Sentence Of Life Imprisonment Research Articles

Remission of sentences and the constitutionality of life imprisonment in Seychelles

Section 30 of the Seychelles Prisons Act provides that the sentences of all prisoners, except those sentenced to life imprisonment or convicted of drug-related offenses of an aggravated nature, can be remitted. Section 31 of the Prisons Act empowers the Superintendent of Prisons to grant a prisoner a license to be at large. Before 2021, Seychelles law was silent on the issue of whether a person sentenced to life imprisonment had to spend the rest of his/her life in prison. As a result, offenders sentenced to life imprisonment were released after serving between 15 and 20 years. Dissatisfied with this approach, the Court of Appeal held that life imprisonment should mean imprisonment for the remainder of the offender’s life. In 2021, the Criminal Procedure Code was amended to define life imprisonment as imprisonment for the remainder of the offender’s natural life. Article 60 of the Constitution empowers the President to commute any sentence. This implies that in theory, the President could invoke Article 60 to release offenders sentenced to life imprisonment. In this article, the author relies on, amongst other sources, jurisprudence from some African countries, the European Court of Human Rights, and international human rights bodies to argue that the sentence of life imprisonment as defined in Seychelles law is unconstitutional for violating the prisoner’s rights to human dignity and not to be subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment. The author also relies on the drafting history of Article 10(3) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to argue, inter alia, that life imprisonment without the possibility of release is contrary to Seychelles’ international human rights obligations.

KAZNA DOŽIVOTNOG ZATVORA U KRIVIČNOM ZAKONODAVSTVU U BOSNI I HERCEGOVINI I DRŽAVAMA REGIJE

Life imprisonment is a sentence that is imposed for the most serious crimes and the most serious forms of serious crimes (aggravated murder, child abuse, serious forms of rape, genocide, terrorism etc). One of the modern tendencies in criminal law is the introduction of life imprisonment as the better and more humane alternatives to the death penalty. Its introduction replaces the sentence of long-term imprisonment, which may be imposed in some legislations for criminal offenses punishable by life imprisonment. In this regard, the advantages and disadvantages of life imprisonment and the death penalty will be analyzed to determine whether life imprisonment is indeed more humane than the death penalty. The sentence of life imprisonment may, under certain conditions, constitute a violation of the prohibition of torture guaranteed by Article 3. of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. It is precisely with this sentence that it is most controversial if the person convicted according to national law has no prospects of being paroled after serving a certain number of years, that is, of the same sentence being irreducible. It is important that a person sentenced to life imprisonment has the right to know at the beginning of the sentence what and under what conditions he must do in order to consider his release, as well as to know when his sentence will be reviewed or when he can request it. The paper offers information on the legal solutions of the countries of the region related to this punishment, individual cases from the case law of the European Court of Human Rights and the frequency of sentencing in this area where it is represented.

Human dignity as a fundamental basis and a practical tool of “right to hope” in criminal law

The scientific article focuses on the analysis of a sentence of life imprisonment without a realistic prospect of release in Ukraine as a violation of the “right to hope” in the context of the human dignity category. The study provides an overview of approaches to the definition of human dignity in national legal doctrine and practice, a historical and legal analysis of the origins of legal regulation of the idea of ​​respect for human dignity in international legal acts, and analyses the constitutional stages of the evolution of this concept as a matter of international law. The author has reviewed the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights on this issue and studied the reasons of the Court on setting standards for acceptable treatment of a person through the lenses of human dignity and the inadmissibility of inhuman and degrading offences. Taking into account these standards, a critical assessment has been carried out, in particular, of the judicial practice of the Federal Republic of Germany on the application to a prisoner of such a type of punishment as preventive detention with indefinite duration. Emphasis has been given to the national judicial practice in cases of possible releasing life-sentenced prisoners in the conclusions of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court and the decision of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine on this issue. Based on the results of the study, a set of measures, including amending the legislation to bring it in line with the requirements of European human rights standards to protect human dignity and ensure the “right to hope” has been offered.

An exploration of ECtHR jurisprudence governing the administration of release processes for life and long-term sentence prisoners: Perspectives from the United Kingdom

The purpose of the research themes examined in this article is to contribute to the ongoing debate pertaining to substantive criminal laws and procedures governing sentence reviews of prolonged detention for life and long-term sentence prisoners in accordance with Article 5(4) ECHR. The incompatibility of whole life irreducible sentences with Article 3 ECHR is examined through the lens of the ECtHR judgment in Vinter, Moore and Bamber v United Kingdom. The analyses of ECtHR jurisprudence is heavily skewed towards the administration of indeterminate life, and by analogy long-term determinate sentences, in the United Kingdom which is an outlier jurisdiction in a European context given that, in conjunction with Turkey, it accounts for the majority of persons serving life sentences. The article focuses on pertinent ECHR provisions and associated ECtHR jurisprudence, with perspectives from the United Kingdom on their implementation as a case study. While key themes are disinterred from the ECtHR’s jurisprudence that will presumably inform sentence review procedures in European states, a broader analysis of release systems operative in a European context is beyond the scope of the article.

Prosecutor v. Mladić (U.N. Int'l Residual Mechanism Crim. Tribunals App. Chamber)

On June 8, 2021, the UN International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals (Mechanism) Appeals Chamber delivered its appeals judgment in Prosecutor v. Ratko Mladić. The judgment affirmed the 2017 trial judgment of Trial Chamber I of the UN International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), which convicted Mladić, the Bosnian Serb commander, of genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes during the war in Bosnia between 1992 and 1995, as well as affirming his sentence of life imprisonment. This constituted Mladić's final appeal, opening the door for his assignment to a prison somewhere in Europe.

MULTIPLE ACTS OF SEXUAL PENETRATION WITHIN A SHORT PERIOD OF TIME – SINGLE OR MULTIPLE ACTS OF RAPE? S v Willemse 2011 (2) SACR 531 (ECG)

The case under discussion exposes a particular twilight zone in respect of the sexual offence of rape, and more specifically, the question as to when multiple acts of sexual penetration perpetrated by the same perpetrator within a relatively short time span, will constitute multiple acts of rape. The latter, in addition, specifically becomes problematic during sentencing. Once it has been established that a victim was raped more than once by an accused, a court is obliged in terms of section 51(1) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 105 of 1997 (hereinafter “the Act”) to impose a sentence of life imprisonment, unless substantial and compelling circumstances exist to depart from the prescribed minimum sentence. The decision under discussion is of particular interest as the court was once again required to assess whether multiple acts of sexual penetration constituted a single act of rape, or multiple acts of rape and as such falling within the ambit of the provisions of the Act with regards to sentencing. A related issue addressed by the judgment, relates to the anomaly in respect of the appropriate approach to follow in cases of this nature relating to multiple acts of sexual penetration in order to assess whether these acts should be construed as multiple acts of rape, or as one single and prolonged act of rape.

Sentencing to Life Imprisonment

Introduction. After declaring a moratorium on the death penalty in Russia life imprisonment has turned to be the most severe of the applied criminal punishments. In order to respect the rights and interests of all parties of the criminal process, the court when passing a sentence shall con¬sider all the characteristic features of this kind of imprisonment. Taking into account the processes of self-organization, the lack of common approaches to the imprisonment for life in law, the use of evaluation categories that are not explained in the prac¬tice of the highest court, as well as the presence of gaps in certain provisions of the criminal law, leads to the fact that the courts in different regions in text justify and substantiate the sentence of life imprisonment form their own experience. The problem of sentencing in the form of life imprisonment has become the subject of the article. The author’s approach is based on the analysis of the first instance courts sentences and the examination of their features. Theoretical Basis. Methods. The work is carried out with the use of such general scientific research methods as comparative legal, dialectical, formal legal, and hermeneutical methods are applied. The above methods are used in conjunction in order to obtain a synergistic effect of the research. Results. When passing a life sentence, it is important to describe thoroughly the exceptional dan¬ger of the defendant. Failure to comply with this requirement may result in the cancellation of the sentence. The author also analyzes the circumstances that are to preclude the possibility of life imprisonment, deals with the features of life verdict in the case of a combination of crimes or sen¬tences in the particular situation, takes up the questions of determining the type of correctional facility for a person sentenced to this type of punishment. Discussion and Conclusion. Based on the author’s research, the article offers legal options for describing the exceptional danger of the person committed the crime, reflecting in the sentence the punishment imposed for a combination of crimes and sentences, one of which is life impris¬onment.

Перспективы пожизненного заключения как вида наказания

The organization of a sentence execution of life imprisonment in the Republic of Belarus and life imprisonment in the Russian Federation are examined in the article. The legislation was analyzed, and the international experience of execution of these types of punishments was studied. The statistical data necessary for the analysis are provided. Proposals are made to improve the execution of a life sentence. Based on the research, the author comes to the conclusion that the sentence of life imprisonment has a large number of shortcomings that need to be solved. This makes it necessary to improve its execution or cancel this punishment. In order to increase the effectiveness of the considered punishment, the author suggests differentiating the approach to applying parole to prisoners sentenced to life prisoning: reduce the terms of possible release, provide for a gradual change in conditions (a system of social elevators), establish lifelong supervision of the behavior of convicts after release (in case of violation of the rules of supervision, the convict can be returned to a correctional institution for further serving a life sentence).

Le devenir des grands criminels

ObjectivesWhat happens to those who are called serious criminals once the conviction has been handed down and the possibilities for appeal exhausted; and, first and foremost, what is meant by the term serious criminal? Is this only the penal qualification of a criminal conviction, or should it be combined with the length of the sentence? Is the repetition of criminal acts a condition for this designation, or is the “simple” sentence of life imprisonment, whatever the reason for the sentence, sufficient? MethodsThrough the examination of the various legislative developments and the confrontation between different players in the judicial system, the future of these subjects is put into perspective. ResultsThe difficulty of finding a single definition of the concept of serious criminality illustrates, on its own, the diversity of profiles and individual situations it covers. However, given the sociology of long-term prisoners, the combination of three criteria, excluding the repetition of criminal acts, seems relevant to the definition of the concept of a serious criminal: the sentencing of the individual, male or female, a sentence of at least 15 years, the assignment of the convicted individual to a penal institution, whether a jail, a prison, or a maximum security prison. The definition criteria therefore exclude the nature of the acts that led to the conviction, the question of repeat offenses in the commission of criminal acts, as well as the age group to which he belongs. As of July 1, 2018, according to figures from the French prison administration, 500 prisoners were serving a life sentence, 1,000 prisoners were serving a criminal sentence of more than 20 years, and 5,200 prisoners were serving a criminal sentence of more than 10 years, out of a total number of 71,000 prisoners. DiscussionFor these serious criminals, how can we reconcile the objectives set by the law with regard to the function assigned to the prison sentence – namely to prepare the integration or reintegration of the convicted person in order to enable him to act as a responsible person, respecting the rules and interests of society and avoiding the commission of new offenses – with the crucial question of dangerousness in the case of serious criminals? Whether or not the convicted person is considered a major criminal, the objective of the prison journey must remain the same: to allow a safe return to civilian life from the point of view of society and to provide security for the convicted person. This secure return will be made possible if all the parties involved (the prefectoral authority, the judge in charge of enforcing sentences, representatives of the public prosecutor's office, integration and probation prison counsellors, coordinating doctors) work in concert, the challenge in terms of public safety being essential. ConclusionTo talk about the future of serious criminals requires, after the relatively unknown question of the management of detention, that we look at the question of the adjustment of the sentence. Recent criminal procedural reforms, which have focused on combating prison overcrowding and limiting the imposition of short prison sentences, have had relatively little impact on those sentenced to very long sentences. The treatment of serious criminals in detention and then at the sentencing stage has its own specific features. The objectives sought are first of all those common to all persons serving a sentence of imprisonment or criminal confinement, namely the prevention of recidivism and the rehabilitation of the convicted person, objectives set out in article 707 of the French Code of Criminal Procedure. Follow-through with serious criminals in the event of a return to civilian life also deserves attention because it differs from the way other cases are handled.

The pains of parole for life sentence prisoners in Ireland: Risk, rehabilitation and re-entry

The number of people serving life sentences in Irish prisons has increased substantially in recent years, such that one in nine sentenced prisoners is now serving a life sentence. Critical attention on the release of life sentence prisoners in Ireland has tended to focus on the political and informal nature of parole decision-making. Yet little is known about the experiences of those navigating the release process. This article begins to address the gap by offering a critical reflection on the parole process, focusing on the potential ‘pains’ experienced by life sentence prisoners when seeking parole. The analysis is organised into three themes that broadly fall under the umbrella of risk management: dealing with a serious criminal past, engaging with in-prison rehabilitation services, and reintegrating into society after release from custody. An analysis of this kind is timely given the growing concerns both nationally and internationally regarding the administration of life sentences and the appropriate mechanism of release.

(Ne)pomirljivost kazne doživotnog zatvora i ljudskih prava

Since May 2019, Serbia has joined the majority of European countries which have the sentence of life imprisonment in their criminal justice systems. Despite the refusal of the competent authorities to hold a public hearing on the issue, the introduction of life imprisonment, excluding the possibility of conditional release of convicted persons for certain offenses punishable by this sentence, was met with noticeable interest and activism by representatives of the domestic and international professional public. Particular attention in the paper is devoted to human rights standards relating to life imprisonment, mainly stemming from the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights. The paper analyzes the possibility of application of human rights standards within the current criminal law legislation. At the end of the paper, the author points to possible de lege ferenda directions that could represent an alternative to life imprisonment, considering it a serious challenge for protection of the dignity of convicted persons.

WHOLE LIFE ORDERS: ARTICLE 3 COMPLIANT AFTER ALL

The exercise of the Secretary of State's power to release from prison a murderer sentenced to a whole life order would be controversial and politically fraught. The Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights’ (“ECtHR”) succinct summary of the offending leading to the whole life order imposed on the applicant in Hutchinson v United Kingdom (57592/08), Judgment of 17 January 2017, demonstrates quite why a Secretary of State would find exercising their compassionate release powers so politically unpalatable: “In October 1983, the applicant broke into a family home, where he stabbed to death a man, his wife and their adult son. He then repeatedly raped their 18-year-old daughter, having first dragged her past her father's body” (at [10]). Yet the power to release life sentence prisoners on compassionate grounds under s. 30 of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 has become the fig leaf covering a more fundamental disagreement between the domestic courts and the ECtHR: whether it is possible to commit offences of such gravity that, for the purposes of retribution and deterrence, a person must forfeit their right to liberty for the duration of their life.

Life sentence penalty and extradition under article 3 of the ECHR: A leading case of the European Court of Human Rights

Life sentence penalty covers a diverse range of practices, from the most severe form of life imprisonment without parole, in which a person is sentenced to die in prison so long as their sentence stands, to more indeterminate sentences in which at the time of sentencing it is not clear how long the sentenced person will spend in prison. Dealing with the question whether the extradition of a person to a foreign state where is accused of a crime for which a sentence of life imprisonment can be imposed can potentially violate article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights.What all these sentences have in common, however, is that at the time the sentence is passed, a person is liable to be detained for the rest of his or her natural life. We all know “The United Nations Standard Minimum Rules” and relevant international instruments on the rehabilitation of imprisonment, but at the moment more than 73 States in the world retain life imprisonment as a penalty for offences committed while under the age of 18. General perspective of criminal justice reform in Latin America should take into a right account the meaning of life - imprisonment penalty under article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which prohibits torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Serious Offenders: Using Evidence to Predict and Manage the Risk.

In response to the risk of serious further offences, an evidence-based approach is needed in risk management. A recent joint prison-probation inspection of the management of life sentence prisoners in six U.K. prisons found that the quality of assessment and plans to manage risk of harm to others was insufficient, with too much focus on the offender's verbal account. The present paper discusses observations of regular prisoner behaviour as the basis for predictions, and summarizes results of an evaluation of this methodology based on a sample of high-risk category prisoners released into the community. Prison behaviour has not traditionally been seen as a valid risk marker for violent recidivism, which may be because typically only conspicuous high-level behaviours are considered by risk management panels. Our research suggests that we are neglecting a valuable source of information on risk by failing to observe on-going and consistent pre-release behaviour. Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

ЗМІСТ МІЖНАРОДНИХ СТАНДАРТІВ РАДИ ЄВРОПИ ЩОДО ПОРЯДКУ ВІДБУВАННЯ ПОКАРАННЯ У ВИДІ ДОВІЧНОГО ПОЗБАВЛЕННЯ ВОЛІ

The article analyzes the content of Recommendation Rec(2003)23 of the Committee of Ministers to member states on the management by prison administrations of life sentence and other long-term prisoners, which contains a thorough analysis of areas of life imprisonment, namely: the purpose of execution of punishment in the form of life imprisonment is defined; the basic principles of life imprisonment are explained; recommendations were provided on individual planning of serving a sentence of life imprisonment; clarification was provided on the assessment of the risk and needs of those sentenced to life imprisonment; recommendations on the specifics of the work of staff working with convicts sentenced to life imprisonment. As a result of the generalized analysis of the content of the international standards of the Council of Europe the system of serving of punishment in the form of life imprisonment which consists of the following stages is modeled: I - the Stage of definition of the initial estimation of the person sentenced to life imprisonment; ІІ - Stage of drawing up and realization of the plan of serving of punishment in the form of life imprisonment; ІІІ - Stage of preparation and implementation of the individual plan of release of convicts to life imprisonment; IV - Stage of adaptation of convicts to life imprisonment in society. It is determined that the proposed model of serving a sentence, which reflects the content of international standards of treatment of convicts sentenced to life imprisonment in the future may be a guide for implementation in the penitentiary activities of Ukraine.

Life imprisonment in Uganda

In Uganda, legislation does not define ‘life imprisonment’. However, the 2006 Prisons Act provides that, for the purpose of remission, life imprisonment means 20 years’ imprisonment. In 2011, the Supreme Court, the highest court in the country, held that life imprisonment should mean imprisonment for the remainder of an offender’s natural life. However, since then there have been cases from the Court of Appeal, the second highest court in Uganda, questioning the Supreme Court’s ruling. In a common law country where legal precedent is revered, this is unheard of. In this paper the author argues that although the Court of Appeal may not be impressed with the Supreme Court’s judgement, the principle of legal precedent obliges it to follow that judgement. The author submits that the sentence of life imprisonment remains imprisonment for the remainder of the offender’s life as interpreted by the Supreme Court and that the legislature may have to intervene to amend the law to expressly state what life imprisonment means.

The Release and Recall of Life Sentence Prisoners: Policy, Practice and Politics.

The process for the release of life sentence prisoners has yet to be subject to the level of reform witnessed in other European countries. Criticisms of the release process and concerns regarding its adherence to fundamental rights provisions have been raised. There is certainly cause for closer scrutiny. A non-statutory, advisory Parole Board, established in 2001, makes recommendations to the Minister for Justice who ultimately decides at what point a life sentence prisoner is released. From 2001 to 2013, the life sentence prison population increased by 130 per cent and life sentence prisoners now represent 7.7 per cent of the prison population, a significant increase from 4.4 per cent in 2001. There has been a considerable increase in time served by life sentence prisoners from 7.5 years in the 1970s and 1980s to a peak of 22 years in 2012. The discretionary process within which parole decision-makers operate has facilitated the transition from leniency to severity in terms of time served by life sentence prisoners but there is a paucity of information on the process and how it has enabled such increases over time. This article examines the various stages of parole decision-making, focusing on the review, release and recall of life sentence prisoners. In addition to examining the publicly available materials on parole, the analysis of the process is informed by qualitative research conducted with Parole Board members, former Ministers for Justice and former members of the Sentence Review Group.

Depression in life sentence prisoners

Depression in life sentence prisoners

Life sentence prisoners

Life sentence prisoners

(Mis)interpreting the Statute? The International Criminal Court, the Sentence of Life Imprisonment and Other Emerging Sentencing Issues: A Comment on the Trial Chamber I Decision on the Sentence in Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo

On 14 March 2012, Trial Chamber I of the International Criminal Court, ICC, in its first ever decision, convicted Mr Thomas Luganga Dyilo, as a coperpetrator, of ‘conscripting and enlisting children under the age of fifteen years into the UPC/FPLC and using them to participate actively in hostilities…’ On 10 July 2012, the Trial Chamber sentenced him to an effective term of 14 years’ imprisonment. In passing the sentence, the Trial Chamber held, inter alia, that in terms of the Rome Statute of the ICC, in cases where it sentences an offender to prison for a specified number of years, the sentence must not exceed 30 years’ imprisonment. The Trial Chamber also equated life imprisonment with ‘whole life.’ It is argued that in the light of the drafting history of the Rome Statute, the Trial Chamber incorrectly interpreted the Statute in those two respects. It is also argued that the ICC should have indicated which purpose the sentence it imposed was meant to serve.