A Theoretic and Empirical Research on the Relationship between Criminal Policy and Social Welfare Policy for Criminals
Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (C)
|Allocation Type||Single-year Grants|
|Research Institution||KYUSHU UNIVERSITY|
DOI Masakazu KYUSHU UNIVERSITY,FACULTY OF LAW,PROFESSOR, 法学部, 教授 (30188841)
|Project Period (FY)
1994 – 1996
Completed(Fiscal Year 1996)
|Budget Amount *help
¥1,800,000 (Direct Cost : ¥1,800,000)
Fiscal Year 1996 : ¥300,000 (Direct Cost : ¥300,000)
Fiscal Year 1995 : ¥500,000 (Direct Cost : ¥500,000)
Fiscal Year 1994 : ¥1,000,000 (Direct Cost : ¥1,000,000)
|Keywords||HARMFUL EFFECTS OF CONFINEMENT / HELP FOR CRIMINALS / PETITION TO PAROLE / REMAND DETENTION / DIVERSION / CRIMINAL POLICY / SOCIAL WELFARE POLICY / REHABILITATION SERVICES / 犯罪者援助 / 矯正と保護の相互連携 / 社会的援助 / 司法福祉 / 行刑 / 刑事政策 / 福祉政策 / 犯罪者処遇|
I reviewed the justification of people, not from the aspect of criminal policy but from the aspect of social welfare policy. I concluded, prisoners have petitions to parole, because the state has an obligation to eliminate the harmful effects that the confinement has.
2.on remand detention
If the state has an obligation to eliminate the harmful effects, we should first consider the pre-convicted prisoner who receives the presumption of innocence and is separated from his social life. It is essential for him to be helped not only legally but also welfarefully. But until now there are no research about it in japan. I discussed the aid for pre-convicted prisoner from the viewpoint of removing the harmful effects.
3.on juvenile law
The juvenile law includes also the important issues about the relationship between criminal policy and social welfare policy. In particular on diversion I have reviewed the discussion and the proposal about juvenile police in Germany. I point out the contradiction when the criminal justice system has also functions of welfare.
4.on rehabilitation services
Rehabilitation services are the most important aspects for the above relationship. "rehabilitation services act 1996" is enforced, but we have still the following problems. (1) There are no consistence between "offenders prevention and rehabilitation law" and "probationary supervision act" and no concrete provisions about cooperation with organs of welfare.
(2) There are no provisions about legal status and rights of non-custodial convicts. (3) There are little comparative studies about international rules on the non-custodial sanctions in japan.
Research Output (9results)