2011e-publications@bond (Bond University)Requires access

The international human rights parameters for the preventive detention of serious sex offenders

Patrick Keyzer

Open publisher page 0 citations

Abstract

Extract:In Australia, four states enable the continued detention of serious sex offenders in prison, rather than a purpose-designed facility, after the conclusion of their prison sentences. This chapter considers two 2010 decisions of the United Nations Human Rights Committee (HRC) that have designated new parameters for the preventive detention of serious sex offenders- Fardon v Australia (2010) and Tillman v Australia (2010). In Fardon and Tillman, the HRC found that the detention regimes in two (and by implication all) of the Australian states that adopt the continued detention in prison approach violate human rights enshrined in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR): the prohibition against arbitrary detention (Article 9), the guarantee of due process (Article 14), and the prohibition on the retroactive infliction of punishment (Article 15).

About this research paper

What this paper is about

Extract:In Australia, four states enable the continued detention of serious sex offenders in prison, rather than a purpose-designed facility, after the conclusion of their prison sentences. This chapter considers two 2010 decisions of the United Nations Human Rights Committee (HRC) that have designated new parameters for the preventive detention of serious sex offenders- Fardon v Australia (2010) and Tillman v Australia (2010). In Fardon and Tillman, the HRC found that the detention regimes in two (and by implication all) of the Australian states that adopt the continued detention in prison approach violate human rights enshrined in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR): the prohibition against arbitrary detention (Article 9), the guarantee of due process (Article 14), and the prohibition on the retroactive infliction of punishment (Article 15).

Why it matters

A significance statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

Extract:In Australia, four states enable the continued detention of serious sex offenders in prison, rather than a purpose-designed facility, after the conclusion of their prison sentences. This chapter considers two 2010 decisions of the United Nations Human Rights Committee (HRC) that have designated new parameters for the preventive detention of serious sex offenders- Fardon v Australia (2010) and Tillman v Australia (2010). In Fardon and Tillman, the HRC found that the detention regimes in two (and by implication all) of the Australian states that adopt the continued detention in prison approach violate human rights enshrined in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR): the prohibition against arbitrary detention (Article 9), the guarantee of due process (Article 14), and the prohibition on the retroactive infliction of punishment (Article 15).

Key concepts: International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Prison, Human rights, Law, Punishment (psychology), Political science, Preventive detention, Immigration detention

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
The international human rights parameters for the preventive detention of serious sex offenders — Research Paper | ScholarLens