Probation supervision of juvenile offenders in corrections is a crucial tool for successful social reintegration and prevention of recidivism. This study examines the legal provisions regarding probation supervision of juveniles in corrections, with particular emphasis on current Hungarian legal regulations and their practical application. It analyzes the purpose and legal framework of probation supervision in relation to various probation officer activities. The research addresses legislative changes, their impacts, as well as potential shortcomings and opportunities for improvement in the regulations. The results highlight the extent to which the legal environment supports the reintegration of juvenile offenders and the prevention of recidivism, as well as the challenges that arise in the practical implementation of the regulations.
Probation supervision of juvenile offenders in corrections is an important legal institution in the modern justice system. This measure bridges the gap between punishment and reintegration, aiming to support the reintegration of juvenile offenders into society while reducing the risk of recidivism. The significance of probation supervision has increased in recent decades as criminal justice increasingly emphasizes prevention and social reintegration, especially for juveniles.
Probation supervision is a complex task that involves supporting and monitoring the offender, as well as mobilizing community resources. Beyond the general goals of probation supervision, in the case of juvenile offenders, the aim is for the probation officer to assist the juvenile in acquiring new skills, developing positive relationships, and establishing a law-abiding lifestyle. This approach is beneficial not only for the individual but also for society as a whole, as it reduces crime and promotes social cohesion.
The legal regulation of probation supervision defines the role of the probation officer, the tools that can be used to achieve the goals, and the framework for cooperation between the institutions involved. The current legislation not only establishes the specifics of criminal liability for juveniles but also specifies the special measures that ensure the possibility of reintegration and resocialization, promoting their success.
Juvenile probation supervision faces numerous challenges in the 21st century. These challenges stem partly from changing social circumstances and partly from structural problems within
- 113/114 -
the system. In the following, we will review in detail the legal provisions regarding probation supervision of juveniles in corrections. The focus of the examination is on current Hungarian regulations and practical implementation. The study addresses legislative changes in recent years and the extent to which the current legal framework meets the requirements for special treatment of juvenile offenders. The analysis aims to highlight the strengths and weaknesses of the regulations and to formulate recommendations for increasing the efficiency of the system.
The definition of who is considered a juvenile in terms of committing crimes varies across eras and societies, and thus this definition may change.[1] Legal systems in different countries define the age limit for juveniles differently, which affects the lower and upper age limits for criminal liability, as well as the applicable forms of punishment. In Hungary, according to current criminal law, a juvenile is someone who has reached the age of twelve but not eighteen at the time of committing the offense.[2] However, the assessment of criminal liability for juveniles between 12 and 14 years of age is uniquely structured.
In Hungary, we have information about the regulation of the age of criminal responsibility dating back to the Csemegi Code. Based on this, the lower age limit for criminal liability was 12 years until the 1961 Criminal Code came into effect, after which it changed to 14 years.[3] The reasons for raising the age limit included the fact that young people typically completed their primary education by this age, and theoretically, they had acquired the most basic rules of biological-mental development and social coexistence by this time.[4]
For nearly sixty years, the lower age limit for childhood as a factor excluding criminal liability was 14 years. However, the legislator lowered the minimum age of criminal responsibility, citing an increase in verbal and physical attacks against teachers committed by minor students and adults assisting them.[5] The change, effective from 07.09.2020, was introduced by Act LXXIV of 2020 on certain amendments to laws necessary to eliminate and prevent school violence. However, the lowering of the minimum age of criminal responsibility was not implemented universally, but in a sectoral manner. On one hand, juveniles between 12 and 14 years of age became punishable only for certain crimes[6], and on the other hand, only if they possess the necessary insight to recognize the consequences of the crime. According to Instruction 11/2018. (VI. 29.) LÜ on the performance of prosecutorial tasks related to juvenile criminal cases, the prosecutor's office decides on the capacity for discernment based on expert opinions on one hand, and on other available information (such as environmental study, pedagogical characterization, medical documentation on physical and psychological condition, etc.) on the other hand.[7]
- 114/115 -
Both the Criminal Code and the Penitentiary Code contain separate provisions for juvenile offenders. The Criminal Code specifically defines the purpose of punishment or measures for juvenile offenders. Accordingly, the primary aim of punishment or measures imposed on a juvenile is to ensure that the juvenile develops in the right direction and becomes a useful member of society.[8] Our criminal law also emphasizes the principle of ultima ratio for juvenile offenders, stating that measures or punishments involving deprivation of liberty can only be applied or imposed on a juvenile if the purpose of the measure or punishment cannot be achieved by other means.[9]
The law regulating the execution of measures and punishments also makes separate provisions for juveniles. These include rules on separation[10], education of juvenile detainees[11], and specifically prescribes that to assist the juvenile's integration into society, the help of the guardianship authority and other state bodies, civil organizations, educational institutions, the probation officer, and the juvenile's relatives should be utilized.[12]
Based on the above, it can be said that juvenility is a unique life situation in which an individual's personality is still developing, therefore criminal law applies a different approach to them compared to adult offenders. Defining juvenility not only means setting an age limit but also considering that offenders, due to their age characteristics, have an increased need for educational and reintegration-oriented measures. The primary goal of juvenile criminal justice is to reintegrate them into society and prevent recidivism, rather than retribution. Accordingly, the laws provide special procedures and measures that primarily promote the social reintegration of juvenile offenders.
In the following part of the study, I will present those special provisions among the currently effective regulations for juveniles that are related to the activities of probation officers in corrections.
The purpose of the probation officer's report is to provide a comprehensive picture of the juvenile offender's personality, family and social background, living circumstances, as well as the circumstances and reasons leading to the crime and the possibilities of eliminating them. The report prepared by the correctional probation officer is always related to conditional release, therefore the correctional probation officer must consider the rules of the Criminal Code regarding conditional release when preparing the report.
The Criminal Code states as a general rule that those convicted as perpetrators of certain serious crimes (such as genocide, crimes against humanity, apartheid resulting in death, murder, kidnapping, etc.) cannot be released on parole.[13] This also applies to those convicted for preparation, as accomplices, or with unlimited mitigation of punishment for these crimes. Additionally, offenders convicted of violent crimes
- 115/116 -
against family members punishable by eight years or more imprisonment, or sexual crimes against persons under eighteen, cannot be released on parole.[14] For juvenile offenders, these rules only apply if they were at least sixteen years old at the time of the offense and are sentenced to ten years or more imprisonment.[15] These provisions for juvenile offenders emphasize that the focus of penal objectives is much more on their proper development, with deprivation of liberty as a last resort.
Special behavioral rules also differ for juveniles. In cases where conditional release would not be applicable, but the court decides to allow it due to circumstances of the offense or other sentencing factors[16], probation supervision, restraining orders[17], and electronic monitoring may be ordered for adults[18]. However, electronic monitoring and restraining orders cannot be imposed on juvenile offenders.[19] The rationale is that family connections play an important role in the psychological development of juveniles, and such restrictions would be counterproductive to the goals of punishment.[20] Therefore, the correctional probation officer cannot recommend such special behavioral rules in the report for juveniles.
There are also specific rules for preparing probation officer reports for juveniles. The correctional probation officer must hear the parent or guardian living with the juvenile, or in their absence, the person providing care.[21] The Probation Officer Regulation also suggests, though not mandatorily, that the probation officer should gather information from the juvenile's legal representative, child protection guardian, the local family and child welfare service and center, and in case of children in care, the local child protection service. The purpose of hearing the legal representative living with the juvenile and gathering information is primarily to collect relevant information about the juvenile, understand experiences in child protection care, and use this information in preparing the report.[22]
Regarding environmental studies prepared by correctional probation officers for juvenile detainees, the Probation Officer Regulation (Pfr.) stipulates the same rules as for probation officer reports. In the absence of a provision affecting parental custody, the legal representative of a juvenile serving a prison sentence is the parent. The hearing of the parent living with the juvenile or other legal representative (e.g., child protection guardian) cannot be omitted when preparing the environmental study.
The correctional probation officer specifically names the persons interviewed during the preparation of the environmental study, indicates their relationship to the detainee and their willingness to cooperate, and presents the information provided by the interviewed persons. Involving the parent can be important for several reasons:
- Based on the parent's statements, the correctional probation officer
- 116/117 -
can gevvt a comprehensive picture of the juvenile's family circumstances, upbringing, and home environment.
- The interview reveals how the parent relates to the committed act and its consequences, which is important information for determining the juvenile's support needs.
- The interview may reveal the extent to which the juvenile can count on family support during the reintegration process.
- Information provided by the parent (e.g., the juvenile's circle of friends, deviancies occurring in the family) can help assess the juvenile's vulnerability from a crime prevention perspective.
Therefore, interviewing the parent is a crucial element in preparing the environmental study, as it contributes to a better understanding of the juvenile's situation.
The preparation of juvenile offenders for release is crucial for successful social reintegration. Edwin Sutherland's differential association theory, a fundamental theory in criminology, posits that criminal behavior is learned, not inherited or innate. Criminal behavior is acquired through interaction and communication with others, primarily in intimate personal groups.[23]
Sutherland's theory highlights the decisive role of the environment in the development of criminal behavior. In prisons, juveniles easily adopt the norms and habits of the "prison subculture," which are particularly harmful to them.[24]
Due to age-related characteristics and to reduce prison-related harms, the correctional organization needs to pay special attention to juvenile detainees to increase their chances of reintegration.[25] According to György Vókó, juvenile convicts are more susceptible and vulnerable, which is why it's important to pay great attention to their protection during detention.[26] The aim of preparation for release is to change these behavioral patterns and attitudes, steering them in a positive direction to avoid recidivism and ensure successful social reintegration.
According to the Penitentiary Act, juveniles' imprisonment must be carried out in separate correctional institutions or in segregated parts of correctional institutions.[27] The current regulation designates four correctional institutions where juvenile convicts can serve their sentences:
- Baranya County Correctional Institution - Pécs
- Bács-Kiskun County Correctional Institution - Kecskemét
- Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén County Correctional Institution - Szirmabesenyő
- Juvenile Correctional Institution
- Tököl[28]
Correctional probation officers working in these institutions have a primary task of providing reintegra-
- 117/118 -
tion care for juvenile prisoners. As part of reintegration care, to counteract prison-related harms and the aforementioned negative effects, reduce the risk of recidivism, and increase the chances of successful social reintegration, the correctional probation officer may conduct group sessions, trainings (e.g., anger management, problem-solving, communication development), or even make interventions through individual case management.
In the framework of care, restoring and strengthening family and other social relationships is particularly important for juveniles.[29] To this end, the Penitentiary Act allows for the use of a special form of contact called family consultation.[30] Family consultation is not listed among the forms of contact[31] provided for adult convicts, so this form of contact can only be provided for juvenile convicts. Family consultation can be requested by the detainee or the legal representative. Its authorization is within the authority of the prison warden, who may request information from the territorially competent family assistance or child welfare service to verify the justification of the request.[32]
The practical implementation of family consultation takes place in the correctional institution, with the reintegration officer, psychologist, and correctional probation officer participating in its organization. Family consultation can take place every three months, for a maximum of ninety minutes, under continuous supervision. Thus, family consultation is an informal form of contact where the juvenile convict has the opportunity to meet with family members. In addition to the forms of contact provided for convicts, family consultation can be another tool for preserving and rebuilding family relationships. Since family consultation is not considered a visitor reception, it can be organized even if the juvenile detainee's legal representative is also serving a prison sentence.[33]
In addition to family consultation, the Penitentiary Act provides another form of contact for juvenile convicts, namely family therapy sessions.[34] Unlike the informal nature of family consultation, this form of contact is much more formalized.
Family therapy sessions can be initiated by the detainee, their legal representative, or the correctional institution if they observe that the relationship between the juvenile and their relative who maintains contact has deteriorated.[35] However, family therapy sessions initiated by the correctional institution can only be implemented if the juvenile's relative makes a declaration of intent to participate in the therapy.
Family therapy sessions can only be led by a person with a psychology degree, who determines the number and frequency of sessions and can also suggest the involvement of external persons.[36] An important difference compared to family consultation is that these sessions can be conducted outside the correctional institution.[37]
- 118/119 -
They can only be exceptionally authorized between convicts if there are less than six months left until their expected release, and in such cases, the sessions should be conducted at the KKMI (Central Medical Diagnosis and Treatment Institute) if possible.[38]
The correctional probation officer can also recommend the necessity of family therapy sessions if they perceive during reintegration care and preparation for release that the juvenile's family relationships have loosened and the involvement of a psychologist is necessary to restore these relationships.
To promote successful social reintegration of juveniles, the Penitentiary Act specifically highlights that the correctional probation officer can organize family or group decision-making meetings as part of reintegration care.[39] The practical realization of such meetings is the Family Decision-Making Group Conference (FDMGC) or Family Group Conference (FGC), which is a method within the scope of restorative procedures.[40]
The restorative approach has long been used in various communities to help participants affected by conflict develop a common position on conflict resolution, serving both community and individual interests.[41] The essence of the conference model is that all stakeholders participate in exploring the solution to the conflict. However, the FDMGC used in correctional institutions differs from the general model; its peculiarity is that the victim usually does not participate in the procedure, and consequently, planning for victim compensation does not occur.
During the FDMGC, participants develop an action plan for the post-release period. The plan is jointly developed by the conference participants, who may include the detainee's family members, representatives from educational institutions, the mayor, correctional probation officer, future employer, and essentially any other participant who can contribute to the success of the juvenile's social reintegration.[42]
The FDMGC thus provides an opportunity - primarily for detainees about to be released - for family members and community members to jointly discuss the reasons that played a significant role in committing the crime, and to plan adequate and complex interventions to reduce the chance of recidivism. The main goal of the activity, beyond the above, is to promote the detainee's successful social reintegration and to mitigate the long-term effects of prison harms, stigmatization, prisonization, and deprivation.
The possibility of applying FDMGC and its significance in promoting the success of social reintegration in correctional institutions is considerable. Many experts and studies point out that the six months after release are the most critical for the released detainee, as this is usually when the success or failure of social reintegration, i.e., becoming a repeat offender, is determined.[43] The FDMGC provides detainees about to be released with an opportunity to choose a law-abiding lifestyle during the peri-
- 119/120 -
od when they are most at risk of recidivism. For the implementation of the action plan prepared in connection with the FDMGC, they can count on support and help from members of the receiving environment, family members, and numerous professionals.
Overall, the application of FDMGC can achieve a dual objective: the method promotes social reintegration and thus contributes to achieving the goal of imprisonment, while the cooperation of the immediate family and community members can greatly reduce the risk of recidivism for the released detainee. When someone returns to their family and community from detention, it creates a new situation, as changes occur not only in the family but also in the individual who was away from their family during the absence. Moreover, a criminal record appears as a kind of stigma in the individual's life and family, which is mostly judged negatively. The community can be open to helping the social reintegration process, but it can also hinder it. The goal of the conference is to prepare the community for "re-acceptance," for the situation that a change will occur in the lives of all those affected and in the social environment.
The application of the FDMGC method provides an opportunity to resolve the collision between the family, the community, and the offender, and to promote the individual's social reintegration. The method is particularly suitable for juvenile offenders. As a restorative method that can be applied in correctional institutions, FDMGC can be an important step towards reintegration into society. By activating both the offender and their social environment, it can contribute to changing the detainee's attitude in a positive direction, thereby reducing the propensity for recidivism.[44]
Juvenile delinquency is a complex phenomenon with multiple potential causes. The reasons leading to criminal behavior are as diverse as the circumstances shaping an individual's personality.[45] Domestic and international research on this topic generally agrees that the causes of juvenile delinquency may include family circumstances, friends, school, and social environment. These factors can be traced back to the root causes of juvenile delinquency.[46] Ágnes Solt reached similar conclusions in her research. Her results show that abuse or neglect experienced in the family increases the likelihood of criminality. Regarding school, primarily the exclusionary behavior of peer groups can lead to the emergence of criminality. Moreover, antisocial behavioral traits and violent behavior among young people are risk factors for becoming an offender.[47]
There is a close correlation between the causes of juvenile delinquency and the probation supervision carried out by correctional probation officers. During the probation period, the cor-
- 120/121 -
rectional probation officer applies individualized interventions to correct criminal behavior, taking into account unique circumstances and risk factors. In line with the goals of probation supervision, they provide assistance to juveniles in social integration and developing social skills, which can counterbalance negative environmental influences. To achieve these goals, they collaborate with other institutions in the spirit of interprofessionality.
Beyond applying the above general differences concerning juveniles, the regulations also contain specifics that result in procedures differing from the general rules of implementation. Below, I strive to describe these differences. Probation supervision cannot be omitted if the parolee is a juvenile.[48] In this case, the interview should be arranged, if possible, so that the juvenile's legal representative can also participate. To this end, the correctional probation officer sends the summons to the legal representative as well, specifying the location and time of the interview. If the legal representative does not appear with the juvenile at the given time, it does not prevent the interview from taking place; however, in this case, a copy of the minutes must be sent to the legal representative by mail.[49]
During the implementation of probation supervision, the correctional probation officer cooperates with the family and child welfare service and center at the probationer's actual place of residence, as well as other child protection institutions until the juvenile turns 18, and with the probation officers of the government offices' justice departments to avoid double probation.[50] Regarding the obligation to inform following the interview, in the case of a juvenile probationer, the correctional probation officer sends the notification about the commencement of probation supervision not only to the ordering authority, police station, and prosecutor's office but also to the family and child welfare service and center, and the guardianship authority, and if the child is in specialized care, to the institution providing home-like care as well.[51]
To prepare the individual probation supervision plan, which must be completed within thirty days after the interview, the correctional probation officer uses information received from cooperating agencies, and if the juvenile was previously under preventive probation, the individual probation supervision plan should be prepared based on these experiences.[52]
Based on the above, it can be said that regarding the probation of juveniles, the law envisages broad cooperation between the correctional probation officer, the legal representative, and social and other institutions. The cooperation of various institutions is extremely important in the case of juvenile probationers because it ensures complex and effective support for the young person's reintegration. Cooperation can help understand the juvenile's problems and select the most effective method of necessary intervention. In addition to a holistic approach, cooperation allows for the optimization and efficient use of resources from different institutions, and the devel-
- 121/122 -
opment of personalized interventions tailored to the individual needs of the juvenile offender.
Reintegration custody allows detainees to serve a specified portion of their sentence among family, friends, and relatives while adhering to behavioral rules set by law and the court. For juveniles, special forms of contact such as family consultation and family therapy are also applicable in the context of reintegration custody. The law expands the application conditions for juvenile reintegration custody and mandates that the juvenile participate in at least one family therapy or family consultation session during their imprisonment. Failure to do so disqualifies the juvenile from reintegration custody.[53] However, requesting participation in family consultation or family therapy can be done simultaneously with the reintegration custody request. In this case, the correctional institution must ensure the authorization and possibility of participation in family consultation or therapy sessions.[54]
For juveniles, an additional requirement is a letter of acceptance from the legal representative, stating that they will provide housing for the juvenile. Moreover, the legal representative must declare their commitment to accompany the juvenile during reintegration custody.[55] Similar to release, the juvenile is handed over to the legal representative when placed in reintegration custody.
No specific goals have been defined for juveniles regarding the objectives of reintegration custody. While employment is a cornerstone for adult offenders in reintegration custody, the primary task for juvenile offenders is to encourage them to continue any interrupted studies or participate in vocational or secondary education. Education is compulsory for juveniles under sixteen[56] due to mandatory schooling, but juveniles under 18 should also be encouraged to participate in education.
Education provides an opportunity for juveniles to re-engage in social processes, develops problem-solving skills, facilitates the acquisition of new coping strategies, and can contribute to positive personality development.[57] Furthermore, it increases future labor market opportunities, and better employment prospects can reduce the motivation for recidivism. Therefore, education plays a significant role in tertiary crime prevention. The correctional probation officer should encourage the juvenile in reintegration custody to participate in education and training, and must involve educational and training institutions in the cooperation to ensure successful social reintegration.
Juvenile offenders have long been a special subject of both the justice system and corrections, with material, procedural, and enforcement rules differing from the general ones.[58] The principle of ultima ratio needs to be more strongly applied in their case, as
- 122/123 -
the purpose of punishment also differs from that of their adult counterparts. Among the causes leading to criminal behavior in juvenile offenders, we find family problems, negative influences of peer groups, and environmental factors. Poor socialization, childhood abuse, or neglect can all lead to an increased likelihood of criminality.
Preparation for successful social reintegration for juvenile offenders begins upon admission to correctional institutions. Correctional probation officers, reintegration officers, psychologists, and chaplains implement numerous measures to prevent recidivism: juveniles can participate in education within correctional institutions, and various individual and group activities are provided for them. The aim of correctional institution programs is to eliminate or minimize prison harms as much as possible.[59]
Juvenile offenders face numerous challenges after their release. Stigmatization and social prejudices are present for them, similar to their adult counterparts. Their low educational attainment may hinder future employment, but various addictions (e.g., drugs, alcohol) also significantly impact their likelihood of recidivism. Family and school play important roles in the reproduction process of social relations.[60]
For juveniles, correctional probation officers must strive to use a wider range of tools. To ensure successful social reintegration and avoid recidivism, it is necessary to involve the juvenile's family, broader environment, and all institutions that can contribute to achieving the goals set for the juvenile in the work carried out with them. Overall, to ensure successful reintegration, it is important to provide complex, individualized support that takes into account the unique circumstances and needs of the juvenile. ■
NOTES
[1] Feld, B. C. - Bishop, D. M., Juvenile justice. (Oxford: Oxford University Press 2011)
[2] Criminal Code, § 105(1)
[3] Herke-Fábos Barbara Katalin, "A fiatalkorúak büntethetőségének történeti szempontú vizsgálata", Jogtörténeti Szemle no. 3 (2023): 12-22.
[4] Kőhalmi László, "A büntethetőségi korhatár kérdése" Jogelméleti Szemle no. 1 (2013): 81-94.
[5] Explanatory Memorandum to Act LXXIV of 2020 on Certain Amendments to Laws Necessary for the Elimination and Prevention of School Violence
[6] Criminal Code, § 16: murder, manslaughter committed in a state of passion, bodily harm, violence against a public official, violence against a person performing public duties, violence against a person supporting a public official or a person performing public duties, act of terrorism, robbery, plunder
[7] Instruction 11/2018 (VI. 29.) of the Prosecutor General's Office on the Performance of Prosecutorial Tasks Related to Juvenile Criminal Cases, § 25
[8] Criminal Code, § 106(1)
[9] Criminal Code, § 106(3)
[10] Act on the Execution of Punishments and Measures, § 192(2): The imprisonment of juveniles shall be carried out in a separate penitentiary institution or in a segregated part of a penitentiary institution.
[11] Act on the Execution of Punishments and Measures, § 193(1): It must be ensured that the juvenile participates in vocational training or semi-skilled worker training, and it must be made possible for them to pursue secondary school studies.
[12] Act on the Execution of Punishments and Measures, § 192(3)
[13] Criminal Code, § 38(4) e)
[14] Criminal Code, § 38(5)
[15] Criminal Code, § 109(5)
[16] Criminal Code, § 38(6)
[17] Criminal Code, § 71(2) b)
[18] Criminal Code, § 71(4)
[19] Criminal Code, § 119(3)
[20] Explanatory Memorandum to Act CVIII of 2020 on Amendments to Certain Laws for the Enhanced Protection of Victims of Violent Crimes Committed Against Relatives, § 7
- 123/124 -
[21] Decree 8/2013 (VI. 29.) of the Ministry of Public Administration and Justice on the Activities of the Probation Service § 19(1)
[22] Pfr. § 19(2)
[23] Edwin Hardin Sutherland - Donald Ray Cressey - David F. Luckenbill, Principles of Criminology. General Hall (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992)
[24] Fliegauf Gergely, "Fiatalkorú fogvatartottak a börtönben: kognitív és kriminálpszichológiai megfontolások" Belügyi Szemle no. 2 (2014): 43-50.
[25] Czenczer Orsolya, Fiatalkorúak az új Bv. Kódexben: Gondolatok az elítélt fiatalkorúak helyzetéről az új büntetés-végrehajtási törvény kapcsán. (Budapest: ELTE Eötvös Kiadó, 2014)
[26] Vókó György, Európai Büntetés-végrehajtási jog (Budapest: Dialóg Campus Kiadó, 2006)
[27] Criminal Code, § 192(2)
[28] Decree 16/2018 (VI. 7.) of the Ministry of Interior on the Rules for Designating Penitentiary Institutions for the Execution of Imprisonment, Detention, Custody in Place of Fines, and Administrative Detention
[29] Czenczer, Fiatalkorúak az új Bv. Kódexben: Gondolatok az elítélt fiatalkorúak helyzetéről az új büntetés-végrehajtási törvény kapcsán
[30] Act on the Execution of Punishments and Measures, § 194(1)
[31] Act on the Execution of Punishments and Measures, § 173(1): The forms of contact for the convicted person are: correspondence, telephone conversations using a telephone provided by the penitentiary institution and contact via telecommunication devices, sending and receiving packages, receiving visitors, receiving visitors outside the penitentiary institution, short-term leave, temporary release, and reintegration leave.
[32] Decree 16/2014. (XII. 19.) IM on the detailed rules for the execution of imprisonment, confinement, pre-trial detention and confinement replacing a fine § 156(1)
[33] Act on the Execution of Punishments and Measures, § 194(4)
[34] Act on the Execution of Punishments and Measures, § 194(2)
[35] Decree 16/2014. (XII. 19.) IM § 157(1)
[36] Decree 16/2014. (XII. 19.) IM § 157(3)
[37] Act on the Execution of Punishments and Measures, § 194(3)
[38] Decree 16/2014. (XII. 19.) IM § 157(4)-(5)
[39] Act on the Execution of Punishments and Measures, § 203/A.
[40] Dr. Barabás A. Tünde - Dr. Fellegi Borbála -Dr. Windt Szandra, Konfliktuskezelés elítéltekkel. Kézikönyv a mediáció és helyreállító igazságszolgáltatás alkalmazhatóságáról a büntetés-végrehajtásban. (Budapest: Országos Kriminológiai Intézet, 2010)
[41] Molitórisz Roland - Franka Botond Mihály, "Az egyéniesítés, a büntetés-végrehajtási pártfogó felügyelő és a családi döntéshozó csoportkonferencia (CSDCS) szerepe az elítéltek sikeres reintegrációjában" Börtönügyi szemle no. 1 (2016): 107-116.
[42] Nyesténé Jánkfalvi Zita, Elkövettem, megbántam, jóvátenném. Resztoratív gyakorlatok a börtönben." Börtönügyi Szemle no. 2 (2012): 14-28.
[44] Lebujos Imre, "Resztoratív módszerek a büntetés-végrehajtási intézetekben (Utópia vagy valóság?)" Börtönügyi Szemle no. 4 (2012): 33-52.
[45] Gönczöl Katalin, "A hatékonyabb speciális prevenció feltételei." Belügyi Szemle no. 10. (1986): 50-54.
[46] Korinek László, Kriminológia II. (Budapest: Magyar Közlöny Lap- és Könyvkiadó, 2010).
[47] Solt Ágnes, Peremen Billegő Fiatalok. Veszélyeztető és kriminalizáló tényezők gyermek- és ifjúkorban. PhD dissertation. (Budapest, 2012)
[48] Criminal Code, § 119(1) a)
[49] Pfr. § 54(1)-(2)
[50] Pfr. § 53(1)
[51] Pfr. § 54(3)
[52] Pfr. § 54(4)
[53] Act on the Execution of Punishments and Measures, § 200/A.
[54] Decree 16/2014. (XII. 19.) IM § 158
[55] Act on the Execution of Punishments and Measures, § 200/A.
[56] a nemzeti köznevelésről szóló 2011. évi CXC. törvény 45.§ (3) alapján a tankötelezettség annak a tanévnek a végéig tart, amelyben a tanuló a tizenhatodik életévét betölti
[57] Czenczer Orsolya, "Az oktatás mint reszocializációs eszköz a fiatalkorúak büntetés-végrehajtási intézeteiben" Börtönügyi Szemle no. 3 (2008): 1-12.
[58] Czenczer Orsolya, "Veszélyes fiatalok vagy fiatalok veszélyben? - avagy meglátások a gyerekbántalmazás és az erőszakos bűnelkövetés összefüggéseire a reintegráció jegyében" Börtönügyi Szemle no. 1 (2017): 21-33.
- 124/125 -
[59] Ruzsonyi Péter, "Kriminálpedagógiai útkeresés a fiatalkorú fogvatartottak szabadságvesztésbüntetésének végrehajtásában" Börtönügyi Szemle no. 4. (2008): 14-32.
[60] Kerezsi Klára, "Változatlan helyzet - változó elvárások: a fiatalkorú bűnelkövetők zártintézeti nevelése" Börtönügyi Szemle no. 4. (2008): 33-42.
Lábjegyzetek:
[1] The Author is doctoral student, Doctoral School of the Law, University of Pécs.
Visszaugrás
