DETAINEE’S BEHAVIOR ASPECTS IN LEGAL MEDICINE … 03 28.pdfsection: psychology and education...

DISCOURSE AS A FORM OF MULTICULTURALISM IN LITERATURE AND COMMUNICATION

SECTION: PSYCHOLOGY AND EDUCATION SCIENCES Arhipelag XXI Press, Tîrgu Mureș, 2015, ISBN: 978-606-8624-21-1

276

DETAINEE’S BEHAVIOR ASPECTS IN LEGAL MEDICINE EXPERTISE’S

REQUEST FOR SENTENCE INTERRUPTION BASED ON MEDICAL CONDITIONS

Cristian P. Gherman, PhD, University of Medicine and Pharmacy ”Victor Babeș”,

Timișoara; Dan Perju- Dumbravă, Prof., MD, PhD, Institute of Legal Medicine, Cluj-

Napoca; Ovidiu Chirobanu, Assist. Prof., MD, “Iuliu Haţieganu” University of Medicine

and Pharmacy

Abstract: The Romanian prison system is overcrowded, i.e. the number of prisoners significantly exceeds

detention capabilities. Under these circumstances it is difficult to ensure lawful compliance relating

detainees‟ civil rights. Prisoners are guaranteed the benefit of healthcare. The growing number of

inmates in a faulty system reflects in a low perception in the quality of prison life and a deterioration of

prisoners – staff relationship. The number of inmates raising health problems is likely to increase and

thus more medical-related sentence interruption requests are to be expected. The frequency of cases

where inmates actually decline to be submitted to medical examination suggests an multi-factorial

motivation for interruption request on medical reasons. Investigation of the co-factors which, along

medical status, influence the inmate patient‟s attitude and timing of expertise request is important for

establishing measures needed for an efficient channeling of resources to inmates who need to treat their

medical conditions.

Keywords: prison, inmates, healthcare, legal medicine, sentence disruption

1.Introduction

This research aims to address the lesser debated issue of sentence interruption based on

medical grounds, provided that the inmate-patients‘ medical condition is certified following legal

medicine expertise procedures.

1.1 Legal aspects (according with Romania’s laws) -According to articles 589 and 592

of the Revised Romanian Criminal Procedure Code (RRCPC), interruption or postponement of

an executory sentence can be granted under the following circumstances:



277

a) ―when it is found, based on a legal medicine expertise, that the convict suffers from a disease

that cannot be treated in the sanitary network of the National Administration of Penitentiaries

(NAP) or under permanent surveillance in public health system‘s secure units‖, but only when

―the court rules that interruption or postponement of sentence execution does not pose threats to

public order‖. In this situation, the execution of the sentence is postponed or interrupted for a

determined period of time.

b) ―when a female convict is pregnant or has a child younger than one year old. In such cases,

the penalty‘s execution is postponed until the termination of the cause which determined initial

postponement‖. A legal medicine expertise in view of sentence postponement or interruption can

be requested by either the prosecutor or the convict (art. 589/3 RRCPC), or by the penitentiary

administration (art. 589, letter a - RRCPC). It is reviewed by a supervisory judge, which submits

the case to the court. According to article 589/4, the application may be withdrawn by the person

which made the request1. Postponement or interruption of a sentence cannot be requested when

the convict has harmed himself or self inflicted a medical condition or if the convict refused

medical treatment or legal-medicine expertise. Law 459/2001 mentions that the commission

conducting a legal medicine expertise in view of sentence postponement or interruption must

include a forensic physician, a medical representative of the NAP and a certain number of

specialist physicians (art. 71/1) and states the mandatory conditions needed to be met in

conducting the expertise (art. 129/1)2.

1.2. Backgrounds & aims - Inmate patients can lawfully request medical expertise to

determine whether their medical condition can be properly addressed within the penitentiary

healthcare system, enabling them to serve their sentence, or needs to be treated in the public

healthcare system, justifying sentence postponement or interruption requests (The Revised

Romanian Criminal Procedure Code). This assessment is the attribute of the medical expertise

1 The Revised Romanian Criminal Procedure Code - adopted by Law no. 135/2010 published in the Official Gazette

of Romania no. 486 - July 15, 2010, into force since February 1, 2014, updated by GEO no. 3/2014 (Official Gazette

98/2014) and Law no. 255/2013 (Official Gazette 515/2013) – Available from URL: http://legeaz.net/noul-cod-

procedura-penala-ncpp 2 Law no. 459/2001 (published in the Official Gazette of Romania, Part I, no. 418/27.07.2001) approving Government Emergency Ordinance no. 1/2000 (published in the Official Gazette of Romania, Part I, no. 22 /

21.01.2000) regarding the organization and functioning of Legal Medicine Institutions and Law no. 271/2004

(published in the Official Gazette of Romania, Part I no. 616 / 07.07.2004) approving Government Emergency

Ordinance no. 57/2001 (published in the Official Gazette of Romania, Part I no. 531 / 31.08.2001) amending and

supplementing Government Emergency Ordinance no. 1/2000



278

commission, which, based on patient examination and case documentation, concludes whether

the inmates‘ medical condition require special treatments that cannot be provided in the

penitentiary care network (Law no. 459/2001). According to data revealed by the annual reports

on the activity of the Legal Medicine Network, the number of expertises conducted in view of

sentence interruption was 753 in 2012 and 909 in 2013, significantly lower than the 2000 figures

(6287 requests) which peak this category. A downward trend in the number of such requests is

obvious. While in 2000 the expertise commission forwarded recommendations of interruption for

various medical treatments in public health units in 26.6% of the cases, only 5.4% of the 2012

requests and 5.5% of the 2013 requests benefited favorable recommendations. On the other hand,

in 20% of the cases handled in 2012 by the "Mina Minovici" National Institute of Legal

Medicine (NILM), the convicts withdrew their application after the court ruled in favor of

forensic expertises to be conducted in view of sentence interruption3. The law guarantees

healthcare benefits for every person executing a custodial sentence4,5. However, calls for public

healthcare under the provision that certain diseases cannot be treated in the NAP sanitary

network are perceived by some detainees as a way of counteracting the negative perceptions of

incarceration6. This kind of attitude is highly inconvenient as it results in unnecessary

prolongation of legal procedures in cases of genuinely ill patients and contributes to out-burning

of the limited medical staff in the penitentiary system. Last but not least, significant mobilization

of medical and security personnel in compliance to NAP regulations on inmate transportation

and medical expertise comes with a cost. Motivation for such study is based on sheer necessity,

supported by the data revealed by the annual NAP review indicating a marked increase in the

nationwide number of inmates from 26,212 in 2008 to 33,434 in 20137. A low perception in the

quality of prison life and a deterioration of prisoners – staff relationship, was observed when

prison system is overcrowded, i.e. the number of prisoners significantly exceeds detention

3 Report on the activity of the Legal Medicine network in 2013 - Available from URL: www.legmed.ro 4 Ministry of Justice and Health Joint Order no. 429/2012 - on providing medical care to inmates in the custody of

the National Administration of Penitentiaries, chapter II, articles 8-10 5 Law no. 254/19.07.2013 concerning the execution of sentences and custodial measures ordered by the court

following criminal trials (published in the Official Gazette of Romania, Part I no. 514 of 14 August 2013 6 Feron JM, Tan LH, Pestiaux D, Lorant V. High and variable use of primary care in prison. A qualitative study to

understand help-seeking behavior - Int J Prison Health. September 2008; 4 (3): 146-55 7 NAP 2013 activity review – Available from URL: www.anp.gov.ro



279

capabilities8. Inmates are a vulnerable population group which may be subjected to inequalities

in terms of granting health and social care, and this aspect requires particular attention9. There

are opinions that the model approach to chronic diseases who works in the community health-

system could be adopted in the prison system10

. Prisoners with health problems are a future

problem for communities where they return after liberation11

. In order with this, the separation

between prisons and communities lead to a consequence of «unjointed» approach for patients

with repeated convictions12

. Consequently, the number of inmates raising health problems is

likely to increase and thus more illness-related sentence interruption requests are to be expected.

However, the number of cases when inmates actually refuse to submit to medical examination is

rather significant (20% of the 2012 NILM cases) and this suggests that the motivation behind

legal expertise requests is multi-factorial. Investigation of the co-factors besides medical status

which influence the inmate patients‘ tactics, as well as the timing of the expertise requests,

provide valuable information in pursuing an efficient management of the limited resources

available, channeling them towards inmates whose ―real‖ medical condition may require special

treatment.

2.Material (patients) and methods - Given the goal of this proposed study, certain legal

requirements were to be met. Formal applications were forwarded to relevant NAP bodies and

written approvals to conduct a trial study and to submit inmates in the Aiud and Gherla

Penitentiaries, as well as inmates undergoing medical treatments in the Penitentiary Hospital in

Dej, to a study-developed questionnaire, were obtained. Due to practical limitations, the present

study was conducted only in the Dej Penitentiary Hospital. The unit has a total of 142 beds and

provides a monthly turnover of 200 patients13

. Under these auspices, the study included a

8 Molleman T, van Ginneken EF. A Multilevel Analysis of the Relationship Between Cell Sharing, Prisoner Staff

Relationships, and Prisoners' Perceptions of Prison Quality - Int J Offender Ther Comp Criminol. 2014 March 11 9 Shaw D, Elger B. Improving public health by respecting autonomy: Using social science research to enfranchise

vulnerable prison populations - - Prev Med. 2015 February 21 10 Wang EA, Aminawung JA, Ferguson W, Trestman R, Wagner EH, Bova CJ - A tool for tracking and assessing

chronic illness care in prison (ACIC-P). Correct Health Care. 2014 Oct 11 Committee on Causes and Consequences of High Rates of Incarceration; Committee on Law and Justice; Division

of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education; National Research Council; Board on the Health of Select Populations; Institute of Medicine. Health and Incarceration: A Workshop Summary. Editors - Washington (DC):

National Academies Press (US); 2013 Aug. 12 Butler B. Health information exchange between jails and their communities: a bridge that is needed under

healthcare reform. Perspect Health Inf Manag. 2014 Jan 1 13 NAP 2013 activity review – Available from URL: www.anp.gov.ro



280

significant number of male patients covering a wide range of pathological conditions. As patient-

inmates are admitted to this unit from virtually all the Romanian counties, they presented a

diversity and fluctuation that didn‘t allow sampling based on sociometric criteria. Documentation

implied the design and implementation of a questionnaire admitting single or multiple answers

which were grouped into two categories of questions, as follows: 1. General information - age,

residence area, education level, medical history and nature of the disease which led to the current

admission. 2. Data relevant for the forensic expertise request in pursuit of sentence postponement

or interruption based on medical grounds: the period of time to be executed, knowledge

regarding the conditions needed in order to apply for the expertise, time served before applying

the first examination request, how many times has one made similar applications, other than

medical reasons for the request, if one knew prisoners who asked for forensic expertise in a

similar situation, if someone considered he was influenced by his peers in pursuing this line of

action, if one ever benefited of sentence interruption on medical grounds, if following a previous

request one later on denounced the action and the reasons why. During 14 visits at Dej

Penitentiary Hospital scheduled in 2014, a number of 369 patients were interviewed: 85 in June,

166 in July, 40 in August and 78 in September 2014. Prior to delivering the questionnaire, verbal

agreements were obtained for all inmate-patients. It was clearly brought to their attention that

they can withdraw from the procedure any time they wanted, without need of a motivation. In

order to potentiate honest answers, no information regarding the identity of the subjects was

recorded. Answers were taken down following each question, in the presence of a security guard

and a member of the medical staff. Medical records included in their sentence interruption

medical expertise request files were made available by the Penitentiary Hospital Administration.

3.Results - Data processing resulted in the following demographical information: of the 369

inmate-patients, 85 were in the 18-35 years age group, 160 were aged 36-50 years, 104 were

aged 51-65 years and 20 were over 65 years old; in terms of residence, 158 were from rural areas

and 211 from urban areas; concerning the educational level, 46 had no education (analphabets),

92 attended primary school (4 classes), 136 secondary school (8 classes), 81 completed high

school studies (12 classes) and 14 had university degrees. To highlight the issues involved,

interviewed inmate-patients who had previous sentence interruption medical expertise requests

(196, group I) were separated from those who didn‘t (173, group II).



281

3.1 Data processing revealed a large number of pathological conditions. Records

were classified into the following categories of disease: respiratory, cardiovascular, digestive,

tumor (benign or malignant), neurological or neuropsychological, other (ophthalmic, orthopedic,

dermatological, urological etc.). A large number of inmate-patients presented multiple

pathological conditions. Group I patients presented a significantly higher number of

cardiovascular (87), respiratory (111), digestive (143) and tumor (50) pathologies, while

neuronal conditions were more frequent in group II patients. 82 (41.8%) group I and 96 (55.5%)

group II patients declared their medical condition occurred in the penitentiary system, 28

(14.3%) and 40 (23.1%), respectively, accused new symptoms associated to pre-existent

pathologies, while 86 (43.9%) group I and 37 (21.4%) group II patients claimed activation of

older symptoms.

3.2 Concerning the period of detention inmate-patients had to execute, 104 subjects

(53.1%) in group I were sentenced 5 to 10 years, while most (99, i.e. 57.2%) of group II subjects

had up to 5 years to serve.

Table 1. Distribution of subjects according to sentence times.

Parameter Group I

(n=196)

Group II

(n=173)

Total

(n=369)

p

Detention time 0.001

Under 5 years 71 (36.2%) 99 (57.2%) 170 (46.1%)

5 to 10 years 104 (53.1%) 61 (35.3%) 165 (44.7%)

10 to 15 years 13 (6.6%) 9 (5.2%) 22 (6.0%)

Over 15 years 8 (4.1%) 4 (2.3%) 12 (3.2%)

3.3 Among subjects in group I (previous records of sentence interruption on medical

grounds), 195 (99.5%) claimed knowledge of the conditions required in order to apply for

penalty interruption on medical grounds. In contrast, only 129 (74.6%, p <0.001) of the group II

subjects (no previous requests) seemed to be informed about the conditions they were required to

meet when requesting such medical expertise. 195 (99.5%) of subjects in group I admitted they

knew prisoners who requested similar forensic expertise, compared to 146 (84.4%, p <0.001)



282

subjects in group II. Among group I subjects, 103 (52.6%) declared they were driven by fellow

inmates when requesting the forensic expertise, while only 9 (5.2%, p <0.001) of group II

subjects admitted their pursuit was initiated under the influence and directions of other inmates.

3.4 Concerning the period of detention executed before group I inmate-patients requesting a

medical expertise to evaluate their medical status in view of sentence interruption, 93 (47.4%)

had served 6 to 12 months of detention time and 56 (28.6%) had served 1 to 5 years, while 37

(18.9%) waited less than 6 months before submitting the request.

Table 2. Distribution of group I subjects in terms of period of detention served until the first

application for sentence interruption, reasons for their pursuit, the number of previous expertise

requests and waivers

Parameter Group I

(n=196)

Detention time served prior to medical expertise request

Under 6 months 37 (18.9)

6 to 12 months 93 (47.4)

1 to 5 years 56 (28.6)

5 to 10 years 10 (5.1)

Reasons for medical expertise request

Illness 102 (52.0)

Severe illness 27 (13.8)

Imitation of fellow inmates 35 (17.9)

Lack of preoccupation 12 (6.1)

Illness + Imitation of fellow inmates 20 (10.2)

Number of previous medical expertise request

One 130 (66.3)

Two 61 (31.1)

Three 3 (1.5)

More than three 2 (1.0)

Number of expertise waivers



283

None 116 (59.2)

One 74 (37.8)

Two 6 (3.1)

Three 0 (0)

More than three 0 (0)

3.5 The number of group I subjects who reported they knew other inmates who called for

forensic examination was not significantly different between age groups (p = 0.59), in contrast to

the number of inmate-patients claiming they were influenced by fellow detainees (p<0.001). The

figures in this last category were significantly higher in case of the young group (18-35 years).

The number of subjects who benefited of punishment interruption for medical reasons was

significantly higher in the elders group (p <0.001) and correlated with malignancy and

cardiovascular pathology (25 cases).

Table 3. Age distribution of group I subjects pending on knowledge of other detainees who

requested forensic expertise, inmate-influence in pursuit of the interruption request, number of

previous requests, number of interruption requests beneficiaries and dropouts

Parameter Age (years)

18-35

(n=26)

Age (years)

36-50

(n=89)

Age (years)

51-65

(n=67)

Age (years)

over 65

(n=14)

p

Had knowledge of other inmates who called for forensic examination 0.59

26 (100.0) 89 (100.0) 66 (98.5) 14 (100.0)

Were influenced by fellow inmates in formulating their request <0.001

19 (73.1) 59 (66.3) 20 (29.9) 5 (35.7)

Number of previous expertise requests 0.53

One 22 (84.6) 57 (64.0) 42 (62.7) 9 (64.3)

Two 4 (15.4) 29 (32.6) 23 (34.3) 5 (35.7)

Three 0 (0.0) 1 (1.1) 2 (3.0) 0 (0.0)

More than 3 0 (0.0) 2 (2.2) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0)

Benefited of punishment interruption for medical reasons <0.001



284

0 (0.0) 6 (6.7) 12 (17.9) 7 (50.0)

3.6 Considering distribution within age groups of the 80 subjects in group I who had

previously surrendered their privilege for forensic expertise, one can observe that youngsters and

elders had no multiple waivers and shared equally distributed dual reasons for their previous

waiver: they either claimed their condition improved under treatment, or that the procedures

were too long.

Table 4. Number and reasoning of group I waivers distributed within age groups

Parameter Age (years)

18-35 (n=10)

Age (years)

36-50 (n=37)

Age (years)

51-65 (n=31)

Age (years)

over 65 (n=2)

p

Surrendered their privilege of pursuing penalty disruption requests 0.66

Once 10 (100.0) 33 (89.2) 29 (93.5) 2 (100.0)

Twice 0 (0.0) 4 (10.8) 2 (6.5) 0 (0.0)

Reasons for waiving the penalty interruption request 0.34

Cured without treatment 0 (0.0) 1 (2.7) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0)

Cured under treatment 5 (50.0) 13 (35.1) 18 (58.1) 1 (50.0)

Too long examinations 5 (50.0) 21 (56.8) 7 (22.6) 1 (50.0)

Too many examinations 0 (0.0) 1 (2.7) 5 (16.1) 0 (0.0)

Other 0 (0.0) 1 (2.7) 1 (3.2) 0 (0.0)

4.Discussion

4.1 What was the status of inmate-patients that required sentence discontinuation on

medical condition grounds? To initiate legal procedures in order to interrupt an sentence on

health grounds, a detainee needs to be diagnosed with at least one pathological condition that

cannot be properly treated within the sanitary network of the penitentiary system. Among the

subjects who made such requests and were enrolled in this study most frequent pathologies were

of digestive, respiratory and cardiovascular nature, or a combination including these. In 43.9% of

the cases illness debut was pre-existent, but aggravated while serving the sentence, and in 41.8%

of the cases the debut of the medical condition on which the sentence interruption request was

based occurred after imprisonment. Most of these diseases can be diagnosed and treated within



285

the NAP sanitary network, considering recent improvements in terms of specialized personnel

and equipment. In such circumstances, the significance of the high number of medical expertise

requests in view of sentence interruption arguably resides in other than medical factors.

4.2 Were the interrupt requests influenced by the sentence length? Data analysis shows

that most of the group I inmate-patients (those who had previous sentence interruption request

records) were serving 5 to 10 years (53.1%) or up to 5 years (36.2%) sentences. The rates for

group II (inmate-patients who had no previous interrupt requests) were reversed: 57.2% were

serving up to 5 years and 35.3% were serving 5 to 10 years sentences (see Table 3). Overall, 170

out of 369 inmate-patients (46.1%) were serving less than 5 years sentences, 165 (44.7%) were

serving 5 to 10 years, 22 (6%) were serving 10 to 15 years and 12 (3.2%) were serving more than

15 years sentences. 90.8% of them were included in the lowest two categories (up to 10 years).

This suggests that, for those facing medium or long detention times, length of the sentence was a

factor determining repeated requests of sentence interruption. The high frequency of first

requests in the up to 5 years sentences group suggests this was seen as a means of coping with an

unfamiliar and uncomfortable new situation.

4.3 Did the inmate-patients know the conditions required to be met when submitting

sentence postponement or interruption request? Did they know prisoners who requested similar

forensic expertise? Virtually all (99.5%) of the inmates who repeatedly requested discontinuation

of the sentence on medical grounds (group I) said they were aware about the conditions for

applying for medical expertise and knew other inmates who requested such procedure. This is

perfectly understandable considering that inmates relationship involves contact and

communication during the various activities they participate to. However, in group II a

significant number of patients (25.4%) were not fully aware of the conditions they were

supposed to meet and this puts under question their reasoning.

4.4 When did the request occur in relation with the moment of imprisonment?

Concerning group I inmate-patients, 18.9% were in their first six months of detention and 47.4%

had served 6 to 12 months before requesting a medical expertise in view of sentence interruption,

which gives a 66.3 percentage (130 out of 196) of first-year detainees pursuing sentence

disruption. This is relevant for claiming that influence of fellow inmates is greater in the first



286

year of detention, a possible explanation being inexperience and lack of information coming

from official sources on issues related to health care.

4.5 Were subjects influenced by other inmates? Communication between inmates can

certainly produce various influences. Thus, more than half of the group I subjects (52.6%) who

requested discontinuation of the sentence on medical grounds said they were influenced in their

pursuit by fellow inmates, in contrast to those who had no previous records in requesting a

medical expertise for such purpose, of which but 5.2% admitted they were influenced by their

detention colleagues. Taking into consideration group I inmate-patients, 73.1% of those in the

18-35 years age group and 66.3% of the 36-50 years aged reported influence of their peers.

Imitation of colleagues and lack of preoccupation are other arguments connected to inside

influences. One aspect that cannot go unnoticed is that of prisoners who have not requested

discontinuation of the sentence on medical grounds (5.2%) but declared they were influenced by

their peers.

4.6 What were the real reasons behind requesting medical expertise in view of sentence

interruption and dropping out of an ongoing procedure? Of the 196 inmate-patients who

requested a medical expertise, 66.3% (130 subjects) were at their first request, 31.1% (61 cases)

had one previous request and 2.5% (5 cases) had at least two previous such requests. Medical

status by itself or associated with claims of other serious (most often family-related) situations

documented the requests of two thirds (65.8%) of the inmate-patients. However imitation of

colleagues and lack of preoccupation are motivations that cannot be related to a medical

condition justifying the request of a medical expertise. It is evident that the interruption request is

perceived by some prisoners as a way to avoid prison life, perhaps augmented by inside stories

claiming successful attempts following such course of action. 74 subjects in group I who later on

decided not to go all the way with the forensic procedure got discouraged at their first attempt,

only 6 having previous records in the field. The vast majority (71 out of 80) justified their

dropout claiming improvement of their medical condition or invoking the length and complexity

of medical investigations and other aspects related to the expertise procedure. 5.Conclusions

- Although there is certain knowledge among the detainees pool regarding conditions required to

be met when applying for a sentence postponement or interruption based on medical conditions

needed to be confirmed by a legal medicine expertise, interviewing of the inmate-patients



287

highlighted the fact that such information is often vague or incomplete and that documentation

on such line of action originated from unauthorized sources, most often being offered by

detention colleges.

- Dissemination of relevant information concerning detainees‘ rights and obligations within their

legal framework must come from authorized sources. Actions to stop spreading unauthorized and

incorrect information need to be taken to prevent spending of public funds and unnecessary

procedures demanding deployment of medical and security personnel.

- There is a clear tendency among inmates to make a first request for medical expertise to back

sentence interruption demands while in the first year of incarceration.

- A multi-factorial determinism of such requests was certain identified including direct influence

of other inmates, a tendency to imitate ―successful‖ conducts or escape routes out of prison

routine.

- Assessment of the co-factors that influence inmates to pursue such line of action can bridge

more efficient communication between staff personnel and inmates, contributing to a reduction

in the number of unjustified requests and minimization of their negative impact on current legal

medicine activities carried out in the penitentiary system in Romania.

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

1. Butler B., Health information exchange between jails and their communities: a bridge

that is needed under healthcare reform. Perspect Health Inf Manag. 2014 Jan 1;11:1b.

eCollection 2014. PMID: 24808809 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] PMCID:

PMC3995481 Free PMC Article

2. Committee on Causes and Consequences of High Rates of Incarceration; Committee on

Law and Justice; Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education; National

Research Council; Board on the Health of Select Populations; Institute of Medicine.

Health and Incarceration: A Workshop Summary. Editors - Washington (DC): National

Academies Press (US); 2013 Aug. Copyright 2013 by the National Academy of Sciences

3. Feron JM, Tan LH, Pestiaux D, Lorant V., High and variable use of primary care in

prison. A qualitative study to understand help-seeking behavior - Int J Prison Health.



288

September 2008; 4 (3): 146-55. doi: 10.1080 / 17449200802264696. PMID: 18698529

[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

4. Law no. 459/2001 (published in the Official Gazette of Romania, Part I, no.

418/27.07.2001) approving Government Emergency Ordinance no. 1/2000 (published in

the Official Gazette of Romania, Part I, no. 22 / 21.01.2000) regarding the organization

and functioning of Legal Medicine Institutions and Law no. 271/2004 (published in the

Official Gazette of Romania, Part I no. 616 / 07.07.2004) approving Government

Emergency Ordinance no. 57/2001 (published in the Official Gazette of Romania, Part I

no. 531 / 31.08.2001) amending and supplementing Government Emergency Ordinance

no. 1/2000.

5. Law no. 254/19.07.2013 concerning the execution of sentences and custodial measures

ordered by the court following criminal trials (published in the Official Gazette of

Romania, Part I no. 514 of 14 August 2013

6. Ministry of Justice and Health Joint Order no. 429/2012 - on providing medical care to

inmates in the custody of the National Administration of Penitentiaries, chapter II,

articles 8-10.

7. Molleman T, van Ginneken EF., A Multilevel Analysis of the Relationship Between Cell

Sharing, Prisoner Staff Relationships, and Prisoners' Perceptions of Prison Quality - Int

J Offender Ther Comp Criminol. 2014 March 11. [Epub ahead of print] PMID: 24618876

[PubMed - as Supplied by publisher]

8. NAP 2013 activity review – Available from URL: www.anp.gov.ro

9. Report on the activity of the Legal Medicine network in 2013 - Available from URL:

www.legmed.ro

10. Shaw D, Elger B., Improving public health by respecting autonomy: Using social science

research to enfranchise vulnerable prison populations - Prev Med. 2015 February 21,

74C: 21-23. doi: 10.1016 / j.ypmed.2015.01.024. [Epub ahead of print] PMID: 25708912

[PubMed - as Supplied by publisher]

11. The Revised Romanian Criminal Procedure Code - adopted by Law no. 135/2010

published in the Official Gazette of Romania no. 486 - July 15, 2010, into force since

February 1, 2014, updated by GEO no. 3/2014 (Official Gazette 98/2014) and Law no.



289

255/2013 (Official Gazette 515/2013) – Available from URL: http://legeaz.net/noul-cod-

procedura-penala-ncpp

12. Wang EA, Aminawung JA, Ferguson W, Trestman R, Wagner EH, Bova CJ, A tool for

tracking and assessing chronic illness care in prison (ACIC-P). Correct Health Care.

2014 Oct;20(4):313-33. doi: 10.1177/1078345814541531. Epub 2014 Aug 12. PMID:

25117427 [PubMed - in process]. PMCID:PMC4175370 Free PMC Article

DETAINEE’S BEHAVIOR ASPECTS IN LEGAL MEDICINE … 03 28.pdfsection: psychology and education...

Documents

Transcript of DETAINEE’S BEHAVIOR ASPECTS IN LEGAL MEDICINE … 03 28.pdfsection: psychology and education...