Abstract:The article deals with the situation and development trends in criminology and criminal justice in Lithuania. The article emphasizes that both the science of criminology and the institutes of criminal justice were developing during a transitional period when, after the restitution of independence, Lithuanian society had started moving towards European standards. The article analyses crime and punishment trends during recent decades, as well as the structure and functions of the main institutions of criminal ju… Show more
“…This practice limits the principle of individualisation and conflicts with European standards which require a regular review of regime based on risk‐need‐responsivity assessments (rule 51.5). This lack of discretion in moving prisoners between security levels generates a stronger subculture in closed establishments because inmates serve longer sentences with few meaningful activities (Dobryninas & Sakalauskas, 2011, p.429): When I got here [Lithuania] I almost went crazy, I thought I had landed back in the Soviet Union! The beds are dirty.…”
Section: Lithuania's Road To a Non‐transformative Change In Pravieniškėsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The rationale for creating the rehabilitation centre for drug‐addicted inmates (the ‘Pravieniškės Centre’) lay in the high prevalence of drugs in prisons. Official data estimated about half of the prison population to be drug users and 21% as ‘drug‐addicts’ (Dobryninas & Sakalauskas, 2011, p.428; Lithuanian Ministry of Justice, n.d.), similar to Latvia. The project design was different, however.…”
Section: Lithuania's Road To a Non‐transformative Change In Pravieniškėsmentioning
Despite shared history and a common ambition to comply with European standards, post‐Soviet countries differ in the way in which they reform prisons. By investigating two most‐similar cases of policy transfer from Norway – the establishment of the Olaine Drug Centre in Latvia and the Pravieniškės Drug Unit in Lithuania – this article explains why outcomes diverge and how Western‐European carceral individualism clashes with path‐dependent carceral collectivism. Where leadership is unstable, with limited powers, the informal legacies are strong, and policy‐transfer strategy is fragmented, as in Lithuania, the outcome is likely to be non‐transformative. Where, on the contrary, leadership is stable, enjoying larger discretionary powers and the intervention strategy is holistic, as in Latvia, the import of foreign institutional models is likely to be successful.
“…This practice limits the principle of individualisation and conflicts with European standards which require a regular review of regime based on risk‐need‐responsivity assessments (rule 51.5). This lack of discretion in moving prisoners between security levels generates a stronger subculture in closed establishments because inmates serve longer sentences with few meaningful activities (Dobryninas & Sakalauskas, 2011, p.429): When I got here [Lithuania] I almost went crazy, I thought I had landed back in the Soviet Union! The beds are dirty.…”
Section: Lithuania's Road To a Non‐transformative Change In Pravieniškėsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The rationale for creating the rehabilitation centre for drug‐addicted inmates (the ‘Pravieniškės Centre’) lay in the high prevalence of drugs in prisons. Official data estimated about half of the prison population to be drug users and 21% as ‘drug‐addicts’ (Dobryninas & Sakalauskas, 2011, p.428; Lithuanian Ministry of Justice, n.d.), similar to Latvia. The project design was different, however.…”
Section: Lithuania's Road To a Non‐transformative Change In Pravieniškėsmentioning
Despite shared history and a common ambition to comply with European standards, post‐Soviet countries differ in the way in which they reform prisons. By investigating two most‐similar cases of policy transfer from Norway – the establishment of the Olaine Drug Centre in Latvia and the Pravieniškės Drug Unit in Lithuania – this article explains why outcomes diverge and how Western‐European carceral individualism clashes with path‐dependent carceral collectivism. Where leadership is unstable, with limited powers, the informal legacies are strong, and policy‐transfer strategy is fragmented, as in Lithuania, the outcome is likely to be non‐transformative. Where, on the contrary, leadership is stable, enjoying larger discretionary powers and the intervention strategy is holistic, as in Latvia, the import of foreign institutional models is likely to be successful.
“…It should be pointed out that the collapse of the Soviet Union was accompanied by an unprecedented increase in crime (including juveniles and youth) in Lithuania and other areas of the Soviet Union (Pridemore, 2000;Juška et al, 2004;Shcherbakova, 2005;Gilinskiy, 2006;Babachinaitė, 2012;Dobryninas & Sakalauskas, 2011). This increase was only stopped after 2000.…”
Section: Approaching the End Of Post-soviet Transition? Trends Of Youth Crime In Klaipėda In 2005-2019mentioning
<p>The article presents a sociological and criminological analysis of data on registered youth criminal offences (young people of 14-29 years old) in Klaipėda. The analysed period covers the years from 2005 to 2019 (late post-Soviet period). It includes youth crime offences and persons suspected of committing a crime. The period is characterised by a constant downward trend in crime. There were no substantial changes in criminal law during this period, however, Lithuania significantly strengthened the legal and material background for work with juveniles and young adults. On the basis of the insights of the theories of anomie, social control and ecological criminology, the article analyses the key indicators of youth crime and its dynamics. The changes by age and employment of persons who have allegedly committed criminal offences are analysed.</p>
“…Following a period during which criminal legislation that served ideological purposes was substituted by human rights-based legislation, a shift mostly prompted by the conditions of membership of the Council of Europe, these countries have more recently witnessed punitive trends in terms of penal politics, policies and public opinion (Kossowska et al., 2012). Whether realistic or not, fear of rising crime rates in the immediate post-democratization era (Karstedt, 2003; Levay, 2000; Šelih, 2012) cannot explain all such trends, from the rise of populist law-and-order rhetoric in Estonia and Poland (Krajewski, 2004; Saar, 2004), to the surge of public punitiveness in Slovenia (Meško and Jere, 2012), to the ascendance of punitive policies in Lithuania and Hungary (Dobryninas and Sakalauskas, 2011; Levay, 2012).…”
Section: Democratic Transformations Of the Serbian Penal Fieldmentioning
Where a licence is displayed above, please note the terms and conditions of the licence govern your use of this document. When citing, please reference the published version. Take down policy While the University of Birmingham exercises care and attention in making items available there are rare occasions when an item has been uploaded in error or has been deemed to be commercially or otherwise sensitive.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
