Advertisement

Surveillance and Criminal Investigation: Blurring of Thresholds and Boundaries in the Criminal Justice System?

  • John A. E. Vervaele
Chapter

Abstract

Surveillance is increasingly used as in investigative technique, both as a tool of judicial investigation to gather evidence as a tool in a pre-active setting, before the preparation of an offence, to gather information about risks, threats and dangerousness of personal behaviour and thinking. The net widening and function creep of investigative surveillance imply conceptual changes which are strongly related to the information society and to transformations in the criminal justice system under the security paradigm. Classic thresholds and procedural guarantees in the criminal justice system have become obsolete. The human rights dimension of these surveillance measures are mostly dealt with under the protection of privacy. However, given the potential intrusive impact of surveillance and the coercive character of some surveillance techniques, also in the pre-emptive setting, it is logical to build in guarantees against disproportionate infringements of privacy, human dignity and the presumption of innocence. The latter could then be related not to the commission of offences, but also to the definition of dangerousness.

Keywords

Criminal Justice Criminal Justice System Organize Crime Information Society Criminal Procedure 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Bibliography

  1. Andenaes, Johannes. 1965–1966. General preventive effects of punishment. University of Pennsylvania Law Review 114:949–983.Google Scholar
  2. Ashworth, Andrew. 2006. Four threats to the presumption of innocence. The International Journal of Evidence & Proof 10:241–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bell, Daniel. 1976. The Coming of Post-Industrial Society. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  4. Bellanova, Rocco, and Paul De Hert. 2009. Le cas S. et Marper et les données personnelles: l’horloge de la stigmatisation stoppée par un arrêt Européen. Cultures & Conflicts 76:101–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Biersteker, Thomas J., and Sue E. Eckert, eds. 2007. Countering the financing of terrorism. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  6. Brakel, Rosamunde van, and Paul De Hert. 2011. Policing, surveillance and law in a pre-crime society: Understanding the consequences of technology based strategies. Journal of Police Studies 20:163–192.Google Scholar
  7. Brown, Sheila. 2006. The criminology of hybrids: Rethinking crime and law in technosocial networks. Theoretical Criminology 10:223–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bureau of Justice Assistance. 2005. Intelligence-led policing: The new intelligence architecture, VII. Washington, D.C.: US Department of Justice. https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/bja/210681.pdf.
  9. Casey, E. 2011. Digital evidence and computer crime. Academic Press.Google Scholar
  10. Castells, Manuel. 2000. The rise of the network society. The information age: Economy, society and culture. 2nd ed. vol. 1. Malden: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  11. De Busser, E. 2009. Data protection in EU-US criminal cooperation. Maklu.Google Scholar
  12. de Busser, E. 2010. EU data protection in transatlantic cooperation in criminal matters. Will the EU be serving its citizens an American meal? Utrecht Law Review 6 (1). (January 2010).Google Scholar
  13. de la Cuesta, J. L. 2007. Anti-terrorist penal legislation and the rule of law: Spanish experience, Revue Internationale de Droit Pénal (RIDP).Google Scholar
  14. De Hert, Paul, ed. 2012. Privacy impact assessment. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  15. Fijnaut, C., J. Wouters, and F. Naert, eds. 2004. Legal instruments in the fight against international terrorism. A Transatlantic dialogue. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.Google Scholar
  16. Frost, Natasha A. 2006. The punitive state: Crime, punishment and imprisonment across the United States. LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC.Google Scholar
  17. Gutwirth, Serge. 2002. Privacy and the information age. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
  18. Gutwirth, Serge, Ronald Leenes, and Paul De Hert, et al. 2013. European data protection: coming of age? Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Increasing Resilience In Surveillance Societies (IRISS). 2013. Deliverable D1.1, surveillance, fighting crime and violence. http://irissproject.eu/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/IRISS_D1_MASTER_DOCUMENT_17Dec20121.pdf.
  20. Jakobs, Günther. 2004. Bürgerstrafrecht und Feindstrafrecht. HRRS 3:88–95.Google Scholar
  21. Lianos, Michaelis, and Mary Douglas. 2000. Dangerization and the end of deviance. The Institutional Environment. British Journal of Criminology 40:261–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lyon, David. 1994. The electronic eye: The rise of surveillance society. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  23. Lyon, David. 2007. Surveillance studies: An overview. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  24. McCulloch, Jude, and Sharon Pickering. 2009. Pre-crime and counter-terrorism: Imagining future crime in the war on terror. British Journal of Criminology 49:634–663.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Ost, F., et M. van de Kerchove. 2002. De la pyramide au réseau? Pour une théorie dialectique du droit. Bruxelles: Publications des Facultés universitaires Saint-Louis.Google Scholar
  26. Pelser, C. 2008. Preparations to commit a crime. The Dutch approach to inchoate offences. Utrecht Law Review 4 (3).Google Scholar
  27. Pradillo, O. 2011. Fighting against cybercrime in Europe: the admissibility of remote searches in Spain. European. Journal of Crime, Criminal Law and Criminal Justice, núm 19:363–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. van Duyne, P. 1996. The phantom and threat of organized crime, Crime. Law and Social Change 24:341–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. van Noorloos, M. 2011. Hate speech revisited. A comparative and historical perspective on hate speech law in the Netherlands and England & Wales. Intersentia.Google Scholar
  30. Vervaele, J. A. E. 2009. Special procedural measures and respect of human rights, general report for the International Association of Criminal Law (AIDP). Utrecht Law Review :66–109.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Willem Pompe Institute for Criminal Law and CriminologyUtrecht UniversityUtrechtNetherlands

Personalised recommendations