A Comparison of Judicial Prevention and Criminal Prevention and an Analysis of Their Institutions in the Preliminary Investigation Phase

Abstract

The preliminary investigation phase is one of the most sensitive stages of the criminal process because it is the point at which the state first exercises coercive authority in response to an alleged offense. Decisions adopted during this phase can prevent the continuation of criminal conduct, protect victims and witnesses, preserve evidence, secure the suspect’s presence, and reduce the risk of repeated offending. At the same time, preventive measures may result in arbitrary arrest, excessive detention, unlawful surveillance, violations of privacy, and impairment of the presumption of innocence. This article compares judicial prevention and criminal prevention and analyzes the principal institutions through which they operate during preliminary investigations. Using a descriptive-analytical legal method, the study examines the conceptual foundations, objectives, instruments, institutional structures, and legal limitations of both forms of prevention. The findings indicate that criminal prevention is a broad category encompassing judicial, police, administrative, social, situational, rehabilitative, and victim-oriented interventions, whereas judicial prevention is a more specific form of legally regulated prevention exercised through prosecutors, investigating judges, courts, and mechanisms of judicial supervision. Although the two approaches overlap in areas such as pretrial detention, victim protection, evidence preservation, no-contact orders, asset freezing, mediation, and prevention of recidivism, they differ in institutional scope, legal basis, methods, timing, and accountability mechanisms. The article argues that judicial prevention also performs an independent rights-protective function by controlling coercive governmental power and preventing procedural abuses. Effective prevention during preliminary investigations therefore requires coordinated participation by police authorities, prosecution services, judges, forensic institutions, victim-support organizations, social and health services, regulatory bodies, and defense lawyers. Such coordination must be accompanied by legality, necessity, proportionality, individualized risk assessment, access to legal representation, periodic judicial review, data protection, and institutional accountability. The article concludes that a legitimate preventive model must simultaneously protect public security, victims’ interests, procedural integrity, and the fundamental rights of suspects.