For instance: The List of VAK
About consortium subscription Contacts
(812) 4095300 Non-commercial partnership
St. Petersburg


Humanities and Science University Journal № 40 (Philology and Archaeology, World History, Art History), 2018


A. L. Gurinskaya
Price: 50 руб.
 Crime prevention in the UK and US often uses coercive preventive measures aimed 
at individuals who demonstrate a high level of crime propensity. Coercive preventive 
measures are used in order to prevent the initial involvement in crime, suppress criminal 
actions and reduce re-offending. The article suggests classifi cation of these measures 
based on the criteria of timing of these measures. It concludes with the discussion of 
the distinction between the institute of coercive preventive measures and punishment. 
Analysis of the jurisprudence of the ECHR as well as the doctrine developed by the US 
Supreme Court points to the fact that it is a diffi cult task do draw the line between these 
two types of measures. 
Key words: crime prevention, crime control policy, prophylactics of crime, foreign 
experience of crime prevention, United Kingdom, USA.
1. Postanovlenie po delu M. Protiv Germanii. Postanovlenie suda ot 17 dekabrya 2009 g. URL: http://europeancourt.ru/uploads/ECHR_M_v_Germany_17_12_2009.pdf (data obrashcheniya: 12.03.2018).
2. Postanovlenie po delu Engel’ (Engel) i drugie protiv Niderdlandov. Postanovlenie suda ot 8 iyunya 1976 g. URL: http://europeancourt.ru/uploads/ECHR_Engel_and_Others_v_The_Netherlands_08_06_1976.
pdf (data obrashcheniya: 12.03.2018).
3. Alexander S., Graf L., Janus E. M. v. Germany: The European Court of Human Rights Takes a Critical Look at Preventive Detention // Arizona Journal of International and Comparative Law. 2012. Vol. 29. P. 605–622.
4. Ashworth A., Zedner L. Preventive Justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014. 306 p.
5. Case of Welch v. the United Kingdom. Application No. 17440/90. Judgement. February 09, 1995. URL:  
https://rm.coe.int/16806ebd5d (data obrashcheniya: 12.03.2018).
6. Cole D. The difference prevention makes: Regulating preventive justice // Criminal Law and Philosophy. 2015. Vol. 9. №. 3. P. 501–519. 
7. Daskal J. Pre-Crime Restarints: The Explosion of Targeted, Non-Custodial Prevention // Cornell Law Review. 2014. Vol. 99. No. 2. P. 327–386.
8. Husak D. Overcriminalization: The limits of the criminal law. Oxford University Press, 2008. 231 p.
9. Love M. C., Roberts J., Klingele C. M. Collateral consequences of criminal convictions: Law, policy and practice. 2013. URL: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2512920 (data obrashcheniya: 12.03.2018).
10.  Mayson S. G. Collateral Consequences and the Preventative State // Notre Dame Law Review 2015. Vol. 91(1). P. 301–362.
11.  McCulloch J., Wilson D. Pre-crime: Pre-emption, Precaution and the Future. Routledge, 2015. 154 p.
12.  Ogg J. Preventive Justice and the Power of Policy Transfer. Springer, 2015. 253 p.
13.  Smith S. Civil Banishment of Gang Members: Circumventing Criminal Due Process Requirements? // The University of Chicago Law Review. 2000. Vol. 67 (4). P. 1461–1487.
14. Sorell T. Online Grooming and Preventive Justice // Criminal Law and Philosophy. 2017. Vol. 11. № 4. P. 705–724.
15. Steiker C. S. Punishment and Procedure: Punishment Theory and the Criminal-Civil Procedural Divide // Georgetown Law Journal. 1997. Vol. 85. P. 775–2287.
16. Von Hirsch A., Wasik M. Civil disqualifi cations attending conviction: A suggested conceptual frame-work // The Cambridge Law Journal. 1997. Vol. 56. №. 3. P. 599–626.
17. Zedner L. Penal subversions: When is a punishment not punishment, who decides and on what grounds? // Theoretical Criminology. 2016. Vol. 20 (1).  P. 3–20.
Price: 50 рублей
To order