VB.2014.00241 · Prisoner's Appeal Regarding Denial of Supervised Family Room Visit (Verwaltungsgericht)

Legislator-Zusammenfassung

KI-generiert

The court considered an appeal concerning the denial of a prisoner's request to use a special family room for visits, finding the appeal timely despite potential mootness given the ongoing enforcement of the sentence. The court reasoned that while facilities like family rooms exist to facilitate contact with relatives, the specific appellant presented a high risk of reoffending for sexual offenses, and thus the lower court was justified in concluding that the safety of the appellant's wife could not be guaranteed during an unsupervised visit in the family room, leading to the rejection of the claim without violating the principle of equal treatment.

Legislator-Regeste

Amtlich

Strafvollzug | Strafvollzug: Verweigerte Benützung des Familienzimmers Es ist von der Rechtzeitigkeit der Beschwerde auszugehen (E. 1.2). Auf das Erfordernis des aktuellen praktischen Rechtsschutzinteresses ist vorliegend zu verzichten (E. 1.3). Die Erleichterung von Kontakten mit nahestehenden Personen kann dadurch erreicht werden, dass solche permissiver bewilligt oder weniger streng kontrolliert werden, oder dass für Familienbesuche besondere Räume zur Verfügung gestellt werden. In mehreren geschlossenen Anstalten stehen sogenannte Familienappartements oder Familienzimmer zur Verfügung, die für Intim- oder Familienbesuche eingerichtet sind und wo für die Besuchsdauer auf optische oder andere Kontrollen gänzlich verzichtet wird (E. 2.2). Unter den gegebenen Umständen ist immer noch von einer hohen Rückfallgefahr des Beschwerdeführers bezüglich Sexualdelikte auszugehen (E. 3.3.1). Es ist nicht zu beanstanden, wenn die Vorinstanz die Sicherheit der Ehefrau des Beschwerdeführers für die Dauer eines unüberwachten Besuchs im Familienzimmer als nicht gewährleistet erachtet (E. 3.3.2). Keine Verletzung des Gleichbehandlungsgebots (E. 3.3.4). Abweisung.

Schlagwörter

KI-generiert

Gefangener Anfechtbarkeit des Rückweisungsentscheids Wiederholungsgefahr Vollstreckungsentscheid Sexualdelikten begleitetes Besuchsrecht

Zitierte Gesetzesbestimmungen

KI-generiert

Art. 84 Abs. I StGB

This provision is cited as a Rechtsnorm, but the main ground for the decision (rejection of the appeal) is not explicitly stated using it in the dispositive section.

Art. 84 Abs. II StGB

This provision is cited as a Rechtsnorm, but the main ground for the decision (rejection of the appeal) is not explicitly stated using it in the dispositive section.

§ 11 Abs. I VRG

This provision is cited as a Rechtsnorm, but the main ground for the decision (rejection of the appeal) is not explicitly stated using it in the dispositive section (which is implied by the summary 'Abweisung.'). Since the summary does not specify which article was the main ground for the final order, I will focus on the articles explicitly mentioned in the dispositive if available. Given the absence of a numbered dispositive section in the provided text, I rely on the explicit mention of cited norms that justify the final outcome, prioritizing those related to the actual ruling (dismissal/rejection).

§ 11 Abs. II VRG

This provision is cited as a Rechtsnorm, but the main ground for the decision (rejection of the appeal) is not explicitly stated using it in the dispositive section.

§ 117 JVV

This provision is cited as a Rechtsnorm, but the main ground for the decision (rejection of the appeal) is not explicitly stated using it in the dispositive section.

§ 122 Abs. III JVV

This provision is cited as a Rechtsnorm, but the main ground for the decision (rejection of the appeal) is not explicitly stated using it in the dispositive section.

KI-generiert

VB.2015.00228

Inmate Relationship Leave Appeal Decision

VB.2019.00554

Inmate Leave Denial Appeal and Legal Aid Rejection

PQ240035

Father's Appeal Regarding Supervised Visitation and Procedural Hearing

VB.2014.00078

Appeal of Denial of Unsupervised Temporary Release

Zentrale Rechtsfragen, extrahiert von Legislator

KI-generiert

§ 11 Abs. I VRG

This provision is cited as a Rechtsnorm, but the main ground for the decision (rejection of the appeal) is not explicitly stated using it in the dispositive section (which is implied by the summary 'Abweisung.'). Since the summary does not specify which article was the main ground for the final order, I will focus on the articles explicitly mentioned in the dispositive if available. Given the absence of a numbered dispositive section in the provided text, I rely on the explicit mention of cited norms that justify the final outcome, prioritizing those related to the actual ruling (dismissal/rejection).

§ 11 Abs. II VRG