As a result of the research we came to the conclusion that having regard to what has already been discussed all researched topics are not suitable for this problem.
Compensational procedure, as it is explained in the dissertation in details, became part of the legal system having regard to the leading judgment of the ECHR in the Varga and others v.
Hungary case.5 In the decision of the ECHR of 23 November 2017 it accepted the measures Hungary took with regards to the compensation of over-crowdedness in penalty institutions.
5 Varga and Others v. Hungary (application nos. 14097/12, 45135/12, 73712/12, 34001/13, 44055/13, and 64586/13)
5 Hence, in the Domján v. Hungary case the ECHR examined the effectiveness of these legal remedy mechanisms. It established that the compensation legal remedy is suitable in order to compensate the violation of agreements coming from the violation of basic human rights in penalty institutions.
Though all these do not mean that we can examine this legal institution as the possible solution for over-crowdedness. Compensation ruled during the procedure is a reaction to over- crowdedness with regards to detainees not kept in an adequate environment due to this and to other factors. Therefore, it does not wish to prevent that the detainee in questions get in the penalty institution or can return to the society as soon as possible. It only provides financial compensation to those who are or were forced to live his days in the penalty institution in an over-crowded environment. Therefore, due to this fact it does not and cannot solve the system-like problem of over-crowdedness.
The application of clemency, as well as the compulsory clemency proceeding can factually result in the decrease in the number of detainees, however, their goal is not connected.
Though in connection with Georgia the White Book mentions a case when the possibility of clemency was applied especially to remedy this problem, it does not consider it a long-lasting solution. We can only agree with this viewpoint.
The compulsory clemency procedure became part of the system of law-enforcement based on the decision of the ECHR on 20 May 2014. It is strongly connected to the penalty of life imprisonment with the exclusion of parole. However, keeping in mind that the number of prisoners with such penalty has increased in the past years, in the event of its application clemency given in compulsory clemency proceedings can be some kind of an advantage with regards to over-crowdedness. However, it shall not be evaluated differently than clemency, therefore, this legal institution cannot be a permanent solution either. Besides what has been mentioned the reason is that the number of detainees is dominantly smaller than the possible number arising at the application of amnesty.
Though partially suspended sentence previously formed a part of the Hungarian legal system, the new Criminal Code did not include it in its system. According to the justification the main critique is that while suspended sentence is a milder sentence than imprisonment, it is not entirely true with regards to partially suspended sentence. In spite of this the code handled the two legal institutions mutually, though the characteristics of partially suspended sentence are identical with that of regular sentence in many instances if we consider that it can be simultaneously applied with the deprivation of civil rights and that it has to be taken into account when dealing with the degree of recidivism. Furthermore, the justification says that having regard to the length of probation period it can even be regarded as an even more strict legal sanction. This unclear legal quality made its application unsure, so lawmakers decided to leave it out from the current criminal code, they did not involve it in. Having regard to all these we are concerned that its reintroduction to the legal system is not justified only because in the event of its application the convict can spend a shorter time in the penalty institution along the conditions set in the judgment itself. If these conditions are met the rules of suspended sentence can also lead to that the decision is established later, during the enforcement.
With regards to the expansion of capacities it is crucial to note that the international and European law does not regard it as real and long-term solution as this relief is simply temporary, and along with the same criminal policy places are very quickly filled up again.
Though as already indicated, some are of the opinion that besides the widening of legal technique and alternative punishment, as well as new legal institutions established and introduced by the new criminal code, real solution can be achieved by establishing more
6 places and building new penitentiary institutions. Ferenc Nagy summarizes his opinion according to the followings: „in the current situation in Hungary it is by all means necessary to build new penitentiary institutions, open up more places, however, on the long run it is definitely not the best solution and it is clearly the most expensive one.”6
Considering all these as well as the dominant international viewpoint, we believe that if the criminal policy and the law enforcement will not change, the opening up of places will not bring a real solution to this problem.
With regards to the new possibility of deferral of prosecution we have to note that terminating the procedure connected to less serious crimes with the cooperation of the accused person was especially the aim of law-makers. With these rules law-makers wish to express that the positive change in the behavior of perpetrators is such a value to be highlighted that proceeds the interests in punishing the perpetrator. Therefore, assisting in the problem of over- crowdedness is not its exact aim, though we believe that its frequent application could be helpful in the current system in this regard as well. In the new Act XC of 2017 on Criminal Procedure deferral of prosecution replaces the postponement of prosecution. One of the most significant innovations is that this diversionary institution is not the alternative of being indicted anymore but rather a possibility in an early stage of the procedure which could lead to the termination of the procedure however, resumption is also possible. Furthermore, it is also an innovation that besides general rules the new code also greatly widens the possibility of diversion connected to other legal reasons terminating criminal responsibility. In both cases such an expectation provides the legal basis of the legal institution which makes it likely that the perpetrator may only be punished with any of the legal institutions that result in the termination of criminal responsibility. In the case of deferral of prosecution this reason is mentioned by the procedural act itself7, while with regards to special cases this is justified by the Special Part of the Criminal Code. After the given period has passed the act on Criminal Procedure sets the indisputable opinion that the period in question was successful if it resulted in a favourable change in the perpetrator’s behaviour, even in a way that the result is the restraint in committing further crimes. With regards to the condition of the general case we can talk about the presence of less serious crimes, furthermore, the favourable change in the perpetrator’s behaviour and the foreseeability of success is expected. The legal institution can be applied in case of crimes punished with the maximum of three years, in cases deserving special consideration the maximum of five years of imprisonment.8 In such modifications of the legal institution we can sense some kind of a change in the criminal policy. With this alternative sanction regarded as a solution it wish to avoid imposing classic punishment. If it gets established in the practice of law-makers we believe that it could assist the problem of over-crowdedness.
As per the dissertation imprisonment has been the most frequently applied punishment from 2010, therefore, over-crowdedness is extremely high in Hungary. The burden on the system of law-enforcement clearly shows the effects that certain parts of jurisdiction have on one another that is, how jurisprudence of this strict criminal policy affects the system of law- enforcement. The high number of recidivists due to the tasks to be done in the system further induces this process. However, the other side – that we also examined in the dissertation – is that the widening of alternative possibilities may help.
6 NAGY,FERENC: Az európai börtönnépességről [On European prison population]. Börtönügyi Szemle, 2016. vol.
3., p. 20.
7 Act XC of 2017 on Criminal Procedure 420. §
8 Act XC of 2017 on Criminal Procedure 690. § (1)
7 Among the alternative punishments community service has been part of our criminal law system for a long time, though there are discrepancies with regards to its application. This sanction requires the participation of many professionals so that is exactly why it is not applied as many times as it would be expected with regards to the problem of over- crowdedness.
The regulation considers many international documents in the European states and in Hungary as well, so it is satisfactory with regards to these expectations. Based on what has already been mentioned we can establish that the practical success and efficiency of this legal institution does not depend on the totality of regulations. Success is much more influenced by its well organized enforcement which is based on a deliberate and reasoned strategy. In Hungary the kind of cooperation that is present in Finland in the subject of cooperation is yet to be established. The fact that according to the society real punishment is imprisonment also contributes to this. The advantages of community work are not seen yet, its reintegration values remain hidden, as well as the fact that it would be economic and would have less burden on the system of law-enforcement.9 As far as we are concerned, with an adequate change of perspective community work would be a real community sanction in Hungary given that its bases have already been established and meet all international expectations too.
Among alternative sanctions the legal institution of reintegration custody does not have a long history. As the result of the research, having regard to the practice of the states already applying it as well as to international expectations, we came to the conclusion that reintegration custody and its extended variety can play a crucial pillar among possible solutions. We could see that many countries have already tried electronic custody and some even put this possibility into practice. We believe that there is no obstacle that this solution is ensured in Hungary and not only among the tight frames of the reintegration custody.
As far as we are concerned reintegration custody would have its raison d’être in a way which would serve that convicts would not go to the penalty institution at all. In general we believe that it could be applied with regards to those convicts who committed such crimes which hazardous nature to the society is below that level which justifies the imposition of actual imprisonment.
Here the legal institution of active repentance 10 would be useful. From our point of view with regards to those crimes where – as regulated by active repentance – lawmakers may disregards the punishment of the perpetrator, if the conditions do not prevail, examining the personal circumstances of the perpetrator as well, this legal institution can be included in the legal system as a method of implementation of imprisonment. Therefore, via not splitting the criminal system we believe that its introduction could be possible that this legal institution becomes part of the legal system as the implementation mode of imprisonment. We also consider this solution as adequate as in case of a possible termination due to the violation of rights the resumption of the classic, institutional implementation of imprisonment would be possible right away.
Therefore, we suggest the followings. Before regulations of how the punishment shall be carried out we believe the followings could be included in the Criminal Code:
If the fulfillment of the aim of imprisonment – having regard to the personal circumstances of the convict – can be ensured this way, the enforcement of imprisonment can also happen in the form of electronic custody for any person who has committed any misdemeanor offense
9 Compare with: SIPOS, FERENC: A közérdekű munka szerepe a börtönnépesség csökkentésében: a finn tapasztalatok [The role of community work in decreasing the population of prisons: the Finnish experiences].
Pro Futuro, 2017. vol. 2.
10 See further: Act C of 2012 on the Criminal Code 29. §
8 against life, physical integrity or health, against personal freedom, against human dignity and fundamental rights, any traffic offense, offenses against property or against intellectual property rights, or any crime punishable by imprisonment not exceeding three years.
The enforcement of the term of imprisonment for a criminal offense committed under the course of electronic custody cannot be punished this way.
Though here we must note that the three year term should be reconsidered in a way that with regards to certain crimes punished with an imprisonment not exceeding five years could be also included in this category.
As for the criminal code, we believe that the followings should be included:
For the implementation of electronic custody the rules of reintegration custody shall be respectively applied.
Furthermore, we believe that reintegration custody could be widened in a way that it could also be applied with regards to convicts already serving their punishment in a penalty institution. As far as we are concerned the rule which only makes the application of this legal institution once could be terminated. From other points of view the rules of reintegration custody would remain the same because if we suppose that the classic type of imprisonment spent in a penalty institution was justified with regards to the convict, we consider the rules of the reintegration custody can remain as it is in the current legislation.
Based on our researches the following modifications would be possible:
The order of reintegration custody under the implementation of imprisonment can be initiated by both the convict and his lawyer.
If the application is rejected the submission of a new petition can only happen if relevant circumstances have changed.
Here we also have to note that based on the experiences of states already applying this legal institution in various forms certain existing problems do not mean such an obstacle having regard to which the possibility of applying this legal institution should be declined. As for the arising financial questions – if this method of implementation would not be financed by the state – financing by the convict would be a possible solution. This, as well as the fact that it could only be applied with regards to those convicts whose home is suitable for establishing the required technique, even the order can raise certain discriminative problems. With regards to this question we think that the possible social differences between convicts cannot form the basis of the obstacle regarding the introduction of this legal institution. Personal circumstances of the perpetrator in criminal law are evaluated in many places, only if we think about mitigating and aggravating circumstances11, so with regards to this legal institution applying this method of sentence cannot be excluded only because it most likely cannot be applied in the case of all perpetrators.
After the careful consideration of the above we are concerned that similarly to the experiences in Finland the expected result would not be brought by the establishment of new legal institutions in Hungary either but the key would rather be a shift in the existing point of view given that all legal institutions which could result in the decrease of over-crowdedness already exist in our legal system.
Having regard to what is discussed in the dissertation as the result of the research we believe that the solution for problem of over-crowdedness could come from two sources.
11 56/2007. BK opinion
9 On the once hand we have to facilitate that an even increasing number of convicts should leave penalty institutions as soon as possible, before the completion of the whole sentence (outgoing side), on the other hand, via getting to the point where less and less convicts go to the penalty institutions and have an actual imprisonment (input side).
With regards to leaving the penalty institution as soon as possible we also considered financial and criminal law enforcement factors which make it possible that is, the legal institutions of release on parole and reintegration custody. Furthermore, we listed those assisting like legal institutions which should facilitate the success of reintegration already during the enforcement of the punishment in order to bring relief to penalty institutions. The effective realization of their aim, the individual nature of convicts’ reintegration program during implementation could ensure that convicts who leave the walls of the institution do not go back hopefully ever again but at least for long years to come. Therefore, reintegration programs can only be regarded as successful if convicts get back to the society in a way that they become its useful members, also, if they do not commit a crime again at least to that degree which would again result in actual imprisonment.
Based on what we included in the dissertation as well it is important that the system of law enforcement feels the burden of this obligation and tries to achieve that these programs are more and more successful in order to have a positive result with regards to the current situation of over-crowdedness. Due to similar reasons it pays great attention on the legal institution of suspended sentence which has substantive law roots and endeavourers to achieve that an increasing number of people can partake in this discount.
In order to achieve these results it is employment that plays a crucial part in the system, however, education is also important. On the one hand, we believe this because with regards to the successful reintegration to the society those convicts who leave the institution that they already have a job or could learn a useful, marketable skill in the penalty institution have a much greater chance in life. From the point of view of suspended sentence participating in such activities is important as in the practice of law-enforcement it is considered to be positive if the convict received rewards for having participated in employment or education, or even if they only took part in such activities. Also, it is also an interesting question when dealing with allowing suspended sentence whether a convict who is able to work why does not do it, or why does not pursue studies if it is possible within the penalty institution. This circumstance of course is considered to be a disadvantage with regards to the convict in question.
As for the input side the easiest solution would be a change in the current way of thinking of criminal policy but based on what we discussed in the dissertation we can see that the tendency is not showing in this direction, it has been basically getting stricter since the transition. The Hungarian criminal law system’s nature has been concentrated on imprisonment for a long time now which is discussed in my dissertation’s part followed after criminal policy.
Therefore, we believe that the more frequent application of alternative punishments existing in our legal system is crucial, with simultaneously highlighting that all its conditions are present in our legal system, only the necessary viewpoint has to be acquired which is leaving out imprisonment and applying other kinds of sanctions instead.
All these legal institutions are totally purposeful, in order to apply them adequately in practice we need to have a change of perspective through which alternative solutions already present in our legal system would be applied much more frequently. If we accept that this is yet to be done, we also believe that there is still a way to apply certain solutions after all the possibilities have been examined, and they can still be useful with regards to the problem of over crowdedness. As far as we are concerned having regard to what has been discovered
10 during this research the totality of the above mentioned solutions could mean such a change which would cause a positive move with regards to over crowdedness.
V. Bibliografy of the dissertation
1. ALEXIS CAUSE: Reviving the carefully limited exception: From jail to GPS bail.
Faulkner Law Review. 2013. Vol. 5:59.
2. ANDREW ASHWORTH AND JEREMY HORDER: Criminal Justice and the Criminal Law.
In.: Principles of Criminal Law. Oxford University Press, 2013.
3. ANITA GIBBS, DENISE KING: The Electronic Ball and Chain? The Operation and Impact of Home Detention with Electronic Monitoring in New Zealand. The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology. Vol. 36.
4. BALÁZSY PÉTER: Börtönfalak az örökkévalóságnak – a tényleges életfogytig tartó szabadságvesztés hazai szabályozása és nemzetközi keretei, Jogelméleti Szemle, 2018.
2. szám
5. BARABÁS A. TÜNDE: Börtön helyett egyezség? Mediáció és más alternatív szankciók Európában, KJK Kerszöv Jogi és Üzleti Kiadó, Budapest 2004.
6. BELOVICS ERVIN - VÓKÓ GYÖRGY: A büntetés-végrehajtási törvény magyarázata.
HVG-ORAC Kiadó, 2014.
7. BELOVICS ERVIN, BÉKÉS IMRE, BUSCH BÉLA, DOMOKOS ANDREA, GELLÉR BALÁZS, MARGITÁN ÉVA, MOLNÁR GÁBOR, SINKU PÁL: Büntetőjog. Általános rész, 5.
hatályosított kiadás. HVG-ORAC Lap-és Könyvkiadó Kft., Budapest, 2014.
8. BELOVICS ERVIN,NAGY FERENC,TÓTH MIHÁLY: Büntetőjog I. Általános Rész. HVG- ORAQ Lap- és Könyvkiadó Kft. Budapest, 2015.
9. BÍRÓ EEMESE: A fogvatartottak családi kapcsolatainak szerepe a bűnelkövetésben, a börtönélményben és a reintegrációben. Szociológiai Tanulmányok, 2015. 2. szám
10. BLASKÓ BÉLA: Magyar Büntetőjog Általános rész, Rejtjel Kiadó Budapest – Debrecen, 2013.
11. BLUTMAN LÁSZLÓ: Büntető jogegységi határozat a tényleges életfogytig tartó szabadságvesztésről. A nemzetközi jog a büntetőeljárásban, Jogesetek Magyarázata, 2017/2. szám
12. BORBÍRÓ ANDREA –KEREZSI KLÁRA: A kriminálpolitika és a társadalmi bűnmegelőzés kézikönyve, 2009.
13. BOROS JÁNOS-CSETNEKY LÁSZLÓ: Börtönpszichológia, Rejtjel, 2002.
14. BÚZA GÁBOR ATTILA: Büntetés és kriminálpolitika. Jogtudományi Közlöny, 2014. 7.
és 8. szám
11 15. CHARLES ROSE: Electronic Monitoring of Offenders: A New Dimension in Community Sentencing or a Needless Diversion? International review of law computers & technology. 1997. Vol. 11.
16. CLAUS ROXIN: Strafrecht. Allgemeiner Teil. Band I. Verlag C. H. Beck, München, 2006.
17. CZÉDLI-DEÁK ANDREA: A közérdekű munka büntetés kiszabásának és végrehajtásának gyakorlati kérdései. Jogelméleti Szemle, 2016. 1. szám
18. CZIGLER DEZSŐ TAMÁS -HORVÁTHY BALÁZS: A szabadságon, a biztonságon és a jog érvényesülésén alapuló térség jogforrásainak feltárása. Jog, Állam, Politika, 2011. 2.
szám
19. CZINE ÁGNES: Életfogytiglan, élethossziglan a büntetésvégrehajtási intézetben, avagy 40 évig tartó remény? Miskolci Jogi Szemle, 2019. 2. különszám 1. kötet
20. CSORDÁS SÁNDOR- VÓKÓ GYÖRGY: A fogvatartokkal való bánásmód elvei és gyakorlata. Börtönügyi Szemle, 2004. 4. szám
21. DAN MARKEL: Wrong Turns on the Road to Alternative Sanctions: Reflections on the Future of Shaming Punishments and Restorative Justice. Texas Law Review, 2007.
Vol. 85.
22. DANIEL E.HALL,J.D.,ED.D.: Criminal Law and Procedure. Cengage Learning, USA, 2015.
23. DELTENRE, SAMUEL; MAES, ERIC: Pre-trial Detention and the Overcrowding of Prisons in Belgium. European Journal of Crime, Criminal Law and Criminal Justice.
2004. Vol. 12/4.
24. DOMOKOS ANDREA: A büntetőpolitika változásai Magyarországon. Jog és Állam, 11.
füzet, 2008.
25. DOMOKOS ANDREA: Kriminológia és büntetőpolitika Magyarországon a globális kihívások korában. Jog-Állam-Politika, 2012. 2. szám
26. DR. SZEMESI SÁNDOR: Sok (jó) ember kis helyen? A magyar fegyintézetek zsúfoltságával kapcsolatos kérdések az EJEB gyakorlatában. (https://ujbtk.hu/dr- szemesi-sandor-sok-jo-ember-kis-helyen-a-magyar-fegyintezetek-zsufoltsagaval- kapcsolatos-kerdesek-az-emberi-jogok-europai-birosaga-gyakorlataban-1/
27. DR.TÓTH MIHÁLY: A hazai börtönnépesség újabb kori alakulásának lehetséges okai és valószínű távlatai (https://ujbtk.hu/dr-toth-mihaly-a-hazai-bortonnepesseg-ujabb-kori- alakulasanak-lehetseges-okai-es-valoszinu-tavlatai%C2%B9/, letöltés ideje: 2018.
január 10.)
12 28. DREW KIRAGES: Reentry Reform in Indiana: HEA 1006 and Its (Much Too Narrow)
Focus on Prison Overcrowding. Indiana Law Review. 2015. Vol. 49.
29. ELLA PANEIAKH: No Room. What Has Changed in Russia’s System of Repression During the Past Year. Russian Politics and Law, 2016. Vol. 54.
30. EMILY LABUTTA: The prisoner as one of us: Norwegian wisdom for American penal practice. Emory International Law Review, 2017. Vol. 31.
31. EMMANUEL DECAUX: The definition of traditional sanctions: their scope and characteristics. International Review of the Red Cross, Volume 90, Number 870, June 2008.
32. FARKAS HENRIETTA REGINA: Az előzetes letartóztatás legvitatottabb kérdései a gyakorlatban, Jura, 2014. 2. szám
33. FAZEKAS TAMÁS – KÁDÁR ANDRÁS KRISTÓF –NOVOSZÁDEK NÓRA: Az előzetes letartóztatás gyakorlata: Az alternatív kényszerintézkedések és a bírói döntéshozatal vizsgálata (Budapest: Magyar Helsinki Bizottság 2015.
34. FOLTA DÓRA: Jobb lehet az új? Az előzetes letartóztatás elrendelése az új Be.
tükrében. Eljárásjogi Szemle, 2017. 1. szám
35. FÖLDVÁRI JÓZSEF: A kriminálpolitika fogalmáról. Jogtudományi Közlöny, 1986. 6.
szám
36. GÁL LEVENTE: A munkaerő-piacon innen, börtönön túl. Szociológiai Tanulmányok, 2015. 2. szám
37. GARCÍA-GUERRERO J.,MARCO A.: Overcrowding in prisons and its impact on health, American Society of Criminology 2018.
38. Gellér Balázs:A tényleges életfogytig tartó szabadságvesztés – Büntetőjog-elméleti meggondolások tükrében. (letöltés ideje: 2019. április 4. napja, https://jog.tk.mta.hu/uploads/files/09_GellerB.pdf)
39. GEORGE P. FLETCHER: Basic Concepts of Criminal Law. Oxford University Press.
New York, Oxford, 1998.
40. GÖNCZÖL KATALIN: A helyreállító igazságszolgáltatás filozófiája. Büntetőjogi Kodifikáció, 2007. 2. szám
41. GÖNCZÖL KATALIN: Kriminálpolitika és bűnözéskontroll Magyarországon. Reformok 2002-2009. Kriminológiai Tanulmányok, 47., Budapest, 2010.
42. GÖRGÉNYI ILONA: A közérdekű munka, In: Görgényi Ilona – Gula József – Horváth Tibor – Jacsó Judit – Lévay Miklós – Sántha Ferenc – Váradi Erika: Magyar Büntetőjog Általános Rész. Complex Kiadó Kft., Budapest, 2012.
13 43. GÖRGÉNYI ILONA: A resztoratív büntetőjog új irányai. In: POLT PÉTER, BELOVICS
ERVIN, GELLÉR BALÁZS, AMBRUS ISTVÁN: Ünnepi Kötet Györgyi Kálmán 75.
Születésnapja Alkalmából. ELTE Eötvös Kiadó, Budapest, 2016.
44. GYÖRGYI KÁLMÁN: Büntetések és intézkedések. Közigazgatási és Jogi Könyvkiadó, Budapest, 1984.
45. HANS WELZEL: Das Deutsche Strafrecht. Walter De Gruyter & Co. Berlin, Berlin, 1954.
46. HARASZTI M. KATALIN: A „nemzeti megelőző mechanizmus” mint a kínzás és más kegyetlen, embertelen vagy megalázó bánásmód megelőzésének eszköze. Acta Humana, 2009. 3. szám
47. HARASZTI MARGIT KATALIN: A kínzás és az embertelen vagy megalázó bánásmód és büntetések tilalma az ENSZ és az Európa Tanács legfontosabb dokumentumaiban, valamint az állampolgári jogok országgyűlési biztosának tevékenységében, Acta Humana, 2008. 3. szám
48. HARMATHYNÉ HORVÁTH ANNA: Társadalmi tulajdon és büntetőpolitika. Akadémia Kiadó, Budapest 1988.
49. INKERI ANTTILA: AD IUS CRIMINALE HUMANIUS. Gummerus Printing, Finland, 2011.
50. JAMES M.A.PITTS,O. HAYDEN GRIFFIN,W.WESLEY JOHNSON: Contemporary prison overcrowding: short-term fixes to a perpetual problem. Contemporary Justice Review, 2014 Vol. 17, No. 1.
51. JAN ANDERSSON: The Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention: a Short Presentation. Journal of Scandinavian Studies in Criminology and Crime Prevention, Vol. 6.
52. JONATHAN SIMON: Amnesty Now! Ending Prison Overcrowding through a Categorical Use of the Pardon Power. UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI LAW REVIEw, [Vol.
70:444,2016]
53. JUHÁSZ ANDREA ERIKA: A fogvatartottakkal szemben megvalósuló kínzás, valamint az embertelen vagy megalázó bánásmód, illetve büntetés fogalmainak elhatárolása. Acta Humana, 2015. 5. szám
54. JUHÁSZ ANDREA ERIKA: A kínzás, az embertelen, a megalázó bánásmód tilalma a fogvatartottakkal szemben, PhD. értekezés, Szegedi Tudományegyetem Állam- és Jogtudományi Kar Doktori Iskola, 2016.
55. JUHÁSZ ANDREA ERIKA: A túlzsúfoltság kérdése az EJEB esetjogában. Acta Universitatis Szegediensis : Acta juridica et politica, 2018., (81. Tomus)
56. JUHÁSZ ANDREA ERIKA: Az Emberi Jogok Európai Bíróságának a túlzsúfoltsággal kapcsolatos esetjoga. Börtönügyi Szemle, 2016. 1. szám
14 57. JUHÁSZ ZOLTÁN: Jog a reményhez, Fundamentum, 2005. 2. szám
58. JUHÁSZ ZSUZSANNA: Az elöregedő börtönnépesség problémái, Börtönügyi Szemle, 2012. 2. szám.
59. JUHÁSZ ZSUZSANNA: Így enyhítené a kormány a börtönök túlzsúfoltságát. Jogászvilág, 2016. március 2., https://jogaszvilag.hu/szakma/igy-enyhitene-a-kormany-a-bortonok- zsufoltsagat/
60. JUHÁSZ ZSUZSANNA: Megújult az Európai Börtönszabályok, Börtönügyi Szemle, 2006.
3. szám
61. KABÓDI CSABA –MEZEY BArna: Büntetési elméletek. Módszertani Füzetek, 1985. 1.
szám
62. KAZAI VIKTOR ZOLTÁN – IVÁNYI BORBÁLA: Van még új a nap alatt. További javaslatok a börtönök túlzsúfoltságának tartós enyhítésére. Fundamentum, 2016. 2-4.
szám
63. Kelemen Péter: A hazai börtönügy problematikája. Arsboni, 2019. március 5., https://arsboni.hu/a-hazai-bortonugy-problematikaja/#_ftn5
64. KEREZSI KLÁRA: Kontroll vagy támogatás: az alternatív szankciók dilemmája.
Comőlex, Wolters Kluwer Csoport, Budapest, 2006.
65. KEREZSI KLÁRA: A közösségben végrehajtott büntetések; helyreállító igazságszolgáltatás In. Kriminológia, szakkriminológia (szerk. Gönczöl Katalin – Kerezsi Klára – Korinek László – Lévay Miklós). CompLex Kiadó, Budapest 2006.
66. KEREZSI KLÁRA: Az alternatív szankciók helye és szerepe a büntetőjog szankciórendszerében. Büntetőjogi Kodifikáció, 2001. 2. szám
67. KEREZSI KLÁRA: Az alternatív szankciók helye és szerepe a büntetőjog szankciórendszerében, Kriminológiai Tanulmányok 39., Budapest 2002.
68. KEREZSI KLÁRA: Kriminálpolitika akkor és ma. Jogtörténeti Szemle, 2016. 1. szám 69. KERTÉSZ IMRE: Miért túlzsúfoltak a börtönök? JURA, 2001. 2. szám
70. KIRÁLY ZOÉ ADRIENN: Az Egyesült Államok kriminálpolitikája és az amerikai szupermax börtönök. Börtönügyi Szemle, 2011. 2. szám
71. KISS ANNA: Új Be. - Feltételes ügyész felfüggesztés a vádemelés elhalasztása helyett.
Jogászvilág.hu, 2018. június 26. https://jogaszvilag.hu/szakma/uj-be-felteteles- ugyeszi-felfuggesztes-a-vademeles-elhalasztasa-helyett/
72. KOÓSNÉ MOHÁCSI BARBARA, LŐRINCZ JÓZSEF, LUKÁCS KRISZTINA, PALLO JÓZSef:
Büntetés-végrehajtási jog, ELTE Eötvös Kiadó, Budapest, 2017.
73. KOÓSNÉ MOHÁCSI BARBARA: A túlzsúfoltság problémájának kezelése Finnországban, Börtönügyi Szemle, 2017. 3. szám
15 74. KORINEK LÁSZLÓ: Kriminológia. Magyar Közlöny Lap- és Könyvkiadó, Budapest,
2010.
75. KORINEK LÁSZLÓ-LÉVAY MIKLÓS: A kriminológia fogalma, feladata, kutatási területei; helye és szerepe a bűnügyi tudományokban és a társadalomban. In:
Kriminológia-Szakkriminológia. Complex-Wolters Kluwer Csoport. Budapest 2006.
76. KRISTEL BEYENS,MARIJKE ROOSEN: Electronic monitoring in Belgium : a penological analysis of current and future orientations, European Journal of Probation University of Bucharest, Vol. 5, No.3
77. KRISTEL BEYENS,MARIJKE ROOSEN: Electronic monitoring in Belgium, Department of Criminology, Research Group Crime & Society Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Belgium, May 2016.
78. LAJTÁR JÓZSEF: A zsúfoltság csökkentésének gyakorlati megoldásai. Belügyi Szemle, 2015. 11. szám
79. LAUREN C. PORTER, LAURA M. DEMARCO: Beyond the dichotomy: Incarceration dosage and mental health, American Society of Criminology, 2018.
80. LÉVAY MIKLÓS: Társadalmi-gazdasági változások és bűnözés. Jogtudományi Közlöny, 2000. 9. szám
81. LÉVAY MIKLÓS: Az európai börtönnépességről és a szabadságelvonással nem járó szankciók hatálya alatt álló elítéltekről az Európa Tanács SPACE projektje alapján.
Miskolci Jogi Szemle, 2019. 2. különszám 2. kötet
82. LEWIS LYONS: A büntetés története, 2005, Magyar Könyvklub, Budapest
83. LIGETI KATALIN: Kriminálpolitika és pönológia. In: Kriminológia-Szakkriminológia.
Complex-Wolters Kluwer Csoport. Budapest 2006.
84. LŐRINCZ JÓZSEF: Büntetőpolitika és büntetés-végrehajtás 1970 és 2002 között.
Jogelméleti Szemle, 2003. 4. szám
85. MEZEY BARNa: A hosszú tartamú szabadság-büntetés a joghistóriában. Börtönügyi Szemle, 2005. 2. szám
86. MIKE NELLIS: Quakers, penal reform and the challenge of electronically monitoring offenders. International Review of Law, Computers & Technology. 2011. Vol. 25.
87. MIRANDA BOONE, MATTHIJS VAN DER KOOIJ AND STEPHANIE RAP: Current Uses of Electronic Monitoring in the Netherlands, Utrecht University, 2016 January, 10.
88. MIRKO BAGARIC, DAN HUNTER,GABRIELLE WOLF: Technological incarceration and the end of the prison crisis, The Journal of criminal law riminology, Vol. 108, No. 1
16 89. MIRKO BAGARIC, DAN HUNTER,GABRIELLE WOLF: Technological incarceration and
the end of the prison crisis, The Journal of criminal law riminology, Vol. 108, No. 1 90. MOHÁCSI BARBARA: A szabadságvesztés-büntetés lehetséges alternatívái. Jogi
Tanulmányok, 2010. 1. szám
91. NAGY ANITA: „Közösségi szankciók” a különleges eljárásokban. Publicationes Universitatis Miskolcinensis Sectio Juridica et Politica, Tomus XXXI. (2013)
92. NAGY ANITA: A kártalanítási eljárás. Miskolci Jogi Szemle, 2019. 2. különszám 2.
kötet
93. NAGY ANITA: A kegyelmi és a kötelező kegyelmi eljárás összehasonlítása, Börtönügyi Szemle, 2017. 2. szám
94. NAGY ANITA: A túlzsúfoltság a büntetés-végrehajtási intézetekben, figyelemmel a nemzetközi szabályozásra, Jogelméleti Szemle, 2016. 1. szám
95. NAGY FERENC – JUHÁSZ ZSUZSANNA: A fogvatartotti rátáról nemzetközi összehasonlításban. Börtönügyi Szemle, 2010. 3. szám
96. NAGY FERENC: A büntetés végrehajtásának – részbeni – felfüggesztéséről. Büntetőjogi Kodifikáció, 2003. 3. szám
97. NAGY FERENC: A szabadságelvonással járó szankciókról az új Btk.-ban. Börtönügyi Szemle, 2014. 4. szám
98. Nagy Ferenc: Az egyes büntetésekről és büntetőjogi intézkedésekről de lege lata és de lege ferenda.
99. http://digit.bibl.u-szeged.hu/00000/00051/00336/juridpol_063_fasc_014.pdf
100. NAGY FERENC: Az egyesítő büntetési elméletekről a német büntetőjog- tudományban. In.: POLT PÉTER,BELOVICS ERVIN,GELLÉR BALÁZS,AMBRUS ISTVÁN: Ünnepi kötet Györgyi Kálmán 75. születésnapja alkalmából. ELTE Eötvös Kiadó, Budapest, 2016.
101. NAGY FERENC: Az európai börtönnépességről. Börtönügyi Szemle, 2016. 3.
szám
102. NAGY FERENC: Európai kihívások, magyar válaszok a büntetőjog és a büntetés- végrehajtás területén. Börtönügyi Szemle, 2003. 1. szám
103. NAGY FERENC: Gondolatok a hosszú tartamú szabadságvesztésről és az európai börtönnépességről. Börtönügyi Szemle, 2013. 1. szám
104. NILS CHRIStie: A fájdalom korlátai. Európa Könyvkiadó, Budapest, 1991.
105. NILS CHRISTIE: Bűnözés-kontroll Európában és Észak-Amerikában. In:
Kriminológiai Közlemények 55. Budapest, Magyar Kriminológiai Társaság, 1998.
17 106. NILS CHRISTIE: Drogkontroll-út a totalitárius viszonyok felé. Esély, 1998.6.
szám
107. PALLAGI ANIKÓ: A tényleges életfogytig tartó szabadságvesztés büntetőpolitikai szemszögből. Belügyi Szemle, 2014. 12. szám
108. PALLAGI ANIKÓ: Büntetőpolitika az új évszázad első éveiben Doktori értekezés, Debrecen, 2014.
109. PALLO JÓZSEF: Évforduló. Visszatekintés a Bv. törvény kodifikációjára és a jogalkalmazás néhány első tapasztalatára. Börtönügyi Szemle, 2016. 1. szám
110. PALLO JÓZSEF-TÖRŐCSIK BALÁZS: A magyar büntetés-végrehajtás szabályozási környezete az európai elvárások tükrében (1. rész). Börtönügyi Szemle, 2011. 2. szám
111. PÁLVÖLGYI ÁKOS: A szabadságvesztés-büntetés felfüggesztésének ingamozgása a magyar büntetőjogban a Csemegi Kódextől napjainkig, Doktori Értekezés, Pécs, 2018
112. PAPP GÁBOR: A prizonizációs jelenség elméleti háttere – kritikai megközelítésben Börtönügyi Szemle, 2009. 2. szám
113. PENNY SNOW: Electronic Monitoring of Offenders. International Review of Law, Computers & Technolog. Vol. 13.
114. PHILIP BULMAN: Electronic Monitoring Reduces Recidivism. Corrections Today, 2010.
115. POKRÓCOS GYÖRGY: A szabálysértési elzárás alkalmazásának kérdései, Jogelméleti Szemle, 2015. 4. szám
116. POLGÁR ANDRÁS: Mi lesz veled, TÉSZ? A tényleges életfogytig tartó szabadságvesztés emberi jogi megítélése, érvek, ellenérvek. Büntetőjogi Tanulmányok, 2015. XVI. kötet
117. POLGÁR ANDRÁS: Volt egyszer egy büntetés. A kötelező kegyelmi eljárás szabályai a strasbourgi döntés alapján. Börtönügyi Szemle, 2015. 2. szám
118. RÓTH ERIKA: Az egyezménykonform előzetes letartóztatáshoz vezető út. In.:
Állam- és Jogtudomány, LVIII. évfolyam, 2017. 4. szám
119. SAM TORRES: Reviews Professional Periodicals, The Prison Journal, FEDERAL PROBATION Volume 69. Nr. 1
120. SCHMEHL JÁNOS – KOVÁCS TAMÁS: A fogvatartottak foglalkoztatásának biztonsági kérdései Pálhalmán. Börtönügyi Szemle, 2008. 2. szám
121. SIPOS FERENC: A közérdekű munka szerepe a börtönnépesség csökkentésében:
a finn tapasztalatok. Pro Futuro, 2017. 2. szám
18 122. SIPOS FERENC: Közérdekű munka skandináv módra I. (A norvég és a svéd
példa). Jura, 2017. 2. szám
123. SIPOS FERENC: Közérdekű munka skandináv módra II. A dán és a finn példa.
Jura, 2018. 1. szám
124. SÍPOS FERENC: Új szabályok, régi gondok a közérdekű munka szabályozásában. Miskolci Jogi Szemle, 11. évfolyam (2016.) 1. szám
125. SOMOGYVÁRI MIHÁLY: Az új közmenedzsment büntetőpolitikára gyakorolt hatásának kritikai megközelítése. Börtönügyi Szemle, 2013. 3. szám.
126. SOMOGYVÁRI MIHÁLY: Büntetőpolitika és legitimáció. Börtönügyi Szemle, 2012. 3. szám
127. STUPIDO ROY: Exit Status of Probationers and Prison-Bound Offenders in an Electronic Monitoring Home Detention Program: A Comparative Study, Indiana State University, Federal Probation, Volume 77. Nr. 3
128. Synøve N. Andersen Kjetil Telle: Electronic monitoring and recidivism.Quasi- experimental evidence from Norway. Discussion Papers Statistics Norway Research department, No. 844.,2016. August
129. SZABÓ DÓRA: A fogvatartottak foglalkoztatásának szerepe. Studia iuvenum iurisperitorum, 2008. 4. szám
130. SZABÓ ZOLTÁN: A büntetés-végrehajtás központi ellátási tevékenysége, Börtönügyi Szemle, 2013. 3. szám
131. SZEMESI SÁNDOR: Az emberi jogok európai őrének új fegyvere: a pilot judgment eljárás a strasbourgi bíróság gyakorlatában, Jog-Állam-Politika, 2013. 4.
szám
132. TALLÓDI ZOLTÁN: A börtönzsúfoltság kérdése az Emberi Jogok Európai Bírósága döntéseinek tükrében. Börtönügyi Szemle, 2016. 1. szám
133. Tapio Lappi-Seppälä: Causes of prison overcrowding.
https://www.unafei.or.jp/publications/pdf/12th_Congress/12Tapio_Lappi-Seppala.pdf (letöltés ideje: 2019. február 13.)
134. TARCZI LAJOS: Elmélkedés a polgári büntetésről. Tudománytár, 1837. 1. kötet 135. TIM STELLOH: California’s Great Prison Experiment. The state faces a
deadline to release tens of thousands of people from prison. Is it succeeding? The Nation. 2013. June 24/July 1.
136. VÁCZI PÉTER: Kegyelem! A közkegyelem intézményéről és a semmisségi törvényekről Tanulmányok a 70 éves Bihari Mihály tiszteletére. Universitas-Győr Nonprofit Kft., Győr, 2013.
19 137. VARGA VALÉRIA: Önfenntartó börtönök – realitás vagy utópia? Börtönügyi
Szemle, 2013.1. szám
138. VÁRI ESZTER: Gondolatok a pártfogó felügyeleti munkáról, in Háló – A Szociális Szakmai Szövetség hírlevele, 2004/10. szám.
139. VÉGH MARIANNA: A büntetés-végrehajtás és az európai elvárások. Themis, 2016. június
140. VESZELI DÁNIEL: A reintegrációs őrizet bevezetése a büntetés-végrehajtás tevékenységrendszerébe. Börtönügyi Szemle, 2015. 3. szám
141. VLADIMIR-ADRIAN COSTEA: The application of electronic monitoring systems in Romania: How an in what ways does electronic surveillance facilitate a convicted person’s reintegration into society?, Constitutional Law Review, 2018.
142. VÓKÓ GYÖRGY: A büntetés és annak elviselése a világon. In.: Györgyi Kálmán – ünnepi kötet. Bibliotheca Iuridica. Budapest, 2004.
143. VÓKÓ GYÖRGY: A büntetés teóriák racionalitásai. Büntetőjogi Szemle, 2012. 1.
szám
144. VÓKÓ GYÖRGY: A büntetés-végrehajtás időszerű kérdései. JURA, 2001. 1.
szám
145. VÓKÓ GYÖRGY: A büntetés-végrehajtási jog szerepe a jogállamban. Börtönügyi Szemle, 2014. 1. szám
146. VÓKÓ GYÖRGY: Szabadságvesztéssel nem járó büntetések végrehajtásáról, Magyar Jog, 1998. 11. szám
147. WILLIAM BÜLOW: Electronic Monitoring of Offenders: An Ethical Review.
Science and Engineering Ethics. 2014. Vol. 20.
List of the legal documents
148. Magyarország Alaptörvénye
149. 2012. évi C. törvény a Büntető Törvénykönyvről 150. 1978. évi IV. törvény a Büntető Törvénykönyvről 151. 2017. évi XC. törvény a büntetőeljárásról
152. 1998. évi IX. törvény a büntetőeljárásról
153. 2013. évi CCXL. törvény a büntetések, az intézkedések, egyes kényszerintézkedések és a szabálysértési elzárás végrehajtásáról
20 154. 2012. évi II. törvény a szabálysértésekről, a szabálysértési eljárásról és a
szabálysértési nyilvántartási rendszerről
155. 2006. évi CXXIII. törvény - a büntető ügyekben alkalmazható közvetítői tevékenységről
156. 1993. évi XXXI. törvény az emberi jogok és az alapvető szabadságok védelméről szóló, Rómában, 1950. november 4-éLXXn kelt Egyezmény és az ahhoz tartozó nyolc kiegészítő jegyzőkönyv kihirdetéséről
157. 2013. évi V. törvény a Polgári Törvénykönyvről
158. 2011. évi CXLIII. törvény a kínzás és más kegyetlen, embertelen vagy megalázó bánásmód vagy büntetés elleni egyezmény fakultatív jegyzőkönyvének kihirdetéséről
159. 1979. évi 11. törvényerejű rendelet
160. 1984. évi a Kínzás és más kegyetlen, embertelen és megalázó bánásmódról és büntetésről szóló egyezmény
161. Európai Unió Működéséről Szóló Szerződés
162. Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment
163. United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for Non-custodial Measures
164. United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for Non-custodial Measures (The Tokyo Rules)
165. Európai Börtönszabályok
166. United Nations, Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners, 167. Living space per prisoner in prison establishments: CPT standards
168. White Paper on Prison Overcrowding
169. Jelentés a büntetés-végrehajtási rendszerekről és a börtönkörülményekről (2015/2062(INI))
170. Prisons in Europe 2005-2015 Volume 1.
171. AEBI, M.F. – TIAGO, M.M.: SPACE I-2018-Council of Europe Annual Penal Statistics: Prison Populations. Strasbourg, Council of Europe, Strasbourg. 2018.
Updated on 11 June 2019. https://wp.unil.ch/space - SPACE I Annual reports +2018.
21 172. Recommendation CM/Rec (2017) 3 on the European Rules on community
sanctions and measures: Definitions,
173. Recommendation CM/Rec(2014)4 of the Committee of Ministers to member States on electronic monitoring
174. 6/1996. (VII. 12.) IM rendelet 175. 44/2011. (III. 23.) Korm. rendelet 176. 16/2014. (XII. 19.) IM rendelet
177. A 268/2016. (VIII. 31.) Korm. rendelet 178. 1125/2016. (III. 10.) Korm. határozat 179. 4/2015 (XII. 17.) BVOP utasítás 180. 4/1026. (XII.19.) BVOP utasítás 181. 23/1990. (X.31.) AB határozat 182. 11/1992. (III.V) AB határozat 183. 30/1992 (V.26) AB határozat 184. 13/2002. (III.20.) AB határozat 185. 56/2007. BK vélemény
186. BJD 4705 187. BH2000. 91.
188. BH1999. 7.
189. BH2000. 45.
190. BH1990. 323.
191. BH1998. 465.
192. BH.1992.511.
193. BH.1982.132.
194. BH.1988.126.
195. BH1989.140.
196. BH2004.45.
197. BH1989.140.
198. BH1993.334.
199. BH1996. 1.
200. BH1997. 3.
201. Nagy Gábor v Hungary, Judgment of 11 February 2014, no. 33529/11 202. EJEB2002. 37328/97. A. B. kontra The Netherlands
203. EJEB1979. 6538/74. Sunday Times kontra the United Kingdom.
204. László Magyar v. Hungary - 73593/10
205. EJEB2001. 44558/98. Valasinas kontra Lithuania
