National Council of Criminal and Penitentiary Policy
The National Council of Criminal and Penitentiary Policy was created on July 11th, 1984. The council is responsible for proposing guidelines for criminal policies on crime prevention, the administration of the criminal justice system and the enforcement of sentences and security measures; for contributing to the development of national development plans by suggesting goals and priorities of the criminal and penitentiary policies; for promoting periodic assessments of the criminal system to adjust it to the country?s needs; for stimulating and promoting research in the field of criminology; for developing a national penitentiary program to ensure training of penitentiary staff; for establishing rules on the architecture and construction of penal institutions and shelters; for establishing the criteria for criminal statistics; for inspecting and supervising penal institutions, as well as being informed, through Council reports, requests, visits or other means, about the criminal enforcement in different states and the Federal District, and proposing the necessary measures for improvement to the corresponding authorities; for representing to the penalty enforcement judge or the administrative authority in order to establish inquiries or administrative procedures in case of rule violation related to criminal enforcement; and for fully or partially representing to the authority responsible for the interdiction of any penal establishment. The council is comprised of 13 members appointed by the Ministry of Justice, including experts in the area of penitentiary, criminal and procedural law and related topics, as well as representatives of the community and of the ministries linked to social issues
Institutional design
Formalization: is the innovation embedded in the constitution or legislation, in an administrative act, or not formalized at all?
Frequency: how often does the innovation take place: only once, sporadically, or is it permanent or regular?
Mode of Selection of Participants: is the innovation open to all participants, access is restricted to some kind of condition, or both methods apply?
Type of participants: those who participate are individual citizens, civil society organizations, private stakeholders or a combination of those?
Decisiveness: does the innovation takes binding, non-binding or no decision at all?
Co-governance: is there involvement of the government in the process or not?
- Formalization
- embedded in the constitution/legislation
- Frequency
- regular
- Mode of selection of participants
- restricted
- Type of participants
- citizens
- Decisiveness
- democratic innovation yields a non-binding decision
- Co-Governance
- yes
Means
|
Ends
|
