Encyclopedia of Criminology and Criminal Justice

2014 Edition
| Editors: Gerben Bruinsma, David Weisburd

International Human Rights Standards and Community Sanctions

  • Christine Morgenstern
  • Dirk van Zyl Smit
Reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-5690-2_562


In criminal justice, the question of the place of human rights often focuses on issues relating to imprisonment. However, imposing and enforcing community sanctions, such as probation, community work, or electronic monitoring, may also pose severe threats to the basic human rights of the offenders and their families. The rights potentially affected differ according to the sanction imposed and the stage of the criminal process – human dignity, privacy, and the presumption of innocence are examples of the rights that may be endangered. These rights are generally protected by binding international human rights law as expressed in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights or the European Convention on Human Rights. More specific international standards are set by recommendations and other instruments by international bodies. Questions arise, however, about the extent to which these standards are implemented and their impact monitored. These questions are becoming...

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

Recommended Reading and References

  1. Alston P (1994) Human rights in 1993: how far has the United Nations come and where should it go from here? In: Nowak M (ed) World conference on human rights. United Nations, Vienna. The Contribution of NGO’s. Reports and Documents. Vienna, June 1993Google Scholar
  2. Alston P, Simma B (1989) The sources of human rights law: custom, jus cogens, and general principles. Aust Yearb Int Law 25:82–108Google Scholar
  3. Cohen S (1985) Visions of social control: crime, punishment, and classification. Polity Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  4. Council of Europe (1992) Recommendation No. R (92) 16 of the committee of ministers to member states on the European rules on community sanctions and measures adopted by the committee of ministers on 19 Oct 1992 at the 482nd meeting of the ministers’ deputiesGoogle Scholar
  5. Council of Europe (1999) Recommendation No. R (99) 22 of the committee of ministers to member states concerning prison overcrowding and prison population inflation adopted by the committee of ministers on 30 Sep 1999 at the 681st meeting of the ministers’ deputiesGoogle Scholar
  6. Council of Europe (2000) Recommendation Rec (2000) 22 of the committee of 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 Nov 2000 at the 731st meeting of the ministers’ deputiesGoogle Scholar
  7. Council of Europe (2003) Recommendation Rec (2003) 22 of the committee of ministers to member states on conditional release (Parole) adopted by the committee of ministers on 24 Sep 2003 at the 853rd meeting of the ministers’ deputiesGoogle Scholar
  8. Council of Europe (2010) Recommendation CM/Rec(2010) 1 of the committee of ministers to member states on the council of Europe probation rules adopted by the committee of ministers on 20 Jan 2010Google Scholar
  9. Durnescu I (2011) Pains of probation: effective practice and human rights. Int J Offender Ther Comp Criminol 55:530–545Google Scholar
  10. Emmerson B, Ashworth A, Macdonald A (2007) Human rights and criminal justice. Sweet & Maxwell, LondonGoogle Scholar
  11. Flore D, Bosly S, Honhon A, Maggio J (eds) (2012) Probation measures and alternative sanctions in the European Union. Intersentia, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  12. Foucault M (1975) Surveillir et punir. La naissance de la prison. Gallimard, Paris (English version: discipline and punish: the birth of the prison, 1977. Pantheon, Harmondsworth)Google Scholar
  13. von Hirsch A (1990) The ethics of community-based sanctions. Crime Delinq 36:162–173Google Scholar
  14. Hucklesby A (2011) Bail support schemes for adults. The Policy Press, BristolGoogle Scholar
  15. Humphrey J (1973) Foreword. In: Lillich R (ed) Humanitarian intervention and the United Nations. University of Virginia Press, CharlottesvilleGoogle Scholar
  16. International Penal and Penitentiary Foundation (1988) The standards minimum rules for the implementation of non-custodial measures involving the restriction of liberty (the Groningen rules). IPPF, GroningenGoogle Scholar
  17. van Kalmthout A, Durnescu I (2008) European probation service systems: a comparative overview. In: van Kalmthout A, Durnescu I (eds) Probation in Europe. Wolf Legal, NijmegenGoogle Scholar
  18. Meron T (1989) Human rights and humanitarian norms as customary law. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  19. McNeill F (2013) Community sanctions and European penology. In: Daems T, Snacken S, van Zyl Smit D (eds) European penology? Hart Publishing, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  20. Morgenstern C (2002) Internationale mindeststandards für ambulante strafen und maßnahmen. Forum Verlag Godesberg, MönchengladbachGoogle Scholar
  21. Morgenstern C (2009) European initiatives for harmonisation and minimum standards in the field of community sanctions and measures. Eur J Probat 1:128–141Google Scholar
  22. Morgenstern C (2010) The requirement of the offender’s consent to community service. In: Groenhuijsen M, Kooijmans T, de Roos T (eds) Fervet opus. Liber amicorum Anton van Kalmthout. MAKLU, Apeldoorn, pp 151–160Google Scholar
  23. Morgenstern C (2011) Estándares europeos sobre penas y medidas comunitarias. In: Larrauri E, Blay E (eds) Penas comunitarias en Europa. Trotta, MadridGoogle Scholar
  24. Padfield N, van Zyl Smit D, Dünkel F (eds) (2010) Release from prison. European policy and practice. Willan Publishing, CullomptonGoogle Scholar
  25. Robinson G (2008) Late-modern rehabilitation. Punishment Soc 10:429–445Google Scholar
  26. Sparks R, McNeill F (2010) Incarceration, social control and human rights. In: The International Council of Human Rights Policy (ed) Social control and human rights. ICHRP, Geneva. Research paperGoogle Scholar
  27. United Nations (1990) United Nations standard minimum rules for non-custodial measures (The Tokyo rules) adopted by general assembly resolution 45/110 of 14 Dec 1990Google Scholar
  28. United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (2007) Handbook of basic principles and promising practices on alternatives to imprisonment. United Nations, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  29. van Zyl Smit D (1993) Legal standards and the limits of community sanctions. Eur J Crime, Crim Law Crim Justice 1:309–331Google Scholar
  30. van Zyl Smit D (2006) Humanising imprisonment: a European project? Eur J Crim Policy Res 12:107–120Google Scholar
  31. van Zyl Smit D (2012) Non-custodial sanctions and European human rights law. In: Roberts J, Zedner L (eds) Principles and values in criminal law and criminal justice: essays in honour of Andrew Ashworth. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 191–208Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Ernst Moritz Arndt Universität GreifswaldGreifswaldGermany
  2. 2.University of NottinghamNottinghamUK