Offenders’ consent is incorporated in Croatian legislation as a necessary element for the execution of probation measures and sanctions. However, legal provisions, which are in accordance with contemporary European recommendations, provide only a basic framework for the implementation of such measures and sanctions. In this article, we argue that some elements of consent may be questionable and that changes to related practices are possible. After describing legal documents on this topic, we present the results of focus groups with probation officers and probationers with regard to the implementation of consent. Their perceptions and personal experiences provided us with valuable insights about and for practice and served as additional support for future recommendations.
Attride-SterlingJ (2001) Thematic networks: An analytical tool for qualitative research. Qualitative Research1(3): 385–405.
2.
BottomsA (2001) Compliance and community penalties. In: BottomsAGelsthorpeLRexS (eds) Community Penalties: Change and Challenges. Devon: Willan Publishing, pp. 87–116.
3.
BraunVClarkeV (2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology3(2): 77–101.
FadenRRBaeauchampTL (1986) A History and Theory of Informed Consent. New York: Oxford University Press.
8.
HorwitzA (2000) Coercion, pop-psychology, and judicial moralizing: Some proposals for curbing, judicial abuse of probation conditions. Washington & Lee Law Review57(1): 75–162.
9.
HucklesbyA (2009) Understanding offenders’ compliance: A case study of electronically monitored curfew orders. Journal of Law and Society36(2): 248–271.
10.
Kovčo VukadinIRajićSBalenovićM (2009) The introduction of a probation system: A new challenge for Croatia. Croatian Annual of Criminal Law and Practice16(2): 711–751.
11.
MannT (1994) Informed consent for psychological research: Do subjects comprehend consent forms and understand their legal rights?Psychological Science5(3): 140–143.
12.
MatthewJMcGrathJ (2002) Readability of consent forms in schizophrenia research. Australia & New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry36(4): 564–565.
13.
MorgensternCLarrauriE (2013) European norms, policy and practice. In: McNeillFBeyensK (eds) Offender Supervision in Europe. London: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 125–154.
14.
OgloffJROttoRK (1991) Are research participants truly informed? Readability of informed consent forms used in research. Ethics & Behavior1(4): 239–252.
15.
Paasche-OrlowMKTaylorHABrancatiFL (2003) Readability standards for informed-consent forms as compared with actual readability. New England Journal of Medicine348(8): 721–726.
16.
RobinsonGMcNeillF (2008) Exploring the dynamics of compliance with community penalties. Theoretical Criminology12(4): 431–449.
17.
RounsavilleDBHunkeleKEastonCJNichCCarrollKM (2008) Making consent more informed: Preliminary results from a multiple- choice test among probation- referred marijuana users entering a randomized clinical trial. The Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law36(3): 354–359.
18.
ŠimpragaDMaloićSRicijašN (2014) Croatia. In: Probation in Europe (updated edition). Available at: www.cep-probation.org (accessed 15 June 2014).
19.
TrotterC (2011) Working With Involuntary Clients: A Guide to Practice. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.
20.
UzelacS (2002) Protective Supervision: Methods of Socio-pedagogic Work. Zagreb: Globus.
21.
Van KalmthoutAMDurnescuI (eds) (2008) Probation in Europe. Nijmegen: Wolf Legal Publishers/CEP.
22.
WardTDayAHowellsKBirgdenA (2004) The multifactor offender readiness model. Aggression and Violent Behavior9(6): 645–673.
