מניעת מסוכנות כעילה לשחרור ממעצר

In Israel, almost all decisions to remand defendants in custody until the end of judicial proceedings are based on the need to prevent defendants from endangering others. When considering whether supervised release can substitute the remand order, courts balance the fundamental rights of defendants against the interest in reducing this risk. The underlying premise behind this balance is that remand is the most effective tool for reducing the danger posed by a defendant. We seek to challenge this perception and argue instead that, often, supervised release can be more effective than remand in reducing the risk posed by defendants for several reasons that courts do not currently consider. First, defendants on supervised release remain under supervision for much longer than remanded defendants. Second, supervised release increases the likelihood that defendants will participate in effective rehabilitation programs – both during the criminal process and after sentencing. Third, remanded defendants are more likely to be sentenced to a short prison term, which has a criminogenic effect. Currently, remand is perceived as the best way to reduce the danger posed by defendants, and conditional release is only offered to mitigate the infringement of defendants’ rights. We suggest that courts should also consider the advantages of conditional release as a way to reduce the danger posed by release of defendants and hence reduce the use of remand.