essay on life imprisonment

• About World Prison Brief
• Burkina Faso
• Cape Verde (Cabo Verde)
• Central African Republic
• Congo (Republic of)
• Cote d'Ivoire
• Democratic Republic of Congo
• Equatorial Guinea
• Eswatini/Swaziland
• Federal Republic of Somalia
• Guinea (Republic of)
• Guinea Bissau
• Mayotte (France)
• Reunion (France)
• Sao Tome e Principe
• Sierra Leone
• South Africa
• South Sudan
• Afghanistan
• Brunei Darussalam
• Democratic People's Republic of (North) Korea
• Hong Kong (China)
• Macau (China)
• Myanmar (formerly Burma)
• Philippines
• Republic of (South) Korea
• Turkmenistan
• Anguilla (United Kingdom)
• Antigua and Barbuda
• Aruba (Netherlands)
• Cayman Islands (United Kingdom)
• Curaçao (Netherlands)
• Dominican Republic
• Guadeloupe (France)
• Martinique (France)
• Puerto Rico (USA)
• Sint Maarten (Netherlands)
• St. Kitts and Nevis
• St. Vincent and the Grenadines
• Trinidad and Tobago
• Virgin Islands (United Kingdom)
• Virgin Islands (USA)
• El Salvador
• Bosnia and Herzegovina: Federation
• Bosnia and Herzegovina: Republika Srpska
• Cyprus (Republic of)
• Czech Republic
• Faeroe Islands (Denmark)
• Gibraltar (United Kingdom)
• Guernsey (United Kingdom)
• Ireland, Republic of
• Isle of Man (United Kingdom)
• Jersey (United Kingdom)
• Kosovo/Kosova
• Liechtenstein
• Moldova (Republic of)
• Netherlands
• North Macedonia
• Russian Federation
• Switzerland
• United Kingdom: England & Wales
• United Kingdom: Northern Ireland
• United Kingdom: Scotland
• Saudi Arabia
• United Arab Emirates
• Bermuda (United Kingdom)
• Greenland (Denmark)
• United States of America
• American Samoa (USA)
• Cook Islands (New Zealand)
• French Polynesia (France)
• Marshall Islands
• Micronesia, Federated States of
• New Caledonia (France)
• New Zealand
• Northern Mariana Islands (USA)
• Papua New Guinea
• Solomon Islands
• Timor-Leste (formerly East Timor)
• French Guiana/Guyane (France)
• Highest to Lowest

Life imprisonment – a sentence in dire need of reform

• Unlocking potential project
• Criminalization of poverty and status
• Ten-country prisons project
• World Prison Population Lists
• Handbook for Prison Staff

World Prison Brief

Institute for criminal policy research, birkbeck - university of london, search form.

Read this page in French , Portuguese , Spanish

In this piece, Olivia Rope, Executive Director of Penal Reform International (PRI), discusses life sentences, a key priority area for PRI . PRI has highlighted the problematic use of life sentences for many years, in relation to their use as an alternative to the death penalty, and more recently through our work with the University of Nottingham to bring international attention - including from the United Nations - to the need for reform in view of increasing use of the sentence. A key publication on the topic is their 2018 policy briefing on life imprisonment . 

At the beginning of this century there were an estimated 261,000 people serving a formal life imprisonment sentence (formal life imprisonment is used to describe cases where the court explicitly imposes a sentence of imprisonment for life). By 2014 this number had grown to just under half a million people (479,000) – a rise of about 84 per cent.

The number of people serving informal life sentences (when the sentence imposed may not be called ‘life imprisonment’ but may result in the person spending life in prison) remains unknown.

While there are significant disparities in the use of life imprisonment between countries, formal life imprisonment is on the law books of 183 countries and territories; and 65 countries use sentences of life without parole. At least 64 countries have provision for informal or de facto life sentences and at least 50 countries have provision for post‑conviction indefinite preventive detention, but there are almost certainly more.

Mapping the increase in life sentences

Prison populations continue to rise, as do the corresponding levels of prison overcrowding. The increase in life imprisonment is part of this broader trend. A shift away from the death penalty has seen many sentencing codes replacing capital punishment with life imprisonment, or courts commuting sentences as seen in Kazakhstan and Burkina Faso in recent years.

Life sentences are also rising due to ‘hard-line’ approaches to crime. In Poland and Serbia, legislation has recently established life sentences without parole, and in Nicaragua the maximum sentence has been increased from 30 years to life in prison.

Growth has been more dramatic in some countries than in others. In the US, a new report by the Sentencing Project shows that one in seven people in US prisons are serving life, totalling 203,865 people. Women serving life without parole in America increased by 43 per cent between 2008 and 2020, compared to a 29 per cent increase among men. Other countries with a growing reliance on life sentences include India, where over half of the prison population are serving life and South Africa, where numbers rose by 818 per cent between 2000 and 2014.

Why are more people sentenced to life?

It is not because more serious crimes are being committed that there are more people in prison and more people serving life. In fact, as documented in our Global Prison Trends annual series , research shows there is little correlation between crime rates and prison populations. Likewise, an increase in life (or other long) sentences does not reflect a rise in serious offences.

Research also shows that harsher sentences do not deter crime. Drugs policy is a case in point. The steadily rising numbers of people who use drugs worldwide show that decades of increasingly harsh sentences to punish consumption and supply, under the banners of ‘a drug free world’ and ‘a war on drugs’, have failed.  Approximately 1 in 5 people in prison worldwide are there for drug-related offences. Despite this, many countries including New Zealand, Thailand and the US warrant the use of life sentences for (non-violent) drug offences.

Implications for human rights – and prison management

Pioneering research by PRI’s Board members, Dirk van Zyl Smit and Catherine Appleton , has shone a light on the human rights implications of life sentences. Fundamentally, the sentence is disproportionately punitive, especially when used to punish non‑violent crimes such as supplying drugs. The harsher treatment often experienced by people serving life, including through denial of access to rehabilitation programmes in many countries, their solitary confinement for long periods, and the routine use of handcuffs, prevents one of the purposes of imprisonment from being fulfilled – that is, rehabilitation, as enshrined in the UN Nelson Mandela Rules. Life imprisonment without parole, in particular, raises issues of cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment, and undermines the right to human dignity by removing any hope of release and rendering the rehabilitative purpose of imprisonment essentially meaningless.

A person serving life explains the concept of dignity better than I can put into words: “Life in prison is a slow, torturous death. Maybe it would have been better if they had just given me the electric chair and ended my life instead of a life sentence, letting me rot away in jail. It serves no purpose. It becomes a burden on everybody.” [1]

The steady increase in use of life sentences has led to a rapidly ageing prison population, which presents many problems for prison administrations around health and safeguarding. In the US, 30 per cent of people serving life are 55 or older, amounting to more than 61,000 people. Similar patterns have been seen in Australia, the UK and Japan. Prison accelerates the ageing process, so people serving long sentences frequently have complex health care needs. The management of older people in prison, including those with chronic or terminal illnesses also puts a major strain on prison staff, who are often not trained to deal with their complex health conditions, or provide palliative care. It is also challenging to provide tailored and meaningful rehabilitation and reintegration programmes for older persons or those serving long sentences.

Most recently, the COVID-19 pandemic has revealed the degree to which life sentences violate human rights. Coronavirus has had a disproportionate impact on older persons, but for older people in prison this risk is further exacerbated. It is therefore concerning that the criteria for emergency prison release schemes in some jurisdictions, including the UK, have explicitly excluded life-sentenced people. Such policies ignore the health status of someone who may have served most of their sentence and present no risk to the public.

Building momentum for change

In PRI’s Policy briefing on life imprisonment , published with the University of Nottingham, we set out key recommendations for reforming life sentences. The abolition of life without parole and restricting use of life sentence to only the ‘most serious offences’ are important starting points.

There is some momentum building and more attention being given to the issue of life sentences. Partnerships and collaboration are key to turning the tide on this issue and Penal Reform International continues to advocate and work for practical reforms. In view of this we welcome the recent support of the UN, who have been silent on the issue since 1994. As Ilze Brands Kehris, the UN Assistant Secretary General for Human Rights, said at our event on life imprisonment at the 14 th UN Crime Congress in March 2021:

‘ The costs and consequences [of life imprisonment] for human dignity and human rights are immense. […] We must join forces to change penal policies and practices to counter the upward trend in the use of life imprisonment.’

[1] From a prisoner interview in Zehr H (1998),  Doing Life: Reflections of Men and Women Serving Life Sentences . Intercourse, PA: Good Books

Return to expert insights

Return to main project page

• Search Menu
• Browse content in Arts and Humanities
• Browse content in Archaeology
• Anglo-Saxon and Medieval Archaeology
• Archaeological Methodology and Techniques
• Archaeology by Region
• Archaeology of Religion
• Archaeology of Trade and Exchange
• Biblical Archaeology
• Contemporary and Public Archaeology
• Environmental Archaeology
• Historical Archaeology
• History and Theory of Archaeology
• Industrial Archaeology
• Landscape Archaeology
• Mortuary Archaeology
• Prehistoric Archaeology
• Underwater Archaeology
• Urban Archaeology
• Zooarchaeology
• Browse content in Architecture
• Architectural Structure and Design
• History of Architecture
• Residential and Domestic Buildings
• Theory of Architecture
• Browse content in Art
• Art Subjects and Themes
• History of Art
• Industrial and Commercial Art
• Theory of Art
• Biographical Studies
• Byzantine Studies
• Browse content in Classical Studies
• Classical Literature
• Classical Reception
• Classical History
• Classical Philosophy
• Classical Mythology
• Classical Art and Architecture
• Classical Oratory and Rhetoric
• Greek and Roman Archaeology
• Greek and Roman Papyrology
• Greek and Roman Epigraphy
• Greek and Roman Law
• Late Antiquity
• Religion in the Ancient World
• Digital Humanities
• Browse content in History
• Colonialism and Imperialism
• Diplomatic History
• Environmental History
• Genealogy, Heraldry, Names, and Honours
• Genocide and Ethnic Cleansing
• Historical Geography
• History by Period
• History of Agriculture
• History of Education
• History of Emotions
• History of Gender and Sexuality
• Industrial History
• Intellectual History
• International History
• Labour History
• Legal and Constitutional History
• Local and Family History
• Maritime History
• Military History
• National Liberation and Post-Colonialism
• Oral History
• Political History
• Public History
• Regional and National History
• Revolutions and Rebellions
• Slavery and Abolition of Slavery
• Social and Cultural History
• Theory, Methods, and Historiography
• Urban History
• World History
• Browse content in Language Teaching and Learning
• Language Learning (Specific Skills)
• Language Teaching Theory and Methods
• Browse content in Linguistics
• Applied Linguistics
• Cognitive Linguistics
• Computational Linguistics
• Forensic Linguistics
• Grammar, Syntax and Morphology
• Historical and Diachronic Linguistics
• History of English
• Language Variation
• Language Families
• Language Evolution
• Language Reference
• Language Acquisition
• Lexicography
• Linguistic Theories
• Linguistic Typology
• Linguistic Anthropology
• Phonetics and Phonology
• Psycholinguistics
• Sociolinguistics
• Translation and Interpretation
• Writing Systems
• Browse content in Literature
• Bibliography
• Children's Literature Studies
• Literary Studies (Modernism)
• Literary Studies (Romanticism)
• Literary Studies (American)
• Literary Studies (Asian)
• Literary Studies (European)
• Literary Studies (Eco-criticism)
• Literary Studies - World
• Literary Studies (1500 to 1800)
• Literary Studies (19th Century)
• Literary Studies (20th Century onwards)
• Literary Studies (African American Literature)
• Literary Studies (British and Irish)
• Literary Studies (Early and Medieval)
• Literary Studies (Fiction, Novelists, and Prose Writers)
• Literary Studies (Gender Studies)
• Literary Studies (Graphic Novels)
• Literary Studies (History of the Book)
• Literary Studies (Plays and Playwrights)
• Literary Studies (Poetry and Poets)
• Literary Studies (Postcolonial Literature)
• Literary Studies (Queer Studies)
• Literary Studies (Science Fiction)
• Literary Studies (Travel Literature)
• Literary Studies (War Literature)
• Literary Studies (Women's Writing)
• Literary Theory and Cultural Studies
• Mythology and Folklore
• Shakespeare Studies and Criticism
• Browse content in Media Studies
• Browse content in Music
• Applied Music
• Dance and Music
• Ethics in Music
• Ethnomusicology
• Gender and Sexuality in Music
• Medicine and Music
• Music Cultures
• Music and Culture
• Music and Media
• Music and Religion
• Music Education and Pedagogy
• Music Theory and Analysis
• Musical Scores, Lyrics, and Libretti
• Musical Structures, Styles, and Techniques
• Musicology and Music History
• Performance Practice and Studies
• Race and Ethnicity in Music
• Sound Studies
• Browse content in Performing Arts
• Browse content in Philosophy
• Aesthetics and Philosophy of Art
• Epistemology
• Feminist Philosophy
• History of Western Philosophy
• Metaphysics
• Moral Philosophy
• Non-Western Philosophy
• Philosophy of Action
• Philosophy of Law
• Philosophy of Religion
• Philosophy of Language
• Philosophy of Mind
• Philosophy of Perception
• Philosophy of Science
• Philosophy of Mathematics and Logic
• Practical Ethics
• Social and Political Philosophy
• Browse content in Religion
• Biblical Studies
• Christianity
• East Asian Religions
• History of Religion
• Judaism and Jewish Studies
• Qumran Studies
• Religion and Education
• Religion and Health
• Religion and Politics
• Religion and Science
• Religion and Law
• Religion and Art, Literature, and Music
• Religious Studies
• Browse content in Society and Culture
• Cookery, Food, and Drink
• Cultural Studies
• Customs and Traditions
• Ethical Issues and Debates
• Hobbies, Games, Arts and Crafts
• Lifestyle, Home, and Garden
• Natural world, Country Life, and Pets
• Popular Beliefs and Controversial Knowledge
• Sports and Outdoor Recreation
• Technology and Society
• Travel and Holiday
• Visual Culture
• Browse content in Law
• Arbitration
• Browse content in Company and Commercial Law
• Commercial Law
• Company Law
• Browse content in Comparative Law
• Systems of Law
• Competition Law
• Browse content in Constitutional and Administrative Law
• Government Powers
• Judicial Review
• Local Government Law
• Military and Defence Law
• Parliamentary and Legislative Practice
• Construction Law
• Contract Law
• Browse content in Criminal Law
• Criminal Procedure
• Criminal Evidence Law
• Sentencing and Punishment
• Employment and Labour Law
• Environment and Energy Law
• Browse content in Financial Law
• Banking Law
• Insolvency Law
• History of Law
• Human Rights and Immigration
• Intellectual Property Law
• Browse content in International Law
• Private International Law and Conflict of Laws
• Public International Law
• IT and Communications Law
• Jurisprudence and Philosophy of Law
• Law and Society
• Law and Politics
• Browse content in Legal System and Practice
• Courts and Procedure
• Legal Skills and Practice
• Primary Sources of Law
• Regulation of Legal Profession
• Medical and Healthcare Law
• Browse content in Policing
• Criminal Investigation and Detection
• Police and Security Services
• Police Procedure and Law
• Police Regional Planning
• Browse content in Property Law
• Personal Property Law
• Study and Revision
• Terrorism and National Security Law
• Browse content in Trusts Law
• Wills and Probate or Succession
• Browse content in Medicine and Health
• Browse content in Allied Health Professions
• Arts Therapies
• Clinical Science
• Dietetics and Nutrition
• Occupational Therapy
• Operating Department Practice
• Physiotherapy
• Radiography
• Speech and Language Therapy
• Browse content in Anaesthetics
• General Anaesthesia
• Neuroanaesthesia
• Clinical Neuroscience
• Browse content in Clinical Medicine
• Acute Medicine
• Cardiovascular Medicine
• Clinical Genetics
• Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics
• Dermatology
• Endocrinology and Diabetes
• Gastroenterology
• Genito-urinary Medicine
• Geriatric Medicine
• Infectious Diseases
• Medical Oncology
• Medical Toxicology
• Pain Medicine
• Palliative Medicine
• Rehabilitation Medicine
• Respiratory Medicine and Pulmonology
• Rheumatology
• Sleep Medicine
• Sports and Exercise Medicine
• Community Medical Services
• Critical Care
• Emergency Medicine
• Forensic Medicine
• Haematology
• History of Medicine
• Medical Ethics
• Browse content in Medical Skills
• Clinical Skills
• Communication Skills
• Nursing Skills
• Surgical Skills
• Browse content in Medical Dentistry
• Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
• Paediatric Dentistry
• Restorative Dentistry and Orthodontics
• Surgical Dentistry
• Medical Statistics and Methodology
• Browse content in Neurology
• Clinical Neurophysiology
• Neuropathology
• Nursing Studies
• Browse content in Obstetrics and Gynaecology
• Gynaecology
• Occupational Medicine
• Ophthalmology
• Otolaryngology (ENT)
• Browse content in Paediatrics
• Neonatology
• Browse content in Pathology
• Chemical Pathology
• Clinical Cytogenetics and Molecular Genetics
• Histopathology
• Medical Microbiology and Virology
• Patient Education and Information
• Browse content in Pharmacology
• Psychopharmacology
• Browse content in Popular Health
• Caring for Others
• Complementary and Alternative Medicine
• Self-help and Personal Development
• Browse content in Preclinical Medicine
• Cell Biology
• Molecular Biology and Genetics
• Reproduction, Growth and Development
• Primary Care
• Professional Development in Medicine
• Browse content in Psychiatry
• Addiction Medicine
• Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
• Forensic Psychiatry
• Learning Disabilities
• Old Age Psychiatry
• Psychotherapy
• Browse content in Public Health and Epidemiology
• Epidemiology
• Public Health
• Browse content in Radiology
• Clinical Radiology
• Interventional Radiology
• Nuclear Medicine
• Radiation Oncology
• Reproductive Medicine
• Browse content in Surgery
• Cardiothoracic Surgery
• Gastro-intestinal and Colorectal Surgery
• General Surgery
• Neurosurgery
• Paediatric Surgery
• Peri-operative Care
• Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery
• Surgical Oncology
• Transplant Surgery
• Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery
• Vascular Surgery
• Browse content in Science and Mathematics
• Browse content in Biological Sciences
• Aquatic Biology
• Biochemistry
• Bioinformatics and Computational Biology
• Developmental Biology
• Ecology and Conservation
• Evolutionary Biology
• Genetics and Genomics
• Microbiology
• Molecular and Cell Biology
• Natural History
• Plant Sciences and Forestry
• Research Methods in Life Sciences
• Structural Biology
• Systems Biology
• Zoology and Animal Sciences
• Browse content in Chemistry
• Analytical Chemistry
• Computational Chemistry
• Crystallography
• Environmental Chemistry
• Industrial Chemistry
• Inorganic Chemistry
• Materials Chemistry
• Medicinal Chemistry
• Mineralogy and Gems
• Organic Chemistry
• Physical Chemistry
• Polymer Chemistry
• Study and Communication Skills in Chemistry
• Theoretical Chemistry
• Browse content in Computer Science
• Artificial Intelligence
• Computer Architecture and Logic Design
• Game Studies
• Human-Computer Interaction
• Mathematical Theory of Computation
• Programming Languages
• Software Engineering
• Systems Analysis and Design
• Virtual Reality
• Browse content in Computing
• Business Applications
• Computer Games
• Computer Security
• Computer Networking and Communications
• Digital Lifestyle
• Graphical and Digital Media Applications
• Operating Systems
• Browse content in Earth Sciences and Geography
• Atmospheric Sciences
• Environmental Geography
• Geology and the Lithosphere
• Maps and Map-making
• Meteorology and Climatology
• Oceanography and Hydrology
• Palaeontology
• Physical Geography and Topography
• Regional Geography
• Soil Science
• Urban Geography
• Browse content in Engineering and Technology
• Agriculture and Farming
• Biological Engineering
• Civil Engineering, Surveying, and Building
• Electronics and Communications Engineering
• Energy Technology
• Engineering (General)
• Environmental Science, Engineering, and Technology
• History of Engineering and Technology
• Mechanical Engineering and Materials
• Technology of Industrial Chemistry
• Transport Technology and Trades
• Browse content in Environmental Science
• Applied Ecology (Environmental Science)
• Conservation of the Environment (Environmental Science)
• Environmental Sustainability
• Environmentalist Thought and Ideology (Environmental Science)
• Management of Land and Natural Resources (Environmental Science)
• Natural Disasters (Environmental Science)
• Nuclear Issues (Environmental Science)
• Pollution and Threats to the Environment (Environmental Science)
• Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Environmental Science)
• History of Science and Technology
• Browse content in Materials Science
• Ceramics and Glasses
• Composite Materials
• Metals, Alloying, and Corrosion
• Nanotechnology
• Browse content in Mathematics
• Applied Mathematics
• Biomathematics and Statistics
• History of Mathematics
• Mathematical Education
• Mathematical Finance
• Mathematical Analysis
• Numerical and Computational Mathematics
• Probability and Statistics
• Pure Mathematics
• Browse content in Neuroscience
• Cognition and Behavioural Neuroscience
• Development of the Nervous System
• Disorders of the Nervous System
• History of Neuroscience
• Invertebrate Neurobiology
• Molecular and Cellular Systems
• Neuroendocrinology and Autonomic Nervous System
• Neuroscientific Techniques
• Sensory and Motor Systems
• Browse content in Physics
• Astronomy and Astrophysics
• Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics
• Biological and Medical Physics
• Classical Mechanics
• Computational Physics
• Condensed Matter Physics
• Electromagnetism, Optics, and Acoustics
• History of Physics
• Mathematical and Statistical Physics
• Measurement Science
• Nuclear Physics
• Particles and Fields
• Plasma Physics
• Quantum Physics
• Relativity and Gravitation
• Semiconductor and Mesoscopic Physics
• Browse content in Psychology
• Affective Sciences
• Clinical Psychology
• Cognitive Neuroscience
• Cognitive Psychology
• Criminal and Forensic Psychology
• Developmental Psychology
• Educational Psychology
• Evolutionary Psychology
• Health Psychology
• History and Systems in Psychology
• Music Psychology
• Neuropsychology
• Organizational Psychology
• Psychological Assessment and Testing
• Psychology of Human-Technology Interaction
• Psychology Professional Development and Training
• Research Methods in Psychology
• Social Psychology
• Browse content in Social Sciences
• Browse content in Anthropology
• Anthropology of Religion
• Human Evolution
• Medical Anthropology
• Physical Anthropology
• Regional Anthropology
• Social and Cultural Anthropology
• Theory and Practice of Anthropology
• Browse content in Business and Management
• Business History
• Business Ethics
• Business Strategy
• Business and Technology
• Business and Government
• Business and the Environment
• Comparative Management
• Corporate Governance
• Corporate Social Responsibility
• Entrepreneurship
• Health Management
• Human Resource Management
• Industrial and Employment Relations
• Industry Studies
• Information and Communication Technologies
• International Business
• Knowledge Management
• Management and Management Techniques
• Operations Management
• Organizational Theory and Behaviour
• Pensions and Pension Management
• Public and Nonprofit Management
• Strategic Management
• Supply Chain Management
• Browse content in Criminology and Criminal Justice
• Criminal Justice
• Criminology
• Forms of Crime
• International and Comparative Criminology
• Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice
• Development Studies
• Browse content in Economics
• Agricultural, Environmental, and Natural Resource Economics
• Asian Economics
• Behavioural Finance
• Behavioural Economics and Neuroeconomics
• Econometrics and Mathematical Economics
• Economic Methodology
• Economic History
• Economic Systems
• Economic Development and Growth
• Financial Markets
• Financial Institutions and Services
• General Economics and Teaching
• Health, Education, and Welfare
• History of Economic Thought
• International Economics
• Labour and Demographic Economics
• Law and Economics
• Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics
• Microeconomics
• Public Economics
• Urban, Rural, and Regional Economics
• Welfare Economics
• Browse content in Education
• Adult Education and Continuous Learning
• Care and Counselling of Students
• Early Childhood and Elementary Education
• Educational Equipment and Technology
• Educational Strategies and Policy
• Higher and Further Education
• Organization and Management of Education
• Philosophy and Theory of Education
• Schools Studies
• Secondary Education
• Teaching of a Specific Subject
• Teaching of Specific Groups and Special Educational Needs
• Teaching Skills and Techniques
• Browse content in Environment
• Applied Ecology (Social Science)
• Climate Change
• Conservation of the Environment (Social Science)
• Environmentalist Thought and Ideology (Social Science)
• Natural Disasters (Environment)
• Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Social Science)
• Browse content in Human Geography
• Cultural Geography
• Economic Geography
• Political Geography
• Browse content in Interdisciplinary Studies
• Communication Studies
• Museums, Libraries, and Information Sciences
• Browse content in Politics
• African Politics
• Asian Politics
• Chinese Politics
• Comparative Politics
• Conflict Politics
• Elections and Electoral Studies
• Environmental Politics
• European Union
• Foreign Policy
• Gender and Politics
• Human Rights and Politics
• Indian Politics
• International Relations
• International Organization (Politics)
• International Political Economy
• Irish Politics
• Latin American Politics
• Middle Eastern Politics
• Political Theory
• Political Behaviour
• Political Economy
• Political Institutions
• Political Methodology
• Political Communication
• Political Philosophy
• Political Sociology
• Politics and Law
• Public Policy
• Public Administration
• Quantitative Political Methodology
• Regional Political Studies
• Russian Politics
• Security Studies
• State and Local Government
• UK Politics
• US Politics
• Browse content in Regional and Area Studies
• African Studies
• Asian Studies
• East Asian Studies
• Japanese Studies
• Latin American Studies
• Middle Eastern Studies
• Native American Studies
• Scottish Studies
• Browse content in Research and Information
• Research Methods
• Browse content in Social Work
• Addictions and Substance Misuse
• Adoption and Fostering
• Care of the Elderly
• Child and Adolescent Social Work
• Couple and Family Social Work
• Developmental and Physical Disabilities Social Work
• Direct Practice and Clinical Social Work
• Emergency Services
• Human Behaviour and the Social Environment
• International and Global Issues in Social Work
• Mental and Behavioural Health
• Social Justice and Human Rights
• Social Policy and Advocacy
• Social Work and Crime and Justice
• Social Work Macro Practice
• Social Work Practice Settings
• Social Work Research and Evidence-based Practice
• Welfare and Benefit Systems
• Browse content in Sociology
• Childhood Studies
• Community Development
• Comparative and Historical Sociology
• Economic Sociology
• Gender and Sexuality
• Gerontology and Ageing
• Health, Illness, and Medicine
• Marriage and the Family
• Migration Studies
• Occupations, Professions, and Work
• Organizations
• Population and Demography
• Race and Ethnicity
• Social Theory
• Social Movements and Social Change
• Social Research and Statistics
• Social Stratification, Inequality, and Mobility
• Sociology of Religion
• Sociology of Education
• Sport and Leisure
• Urban and Rural Studies
• Browse content in Warfare and Defence
• Defence Strategy, Planning, and Research
• Land Forces and Warfare
• Military Administration
• Military Life and Institutions
• Naval Forces and Warfare
• Other Warfare and Defence Issues
• Peace Studies and Conflict Resolution
• Weapons and Equipment

• < Previous chapter
• Next chapter >

Life without Parole

Catherine Appleton, The University of Nottingham

• Published: 10 September 2015
• Cite Icon Cite
• Permissions Icon Permissions

This article explores the penological landscape of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole (or life without parole, LWOP) in the twenty-first century. It begins with an overview of the meaning and extent of LWOP sentences across contemporary penal systems worldwide, focusing on the significant increase of LWOP sentences in the United States. It then considers some of the key arguments that have been put forward to justify lifelong imprisonment and goes on to review international law and treaty provisions that have placed important restrictions on the use of LWOP around the world. It also examines the extent to which LWOP sentences are compatible with international human rights standards on the treatment of prisoners. The article argues that the imposition and implementation of whole-life sentences violate fundamental human rights. It concludes by outlining potentially important areas for future research.

Second to the death penalty, life imprisonment without the possibility of parole (or life without parole, LWOP) is the ultimate penalty. It is the permanent removal of an individual from society with no possible hope of redemption, no hope of release. Some death penalty opponents and supporters alike have assumed LWOP sentences to be the lesser, natural alternative sanction to capital punishment, and there has been a marked increase in the imposition and implementation of whole-life sentences in certain parts of the world. Of most significance, there has been a rapid and extraordinary increase in the number of people who will be detained in custody for the rest of their natural lives in the United States. Yet very rarely has any effort been made to examine the full import of this sentence, its method of implementation, or its compatibility with humanitarian principles. 1

The aim of this article is to review critically the penological landscape of whole-life sentences on a global scale. First, it explores the meaning and extent of LWOP sentences worldwide and focuses on the dramatic increase of LWOP sentences in the United States. Second, it assesses some of the key arguments put forward by supporters of lifelong imprisonment. Finally, it reviews international law and treaty provisions that have placed important restrictions on the use of LWOP around the world and considers the extent to which LWOP sentences violate international standards of human rights.

The Meaning and Extent of LWOP

LWOP is the ultimate life sentence. While the term life sentence can also include various indeterminate sentences—or sentences that can be reduced in length by commutation, pardon, or parole—LWOP has been described as “the true life sentence.” 2 It removes any uncertainty at the time of sentencing about the possibility of release by condemning the individual to die in prison. While in a few instances the possibility of release before death is not completely foreclosed, 3 in practice LWOP usually means what it says. 4 The meaning and severity of this ultimate life sentence has been recognized by the United States Supreme Court. In Graham v. Florida , the Court stated:

[L]ife without parole sentences share some characteristics with death sentences that are shared by no other sentences. The State does not execute the offender sentenced to life without parole, but the sentence alters the offender’s life by a forfeiture that is irrevocable. It deprives the convict of the most basic liberties without giving hope of restoration, except perhaps by executive clemency—the remote possibility of which does not mitigate the harshness of the sentence. As one court observed in overturning a life without parole sentence for a juvenile defendant, this sentence “means denial of hope; it means that good behavior and character improvement are immaterial; it means that whatever the future might hold in store for the mind and spirit of [the convict], he will remain in prison for the rest of his days.” 5

Other life sentences, while not guaranteeing a prisoner’s release, inherently incorporate the possibility of review and eventual release. Indeed, most penal systems around the world that enforce a sentence of life imprisonment allow for the possibility of review by a parole board or a court to assess a life-sentenced prisoner’s prospect of release, usually on the basis of demonstrating reformation, reduced risk, or good behavior. Conversely, a life without parole sentence means the prisoner has no hope of release in his or her lifetime, regardless of his or her efforts at rehabilitation. LWOP, like the death penalty, changes the course of an individual’s trajectory by a forfeiture that is irrevocable. Such sentences represent a policy of “permanent exclusion” 6 of the individual from society, and have been likened to a “civil death.” 7

Formal LWOP sentences, however, are not the only way that people can be confined in prison until natural death. Individuals can also be subject to other sentences that are effectively whole-life terms, such as lengthy determinate sentences that far exceed an individual’s life expectancy, or be detained indefinitely on grounds of mental illness or the risk they pose to society. Such sanctions are not labeled in law as whole-life imprisonment, but individuals serving those sentences share a common trait with LWOP prisoners: with few exceptions, they will remain confined behind bars until death. Moreover, although the majority of people serving life sentences technically retain the possibility of parole, the gradual reduction of meaningful parole consideration in certain jurisdictions over recent years has effectively transformed many life sentences into whole-life sentences, even for prisoners who are able to demonstrate their rehabilitation and suitability for release. 8

Importantly, the punishment of LWOP is a relatively rare phenomenon. In Europe, most countries have no discernible statutory provision allowing for lifelong imprisonment. This is either because a formal sentence of life imprisonment does not exist, or because they have a dedicated mechanism for reviewing life sentences after the prisoner has served a certain minimum period fixed by law. At the time of writing, there are nine member states of the Council of Europe that have no formal provision for life sentences: Andorra, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Montenegro, Norway, Portugal, San Marino, Serbia, and Spain. The maximum term of imprisonment in these countries ranges from 21 years in Norway 9 to a 50-year sentence in Croatia, in a case of cumulative offences. 10 Thirty-two countries have fixed periods after which the life-sentence prisoner is able to be considered for release: Albania (25 years), Armenia (20), Austria (15), Azerbaijan (25), Belgium (15 with an extension to 19 or 23 for recidivists), Bulgaria (20), Cyprus (12), Czech Republic (20), Denmark (12), Estonia (30), Finland (12), France (normally 18 but 30 years for certain murders), Georgia (25), Germany (15), Greece (20), Hungary (20 unless the court orders otherwise), Ireland (7 except for certain types of murders), Italy (26), Latvia (25), Liechtenstein (15), Luxembourg (15), Moldova (30), Monaco (15), Poland (25), Romania (20), Russia (25), Slovakia (25), Slovenia (25), Sweden (10), Switzerland (15 reducible to 10 years), the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (15), and Turkey (24 years, 30 for aggravated life imprisonment and 36 for aggregate sentences of aggravated life imprisonment). 11

Currently, there are several jurisdictions within Europe that have systems of parole for most life sentence prisoners but which nevertheless make special provision for certain offences or sentences in respect of which parole is not available. These include Bulgaria, England and Wales, Hungary, Slovakia, Switzerland (for sex or violent offenders who are regarded as dangerous and untreatable) and Turkey. There are five countries in Europe that make no provision for parole, and all life prisoners are sentenced to whole-life terms: Iceland, Lithuania, Malta, the Netherlands, and Ukraine. These countries do, however, allow prisoners to apply for commutation of life sentences by means of ministerial, presidential, or royal pardon. Furthermore, the courts in Iceland have never imposed a sentence of life imprisonment, although the sentence is available in law. 12

The position outside of Europe is less clear. Evidently many countries retain the death penalty as the ultimate penalty, some have LWOP, some have parole-eligible life sentences, and some make no provision for life imprisonment at all (most notably across Central and South America, where life imprisonment has been outlawed in most countries). 13 According to research carried out by the University of San Francisco in 2012, only 20 percent of the 193 member states of the United Nations make provisions for whole-life sentences. Beyond Europe, this includes Australia, Ethiopia, Israel, Kenya, New Zealand, Sierra Leone, Tajikistan, Tanzania, the United States, and Zimbabwe. 14 Although the current position is difficult to ascertain, those countries that do allow for LWOP generally apply the sentence sparingly and have extremely low numbers of prisoners serving such sentences. For example, Australia has 59 known cases, 15 Bulgaria has 46, 16 England and Wales has 50, 17 the Netherlands has 37, 18 and Tajikistan has 52. 19 Furthermore, the courts in New Zealand have never imposed a sentence of LWOP. 20 In stark contrast to these and other nations, however, there has been a rapid and extraordinary proliferation over recent decades in the number of people who will be detained in custody for the rest of their lives in the United States.

LWOP laws first became prominent in the United States following the Supreme Court’s 1972 decision in Furman v. Georgia , 21 which temporarily abolished the death penalty. Since then, LWOP has grown to encompass many more people than it was first intended to punish. Whole-life sentences in America today stand at an unprecedented level: 49 of 50 states, the federal government, and the District of Columbia allow for LWOP sentences. 22 Six states—Illinois, Iowa, Louisiana, Maine, Pennsylvania, and South Dakota—and the federal government require all life sentences to be irreducible. 23 As a result, the rise in the number of prisoners serving whole-life terms in the United States has been astounding. A comprehensive study carried out by The Sentencing Project in 2013 revealed that during the period 1992 to 2012, the LWOP prison population in America quadrupled nationwide, from 12,453 to 49,081 individual prisoners. 24 In other words, one out of every 30 people in prison in the United States has been permanently removed from society. Although LWOP laws are available in almost every state, such prisoners are disproportionately represented in California, Florida, Louisiana, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. 25 Together, these five states account for more than half (57.7 percent) of the total number of all LWOP sentences nationwide. 26 Research by the University of San Francisco suggests that per capita, the LWOP population in America is 51 times larger than Australia’s, 173 times England and Wales’s, and 59 times the Netherlands. 27

In addition, the United States is a nation virtually alone in its willingness to sentence children convicted of crimes when younger than 18 years of age to LWOP. There is near-universal agreement against imposing LWOP sentences on children. 28 Indeed, a whole-life term cannot be imposed on a child in any European country. Furthermore, the majority of European countries do not permit life sentences to be imposed on children at all. 29 Exceptional countries that do allow for indeterminate sentences to be imposed on some children are bound by Article 37(a) of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which explicitly prohibits the imposition of “imprisonment without the possibility of release … for offences committed by persons below eighteen years of age,” and therefore requires a formal mechanism for considering their release. By contrast, a child in the United States can receive a sentence of whole-life imprisonment in 41 states. 30 Recent figures have revealed that there are at least 2,498 children (2,435 males and 63 females) in the United States serving sentences of life without the possibility of parole. 31 In two landmark judgments for juvenile justice, the Supreme Court has ruled that children cannot be sentenced to whole-life imprisonment for non-homicide crimes 32 or mandatory sentences of LWOP for any crime 33 ; however, the sentence was not abolished, and children can still receive whole-life terms for felony murder and other homicide crimes through discretionary judicial decision making. 34

Of further import, most jurisdictions that allow for whole-life imprisonment reserve the sanction for the few exceptionally serious offences, for the gravest of crimes. In England and Wales, for example, whole-life orders are allowed only in the following cases: premeditated killings of two or more people; sexual or sadistic child murders; murder for political, religious, or ideological cause; and murder committed by an offender previously convicted of murder. 35 By comparison, LWOP has become readily available as a sanction in the United States, not only for the offence of murder, but also for a greater range of other crimes. Indeed, 37 states have made LWOP available for non-homicide offences, including robbery, some drug crimes, and even some property offences. 36 According to a recent study by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), there were at least 3,278 prisoners serving LWOP for drug, property, and other nonviolent crimes in the federal system and in nine other states that provided such data. 37 LWOP is also mandatory upon conviction for at least one specified offence in 29 jurisdictions in America (28 states and the federal government), 38 thus denying the court any discretion to consider the circumstances of the crime or the defendant.

In addition, sentencing laws targeting habitual criminals (so-called “three-strikes laws”) have resulted in a growing number of prisoners sentenced to spend the whole of their lives in prison. LWOP is a mandatory sentence upon a third conviction of a certain specified felony offence (not necessarily serious or violent) in 13 states and the federal government. 39 In some states, the impact of habitual criminal statutes on the life-sentenced population has been significant. In Washington, for example, two-thirds of prisoners serving LWOP have been sentenced under the state’s three-strikes law, which came into effect in 1994. 40 The net result of this expansion is that the imposition and implementation of LWOP sentences has reached unprecedented levels in America in recent years. LWOP has been used to punish both adults and children who at one time would have received much more lenient sentences.

Justifying LWOP

Arguably, the foremost justification for LWOP sentencing laws is the protection that it offers society from dangerous offenders. 41 Whole-life sentences are an attractive option to governments who require a punishment that equals the death penalty in its incapacitatory and exclusionary effect but eliminates the risk of wrongful executions. Support for LWOP sentences is largely premised on the assumption that life-sentenced prisoners will commit further offences if released. Across the United States, mounting public dissatisfaction with “the vagaries of the parole system,” 42 particularly during the 1980s and 1990s, prompted certain states to legislate for LWOP. 43 Doubtless, LWOP appeals to those members of the public who have become increasingly frustrated at offenders being sentenced to “life” but then being released from prison early on parole. Indeed, the expansion of LWOP sentencing in the United States can be attributed, in part, to the adoption of “truth-in-sentencing” laws and was intended to guarantee that a life sentence means lifelong detention in prison. 44 LWOP is the most obvious and expeditious way to effect permanent incapacitation and eliminate the possibility of future reoffending on release.

Reconviction studies suggest, however, that life sentence prisoners who are released on parole have very low rates of recidivism. For example, a 2011 study by the New York State parole board found that of the 368 people convicted of murder who were granted parole in New York between 1999 and 2003, only six, or 1.6 percent, returned to prison within three years for a new felony conviction—and none for a violent offence. 45 Analysis of reconviction rates in England and Wales has revealed that of 1,719 life sentence prisoners who were released between 2000 and 2007, 73 or 4.2 percent were reconvicted of an offence, of which 30 (0.5 percent) were reconvicted of a serious offence. 46 There is considerable research evidence that lifers released under supervision in the community have lower reconviction rates than any other sanction, 47 and that thus LWOP sentences are excessive from a public safety perspective. At some point, whether based on age, ill-health, or reformation, it is foreseeable that many life sentence prisoners could be considered to be no longer dangerous. As Nellis (2010 : 28) suggests, “lifers are uniquely situated to desist from crime upon release because of the duration of their imprisonment, the maturity they are likely to gain in prison, and their age upon reentry into the community.” 48

Proponents of LWOP must also consider that incapacitating people for life will result in an increased and aging prison population and will have a significant impact on the cost and management of the prison service. Although cost estimates fluctuate for the care of an aging individual in prison, it has been submitted that the average health care costs for a 40-year-old prisoner are twice what they are for people in their early 20s, and that the average costs for people in their 70s are three times greater than for people in their early 40s. 49 Over recent decades, correctional facilities across the United States have become home to a growing number of aging LWOP prisoners, increasing the burden on taxpayers to fund the cost of housing elderly prisoners. 50 Indeed, a growing number of states have been confronted with the complex, expensive repercussions of harsh sentencing practices, and legislators and policymakers have become increasingly willing, perhaps unsurprisingly, to consider early release for older persons who pose a minimal risk to public safety. 51

Though research studies have consistently shown that individuals serving life and long-term prison sentences are often the most compliant prisoners, 52 whole-life imprisonment may also create a difficult environment for managing LWOP prisoners during the early months and years of their sentence. It has been suggested that the imposition of LWOP has the potential to create a “new breed of superinmates, prone to violence and uncontrollable,” 53 and that the sentence provides few incentives to ensure the cooperation and compliance of whole-life prisoners who have neither hope nor anything to lose. The slim sociological evidence available suggests that LWOP prisoners can be understood by fellow inmates as having nothing to lose, and can be targeted and asked to carry out violent acts on behalf of other prisoners. 54 According to Liebling, LWOP sentences “create an environment of no hope, no meaning … When you’ve ruled out the possibility of atonement, most of the ways out are dangerous.” 55

Another penological justification for imprisoning an individual for life lies in the retributivist notion of just deserts: convicted murderers should be incarcerated until death simply because they deserve it. The goal of retribution supports a punishment equal to the culpability of the offender and the harm caused. Thus, a core tenet within the just-desert theory of retribution is the concept of proportionality. 56 This concept demands that an individual receives exactly the amount of punishment that he or she deserves for the crime committed, no more and no less. Even assuming that there are some crimes so grave that they are deserving of lifelong incarceration for the purposes of pure punishment, the wide range of crimes currently punishable with LWOP in the United States, 57 not to mention the racial disparity in the application of the sentence, 58 makes it difficult to support the supposition that LWOP sentences are imposed only when proportionate to the offence and deserved by the offender. Moreover, the question remains whether an LWOP sentence for a given crime is a proportionate punishment, given the offender’s culpability and the harm caused.

The retributive power of LWOP, however, has also been promoted by some death penalty abolitionists in the United States. The result has been a “strange pairing of death penalty abolitionists with pro-incarceration activists and legislators,” 59 joining to endorse LWOP as a stronger and more reliable punishment in order to reduce the number of executions. As Bedau (2004) has suggested, America’s capital trial juries, in certain jurisdictions, have “greatly reduced their volume of death sentences once the legislature enacted the option of LWOP.” 60 Furthermore, recent polls suggest that public support for capital punishment significantly diminishes when presented with an alternative of LWOP. A national survey of 1,500 registered voters, carried out in 2010, showed a clear majority of voters (61 percent) would choose LWOP, rather than the death penalty, as a punishment for murder. 61 Thus, support for capital punishment can be undermined effectively by upholding LWOP as a viable, tough alternative.

Notwithstanding the effect on reducing executions and decreasing public support for the death penalty, the vast expansion of LWOP statutes in the United States has largely affected individuals who never would have been sentenced to death or even been eligible for the death penalty. Recent figures from the Death Penalty Information Center reveal that between 1992 and 2013, the number of prisoners on death row in the United States increased from 2,575 to 3,088, 62 whereas the number of prisoners incarcerated for LWOP has risen from 12,453 to 49,081. 63 In other words, while the death row population has grown by 20 percent, the population of those incarcerated for LWOP increased by 294 percent. Rather than saving lives, LWOP statutes have toughened the sentences of defendants who would have never received the death penalty. 64

Of further import, some leading opponents of the death penalty have questioned abolitionists who support LWOP, stating that it too is an unreasonably severe sanction: “The dilemma of the opponent of the death penalty, if current research survey is a reliable guide, is that at present the public is prepared to accept the abolition of capital punishment only if the alternative to it is itself a morally unacceptable deprivation of liberty”. 65 It has been reported that many prisoners would prefer the death penalty given the alternative of spending the rest of their life in prison, often in harsh conditions. 66 The severity of LWOP has also been recognized in the decision of some states not to extradite offenders to countries where they might be subjected to a whole-life sentence. For example, a number of Latin American states with a Catholic tradition view any life sentence to be as cruel and inhumane as a death sentence and contrary to goals of prisoner rehabilitation. As a result, many South American extradition agreements prohibit the extradition of prisoners who may face life imprisonment in the requesting state. 67 While some death penalty opponents may regard the acceptance of LWOP sentences as the only way of abolishing capital punishment, they should consider the possibility that they may be supplementing one disproportionately severe punishment for another.

A third justification for lifelong detention is deterrence, but there is a growing consensus among experts on sentencing and crime that imprisonment and lengthy sentences do not necessarily deter offenders and would-be offenders from committing crimes. Research findings appear to substantiate Italian philosopher Cesare Beccaria’s provocative claim in the 18th century that the certainty (and the celerity) of punishment is a far greater deterrent to crime than the severity of punishment. 68   Gottschalk (2012) has recently reported that the most convincing studies seem to indicate that “increases in the severity of punishment have at best only a modest deterrent effect,” 69 and that “lengthening a sentence from, say, 15 years for a certain offence to life in prison is unlikely to have much of an effect on whether someone commits that crime or not.” 70

Overall, LWOP cannot be justified by reference to any of the established purposes or principles of sentencing. In addition, LWOP sentences remove any ambiguity allowing for the possibility of rehabilitation. The United States’ excessive use of life without parole sentences is at odds with international human rights standards requiring states to uphold the promise that “the penitentiary system shall comprise treatment of prisoners the essential aim of which shall be their reformation and social rehabilitation” 71 and with a number of key international developments in which rights-based criteria have placed important limitations on the imposition and implementation of lifelong detention around the world.

International Human Rights Standards and LWOP

International law, including both treaty provisions and norms of customary international law, guarantees that all persons deprived of their liberty have a right to be rehabilitated. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), ratified by 168 countries (including the United States), incorporates an explicit provision guaranteeing an individual’s right to “social rehabilitation” 72 following a term of incarceration and also recognizing that such treatment derives from the need to respect “the inherent dignity of the human person.” 73 The United Nations Human Rights Committee, charged with monitoring the implementation of the ICCPR, stated in its General Comment 21 that “No penitentiary system should be only retributory; it should essentially seek the reformation and social rehabilitation of the prisoner.” 74

A number of international criminal tribunals prohibit LWOP sentences. The new International Criminal Court (ICC), which tries persons accused of the most serious of crimes of international concern, namely genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity, cannot sentence convicts to whole-life sentences. At the ICC, life sentences are reviewable after 25 years. 75 The Rome Statute, the treaty adopted by the ICC, has been joined by 122 States parties (effective as of May 13, 2013), 76 indicating an emerging consensus on the appropriate level of punishment for the world’s gravest of crimes. At the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia, life sentences are reviewable after 20 years. 77 Though not legally binding, the guiding principles provided by the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners 78 also draw attention to the rehabilitative function of incarceration. Standard minimum rule 61 states: “The treatment of prisoners should emphasize not their exclusion from the community, but their continuing part in it. Community agencies should, therefore, be enlisted wherever possible to assist the staff of the institution in the task of social rehabilitation of the prisoners.”

As noted previously, LWOP is expressly prohibited by international law and treaties for offences committed by persons below the age of 18. Article 37(a) of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, for example, states that “No child shall be subjected to torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Neither capital punishment nor life imprisonment without possibility of release shall be imposed for offences committed by persons below 18 years of age.” The fact that this Convention has been ratified by all but three countries of the world (the United States, Somalia, and South Sudan) 79 indicates near-universal agreement that LWOP should not be imposed on child offenders.

Though far from worldwide, there is an emerging trend across Europe that the same should apply to adults. A significant number of European resolutions and recommendations reject the use of LWOP sentences and instead promote the idea that human rights norms require prisoners serving life sentences to be treated as capable of rehabilitation. As long ago as 1976, the Resolution of the Council of Europe Committee of Ministers on the Treatment of Long-Term Prisoners stated that

[I]t is inhuman to imprison a person for life without any hope of release. A crime prevention policy which accepts keeping a prisoner for life even if he is no longer a danger to society would be compatible neither with modern principles on the treatment of prisoners during the execution of their sentence nor with the idea of the reintegration of offenders into society. Nobody should be deprived of the chance of possible release. 80

The early policy of the Committee of Ministers was to ensure that long-term and life-sentenced prisoners had regular reviews of continuing detention. Resolution 76(2) on the Treatment of Long-Term Prisoners, February 17, 1976, expressly asserted that there should be reviews “as early as possible” 81 to ensure that conditional release (parole) could be made as appropriate. This policy has continued to be reaffirmed in other documents adopted by the Committee of Ministers over recent decades. Recommendation (2003)22 September 24, 2003, states

In order to reduce the harmful effects of imprisonment and to promote the resettlement of prisoners under conditions that seek to guarantee the safety of the outside community, the law should make conditional release available to all sentenced prisoners, including life-sentence prisoners. 82

The explanatory memorandum to the Recommendation adds:

Life-sentence prisoners should not be deprived of the hope to be granted release … Firstly, no one can reasonably argue that all lifers will always remain dangerous to society. Secondly, the detention of persons who have no hope of release poses severe management problems in terms of creating incentives to co-operate and address disruptive behaviour, the delivery of personal-development programmes, the organization of sentence-plans and security. Countries whose legislation provides for real-life sentences should therefore create possibilities for reviewing this sentence after a number of years and at regular intervals, to establish whether a life-sentence prisoner can serve the remainder of the sentence in the community and under what conditions and supervision measures. 83

These issues were also affirmed in the Committee of Minister’s Recommendation on the treatment of life sentence and long-term prisoners, Recommendation (2003)23, October 9, 2003, where, inter alia, the principles of individualization 84 ; normalization 85 ; and, progression 86 were considered to be essential to prevent and counteract the damaging effects of long-term and life imprisonment. 87 It was noted by the Committee that such interventions should be provided from the start of a sentence. 88 Further, the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) prepared a report on “actual/real life sentences” on June 27, 2007, which reviewed various recommendations and texts on life imprisonment and stated that conditional release is relevant to all prisoners, “even to life prisoners,” 89 and that although all Council of Europe member states had provision for compassionate release, this “special form of release” was distinct from conditional release. 90 The report also favorably cited the CPT’s report on its 2007 visit to Hungary in which it stated: “[A]s regards ‘actual lifers’, the CPT has serious reservations about the very concept according to which such prisoners, once they are sentenced, are considered once and for all as a permanent threat to the community and are deprived of any hope to be granted conditional release.” 91 The report concluded that no prisoner should be “stamped” as likely to spend their natural life in prison; no denial of release should ever be final, and not even recalled prisoners should be deprived of hope of release. 92

A number of national constitutional courts in Europe, and elsewhere, have ruled LWOP sentences to be incompatible with their constitutions. The constitutional courts of France and Italy, for example, have explicitly recognized that an offender sentenced to life imprisonment has a fundamental right to be considered for release. 93 In addition, the German Federal Constitutional Court ruled in 1977 that a whole-life sentence invariably entails the loss of human dignity and the related denial of the right to rehabilitation, and that prisoners serving life sentences must have a fundamental right to be considered for release under clear procedures. In German law, there could be no life imprisonment without the prospect of release. 94

More recently, and of major significance, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), the judicial body that adjudicates compliance with the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights, has recognized that life sentences with limited hope of review or release violate the European Convention. In a landmark decision on July 9, 2013, the Grand Chamber of the ECtHR concluded by a vote of 16 to 1 in Vinter and Others v. the United Kingdom that “whole life orders” with extremely limited or no possibilities for review and release violate Article 3 of the Convention, which prohibits inhuman or degrading treatment. The Chamber stated that

[I]n the context of a life sentence, Article 3 must be interpreted as requiring reducibility of the sentence, in the sense of a review which allows the domestic authorities to consider whether any changes in the life prisoner are so significant, and such progress towards rehabilitation has been made in the course of the sentence, as to mean that continued detention can no longer be justified on legitimate penological grounds. 95

The Grand Chamber established in Vinter that in order for a sentence of life imprisonment to be Article-3 compatible, it must be reducible both de jure and de facto . In other words, there must be a legal procedure creating a prospect of release, and a practical possibility of release from prison within the prisoner’s lifetime, provided that he or she no longer poses a threat to society. 96 Whole-life prisoners should therefore be given the opportunity to attain rehabilitation and the right to a prospect of release if they achieve it (and thus no longer pose a threat to society). Furthermore, the Court stated that whole-life prisoners are entitled to be informed, “at the moment of the imposition of the whole-life sentence,” 97 what they must do to be considered for release, under what conditions and when a review of the sentence will take place or may be sought. After considering comparative law and various international treaties, the Grand Chamber recommended an “institution of a dedicated mechanism guaranteeing a review no later than twenty-five years after the imposition of a life sentence, with further periodic reviews thereafter.” 98

The seminal ruling in Vinter is the product of a jurisprudential evolution in Europe as regards prisoners’ human rights under Article 3. In a line of Court cases, including Kafkaris v. Cyprus (2008), 99 and Harkins and Edwards v. the United Kingdom (2012), 100 the European Court in Strasbourg has incrementally expanded the reach of Article 3 to reinforce and strengthen the judicial protection of prisoners’ human rights. 101 A clear trend has emerged in favor of a mechanism guaranteeing a review of life sentences, at the latest 25 years after their imposition. Of further import, and in line with its position on Vinter , the Former Fifth Section of the ECtHR ruled in Trabelsi v. Belgium on September 4, 2014 that Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights requires Council of Europe member states not to extradite persons within their jurisdiction to states where they are liable to be sentenced to life imprisonment and where the legal system does not provide for an appropriate objective mechanism of review of the whole-life sentence. 102 The European Court found that Belgium had violated the prohibition of torture and degrading or inhuman treatment enshrined in Article 3 by extraditing the applicant to the United States as there was a real risk that he would be condemned to an effectively irreducible life sentence, that is, a life sentence not reducible through an appropriate review mechanism.

In the rulings in Vinter and Trabelsi, the European Court seems to have consolidated a clear trend that has emerged in comparative and international law, emphasizing a concrete right to rehabilitation and the “right to hope,” underpinned by the concept of human dignity. 103 A failure to recognize the human dignity of a prisoner and his or her right to hope would make a life sentence inhuman and degrading and thus violate Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. This right to hope must now not only be recognized in member states’ legal systems in order for life sentences to be compatible with Article 3 but it will also prevent extradition to non-member states where life prisoners are not legally entitled to a genuine prospect of release. Some significant gaps, however, remain. In Vinter , for example, the Court established that a possibility of release in exceptional and largely compassionate circumstances was an inadequate prospect of release, yet it did not clearly establish what a “Vinter review” would entail. 104 This lack of clarification of what must be provided in order for a sentence of life imprisonment to be Article-3 compatible it makes it difficult for member states to know how to meet this requirement and for jurisdictions beyond Europe, not bound by the European Convention, to fulfill what is permissible under Article 3 so as to render extradition lawful. 105

There has also been some political backlash to the Court’s decisions, particularly in England, accusing the European Court of paving the way for the release of whole-life prisoners. 106 However, such criticism is ill-founded. To be clear, the Grand Chamber’s decision in Vinter does not ban the imposition of whole-life sentences and does not mean that dangerous offenders should be released while they continue to pose a risk to society. But the Court has affirmed that recognition of the value of human dignity requires that all prisoners, irrespective of the gravity of the offence committed, should be given the opportunity to rehabilitate themselves and a genuine possibility (or hope) of release if such rehabilitation is achieved. Thus, while the situation of Douglas Vinter or Nizar Trabelsi is unlikely to change, the European Court in Strasbourg has set an important precedent in emphasizing the significance of the rehabilitative aim of imprisonment and in strengthening the scope of Article 3 and the judicial protection of prisoners’ human rights and human dignity.

Nevertheless, in spite of Vinter and Trabelsi , the recent judgment by the ECtHR in Hutchinson v. the United Kingdom 107 suggests the goal of reforming whole-life imprisonment in Europe may not be straightforward. The case concerned the complaint of a British national serving a whole-life sentence for murder that his sentence amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment because he had no hope of release. The ECtHR had found in Vinter that the Justice Secretary’s power to grant release to a whole-life prisoner, contained in section 30 of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997, was insufficient; that the restrictive way in which the Justice Secretary had indicated in the Prison Service Orders that the power would be exercised could mean that a prisoner would continue to be detained in circumstances where, although he was not terminally ill or physically incapacitated, there was no legitimate penological basis for his detention. However, in R v. Newell; R v. McLoughlin , of February 18, 2014, the English Court of Appeal explicitly addressed these concerns and held that, under section 30 of the 1997 Act, the Justice Secretary, notwithstanding the Prison Service Orders, was not limited to a restrictive review policy, but had to take into account any and all exceptional circumstances that could be relevant to the release of a prisoner on compassionate grounds. Specifically, it held that he has a duty to read section 30 in a manner compatible with Article 3 of the European Convention of Human Rights, as in law all his actions must be guided by the Convention. If an applicant believed that the Justice Secretary had failed to apply section 30 correctly in the light of the Convention, his decision could be subjected to judicial review.

In Hutchinson , the Fourth Section of the Strasbourg Court examined the ruling of the English Court of Appeal closely, and cited it heavily in its judgment. Although the Court affirmed the right to hope for those sentenced to whole-life orders, and reiterated the point that a whole-life tariff without a form of review is incompatible with Article 3, it held (by six votes to one, with Judge Kalaydjieva dissenting), that:

In the circumstances of this case where, following the Grand Chamber’s judgment in which it expressed doubts about the clarity of domestic law, the national court has specifically addressed those doubts and set out an unequivocal statement of the legal position, the Court must accept the national court’s interpretation of domestic law. 108

The Strasbourg Court seemed to accept in Hutchinson that because there was a power to release a prisoner in exceptional circumstances, and because that would have to be done in a manner which was compliant with Article 3, there was no substantial breach of the Convention. However, significant questions remain. Of particular note is the extent to which this jurisprudence addresses the concerns about the English procedure expressed by the Grand Chamber in Vinter . Since the Court of Appeal’s ruling in McLoughlin , there have been five further decisions by the European Court that have demonstrated that the mere existence of a power to grant release may be insufficient to discharge the obligations imposed by Article 3 because it may not fulfill the procedural criteria set out in Vinter . 109 These cases confirm beyond doubt that for a whole-life order to be compliant with Article 3 of the Convention it must be reviewed after a fixed time, subject to precise published criteria, governed by the standards of procedural fairness, and communicated to the prisoner at the outset of the sentence, none of which is reflected by section 30 of the 1997 Act. Furthermore, there is a serious question whether a review by a political actor—the Secretary of State for Justice—is sufficiently independent to comply with modern human rights standards. To that extent, the decision in Hutchinson represents a retrograde step in achieving legal certainty and procedural fairness in this area of law. On June 1, 2015, however, a panel of five judges at the Strasbourg Court decided to refer this case to the Grand Chamber. 110 The extent to which this will lead to a significant change remains to be seen.

The United States is one of several jurisdictions that allow for the imposition of whole-life sentences, and it is by far the world’s leader in the number of persons convicted to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. The underlying rationales typically offered in support of LWOP sentences include the protection that LWOP offers to society from dangerous offenders, its strong retributive element, and its serious deterrent effect. Yet such arguments cannot be justified in the light of evidence that suggests LWOP sentences impose unnecessary costs on the public, have little regard for the principles of proportionality, and have a limited impact on the future behavior of potential offenders. Furthermore, no one can argue that all life sentence prisoners will remain dangerous to society.

There is also wide agreement in Europe that all persons deprived of their liberty have a right to be rehabilitated and that a prisoner’s incarceration without any hope of release conflicts with fundamental human rights. ECtHR decisions in the cases Vinter and Others v. the United Kingdom (2013) 111 and Trabelsi v. Belgium (2014) 112 have cemented the significance of the right to rehabilitation and the right to hope, grounded in the human dignity of all prisoners, including life sentence prisoners, 113 although legal uncertainties remain. Although the principle of human dignity and the development of a right to hope has been largely absent from the United States penal system, recent decisions by the Supreme Court, such as Graham v. Florida (2010) 114 and Miller v. Alabama (2012), 115 call into question the legitimacy and appropriateness of LWOP not only for juveniles but for all prisoners, and indicate that the obstacles confronting LWOP reformists in America may not be insurmountable or immune to international practice. Further, the continued expansion of prisoners and increase in prison overcrowding in recent decades has led certain states to introduce initiatives to reduce penalties for non-serious, non-violent crimes, including the release of many repeat offenders who were previously subject to life imprisonment under habitual (“three-strikes”) sentencing laws. 116

Finally, LWOP is not the only type of life sentence that raises significant human rights concerns. It is the indeterminate nature of life imprisonment, and other forms of indefinite detention, that makes it particularly destructive to human dignity. Yet very little is known about different forms of life imprisonment and best practices worldwide. Much more research is needed to probe the full import of such a sentence, its method of implementation, its meaning for the convicted, and when and how life imprisonment, if it is used as a punishment at all, should be imposed and implemented.

The research of Catherine Appleton on life imprisonment is supported by a Leverhulme Trust Research Grant at the School of Law, University of Nottingham, UK.

Abramsky, Sasha . (2004). “Lifers.” Legal Affairs March/April 2004. Available at: http://www.legalaffairs.org/issues/March-April-2004/feature_abramsky_marpar04.msp (accessed December 4, 2014).

Agyepong, Tera . ( 2010 ). “ Children Left Behind Bars: Sullivan, Graham, and Juvenile Life Without Parole Sentences. ” Northwestern Journal of International Human Rights 9(1): 83–102.

Google Scholar

Almenara, Meritxell and van Zyl Smit, Dirk . ( 2015 ). “ Human Dignity and Life Imprisonment: The Pope Enters the Debate. ” Human Rights Law Review 0: 1–8. Available at: http://hrlr.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2015/02/02/hrlr.ngu042.full

American Civil Liberties Union. ( 2013 ). A Living Death: Life without Parole for Nonviolent Offences . New York: American Civil Liberties Union.

Google Preview

Angelotti, Steve , and Wycoff, Sara . (2010). “Michigan’s Prison Health Care: Costs in Context.” Issue paper. Available at: http://www.senate.michigan.gov/sfa/publications/issues/prisonhealthcarecosts/prisonhealthcarecosts.pdf (accessed December 4, 2014).

Appleton, Catherine . ( 2010 ). Life after Life Imprisonment . Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Appleton, Catherine , and Grøver, Bent . ( 2007 ). “ The Pros and Cons of Life without Parole. ” British Journal of Criminology 47(4): 597–615.

Barrett, David . (2013). “European Court Ruling: Authors of Human Rights Treaty Would Be ‘Turning in Their Graves.’” The Telegraph July 9, 2013. Available at: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/10168711/European-court-ruling-authors-of-Human-Rights-treaty-would-be-turning-in-their-graves.html (accessed December 4, 2014).

Beccaria, Cesare . ( 1965 ) [1764]. Des Délits et des Peines . Genève: Libraire Droz.

Bedau, Hugo . ( 1997 ). “The Controversy over Public Support for the Death Penalty: The Death Penalty versus Life Imprisonment.” In The Death Penalty in America: Current Controversies , edited by Hugo Bedau , pp. 84–89. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Bedau, Hugo . ( 2004 ). “Abolishing the Death Penalty in the United States: An Analysis of Institutional Obstacles and Future Prospects.” In Capital Punishment: Strategies for Abolition , edited by Peter Hodgkinson and William Schabas , pp. 186–207. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Berry, William . (2013). “ Eighth Amendment Differentness. ” Missouri Law Review 1 (May 2013):1–31.

Blair, Danya . ( 1994 ). “ A Matter of Life and Death: Why Life without Parole Should Be a Sentencing Option in Texas. ” American Journal of Criminal Law 22(1): 191–214.

Bland, Archie . (2014). “Crime and Punishment: Why Throwing Away the Key Doesn’t Work.” The Independent March 13, 2014. Available at: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/crime-and-punishment-why-throwing-away-the-key-doesnt-work-9039185.html (accessed December 10, 2014).

Brodheim, Mike . (2011). “Paroled Killers Rarely Reoffend.” Prison Legal News July 15, 2011. Available at: https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/news/2011/jul/15/paroled-killers-rarely-re-offend/ (accessed December 4, 2014).

Capers, Bennet . ( 2012 ). “Defending Life.” In Life Without Parole: America’s New Death Penalty? edited by Charles Ogletree and Austin Sarat , pp. 167–189. New York: New York University Press.

Council of Europe. ( 1976 ). Resolution 76(2) on the Treatment of Long-term Prisoners . Strasbourg: Council of Europe.

Council of Europe. ( 2003 ). Recommendation (2003) 22 of the Committee of Ministers to Member States on Conditional Release (Parole), September 24, 2003 . Strasbourg: Council of Europe.

Council of Europe. ( 2003 ). Recommendation (2003) 23 of the Committee of Ministers to Member States on the Management by Prison Administrations of Life-Sentence and Other Long-Term Prisoners, October 9, 2003 . Strasbourg: Council fo Europe.

Council of Europe. ( 2014 ). Recommendation (2014) 3 of the Committee of Ministers to Member States concerning Dangerous Offenders, February 19, 2014 . Strasbourg: Council of Europe.

De la Vega, Connie , and Leighton, Michelle . ( 2008 ). “ Sentencing Our Children to Die in Prison: Global Law and Practice. ” University of San Francisco Law Review 42(4): 983–1044.

Death Penalty Information Center. (2010). “Poll Shows Growing Support for Alternatives to the Death Penalty; Capital Punishment Ranked Lowest among Budget Priorities.” Available at: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/pollresults (accessed December 4, 2014).

Ditton, Paula , and Wilson, Dorris . (1999). “ Truth in Sentencing in State Prisons. ” Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report (January 1999): 1–16. bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/tssp.pdf

Dolovich, Sharon . ( 2012 ). “Creating the Permanent Prisoner.” In Life Without Parole: America’s New Death Penalty? edited by Charles Ogletree and Austin Sarat , pp. 96–137. New York: New York University Press.

Dünkel, Frieder , Grzywa, Joanna , Horsfield, Philip , and Pruin, Ineke ( 2011 ). Juvenile Justice Systems in Europe: Current Situation and Reform Developments, 2nd revised edition, Vol. 1–4. Mönchengladbach, Germany: Forum Verlag Godesberg Gmbh.

European Convention for the Prevention of Torture (CPT). ( 2007 ). Actual/Real Life Sentences . CPT (2007) 55. Strasbourg: CPT, June 27, 2007.

European Convention for the Prevention of Torture (CPT). ( 2012 ). Report to the Bulgarian Government on the visit to Bulgaria carried out by the CPT from 4–10 May 2012. CPT/Inf 2012 (32). Strasbourg: CPT, December 4, 2012.

Ferrajoli, Luigi . ( 2014 ). “Two Hundred and Fifty Years Since the Publication of On Crimes and Punishments : The Currency of Cesare Beccaria’s Thought.” Punishment and Society 16(5): 501–519.

Flanagan, Timothy . ( 1981 ). “ Dealing with Long-term Confinement: Adaptive Strategies and Perspectives among Long-term Prisoners. ” Criminal Justice and Behavior 8: 201–222.

Franchetti, Mark . ( 2014 ). “ Killing Time. ” The Sunday Times , October 12, 2014.

Gottschalk, Marie . ( 2012 ). “No Way Out? Life Sentences and the Politics of Penal Reform.” In Life Without Parole: America’s New Death Penalty? , edited by Charles Ogletree and Austin Sarat , pp. 227–281. New York: New York University Press.

Harvard Law Review . ( 2006 ). “ A Matter of Life and Death: The Effect of Life-Without-Parole on Capital Punishment. ” Harvard Law Review 119(6): 1838–1854.

Hodgkinson, Peter , Gyllensten, Lina , and Peel, Diana . ( 2009 ). Capital Punishment Briefing Paper . London: Centre for Capital Punishment Studies.

Home Office. ( 1997 ). Life Licencees: Reconviction and Recall by the End of 1995, England and Wales . London: Home Office.

Hood, Roger , and Shute, Stephen , with Wilcox, Aidan . ( 2000 ). The Parole System at Work: A Study of Risk-based Decision-Making . Home Office Research Study 202. London: Home Office.

Human Rights Watch. ( 2012 ). Against All Odds: Prison Conditions for Youth Offenders Serving Life Without Parole Sentences in the United States . New York, NY: Human Rights Watch.

Johnson, Robert , and Dobranska, Ania . ( 2005 ). “ Mature Coping among Life Sentenced Inmates: An Exploratory Study of Adjusted Dynamics. ” Corrections Compendium, November/December: 30 (6): 8–9, 36–38.

Johnson, Robert , and McGunigall-Smith, Sandra . ( 2008 ). “ Life Without Parole, America’s Other Death Penalty: Notes on Life Under Sentence of Death by Incarceration. ” The Prison Journal 88(2): 328–346.

Kern, Richard . ( 1995 ). “ Sentencing Reform in Virginia. ” Federal Sentencing Reporter 8(2): 84–88.

Laub, John , and Sampson, Robert . ( 2003 ). Shared Beginnings, Divergent Lives: Delinquent Boys to Age 70 . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Lavrysen, Laurens . (2014). “Belgium Violated the ECHR by Extraditing a Terrorist to the USA despite an Interim Measure by the Strasbourg Court: Trabelsi v. Belgium.” Strasbourg Observers , September 12, 2014. Available at: http://strasbourgobservers.com/2014/09/12/belgium-violated-the-echr-by-extraditing-a-terrorist-to-the-usa-despite-an-interim-measure-by-the-strasbourg-court-trabelsi-v-belgium/ (accessed December 16, 2014).

Marquart, James W. , and Sorenson, Jonathan R. ( 1997 ). “A National Study of the Furman-Commuted Inmates: Assessing the Threat to Society from Capital Offenders.” In The Death Penalty in America: Current Controversies , edited by Hugo Bedau . Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Mauer, Marc , King, Ryan , and Young, Malcolm . ( 2004 ). The Meaning of “Life”: Long Prison Sentences in Context . Washington, D.C.: The Sentencing Project.

Mavronicola, Natasa . ( 2014 ). “ Inhuman and Degrading Punishment, Dignity, and the Limits of Retribution. ” The Modern Law Review 77(2): 292–307.

Ministry of Justice. ( 2014 ). Offender Management Statistics Quarterly, Prison Population: Q3 2014 . London: Ministry of Justice. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/offender-management-statistics-quarterly-april-to-june-2014 (accessed December 16, 2014).

Nellis, Ashley . ( 2010 ). “ Throwing Away the Key: The Expansion of Life Without Parole Sentences in the United States ” Federal Sentencing Reporter 23(1): 27–32.

Nellis, Ashley . ( 2012 ). The Lives of Juvenile Lifers: Findings from a National Survey . Washington, D.C.: The Sentencing Project.

Ogletree, Charles , and Sarat, Austin . 2012 . “Introduction.” In Life Without Parole: America’s New Death Penalty? , edited by Charles Ogletree and Austin Sarat , pp. 1–24. New York: New York University Press.

Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. ( 1992 ). General Comment 21 . Geneva, Switzerland: Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights.

Penal Reform International. ( 2012 ). The Abolition of the Death Penalty and Its Alternative Sanction in Central Asia: Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Tajikistan . London: Penal Reform International.

Petersilia, Joan . ( 1999 ). “Parole and Prisoner Reentry in the United States.” In Prisons, volume 26, Crime and Justice: A Review of Research , edited by Michael Tonry and Joan Petersilia , pp. 479–530. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Ploch, Amanda . ( 2012 ). “ Why Dignity Matters: Dignity and the Right (or Not) to Rehabilitation from International and National Perspectives. ” International Law and Politics 44: 887–949.

Sethi, Arjun . ( 2014). “US Joins Somalia and South Sudan in Failing to Support Child Rights.” Aljazeera America , November 20, 2014. Available at: http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2014/11/convention-rightschildunitednations.html (accessed December 5, 2014).

Sheleff, Leon . ( 1987 ). Ultimate Penalties: Capital Punishment, Life Imprisonment, Physical Torture . Columbus: Ohio State University Press.

Simon, Jonathan . (2012a). “Why Death-Row Inmates Oppose Life Without Parole.” The Berkeley Blog , September 25, 2012. Available at: http://blogs.berkeley.edu/2012/09/25/why-death-row-inmates-oppose-life-without-parole/ (accessed December 5, 2014).

Simon, Jonathan . ( 2012 b). “Dignity and Risk: The Long Road from Graham v. Florida to Abolition of Life Without Parole.” In Life Without Parole: America’s New Death Penalty? , edited by Charles Ogletree and Austin Sarat , pp. 282–310. New York: New York University Press.

St. John, Paige , and Gerber, Marisa . (2014). “Prop. 47 Jolts Landscape of California Justice System.” Los Angeles Times , November 5, 2014. Available at: http://www.latimes.com/local/politics/la-me-ff-pol-proposition47-20141106-story.html#page=1 (accessed November 10, 2014).

Stewart, Jim , and Lieberman, Paul . ( 1982 ). “ What Is This New Sentence that Takes Away Parole? ” Student Lawyer 11 (1982–83): 14–17.

The Economist. (2013). “Why Won’t America Ratify the UN Convention?” The Economist , October 6, 2013. Available at: http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2013/10/economist-explains-2 (accessed December 5, 2014).

The Guardian. (2014). “Pope Francis Blasts Life Sentences as ‘The Hidden Death Penalty.’” The Guardian October, 23, 2014. Available at: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/oct/23/pope-francis-life-sentence-hidden-death-penalty-torture , accessed November 9, 2014).

The New York Times. (2011). “The Misuse of Life Without Parole.” The New York Times , September 12, 2011. Available at: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/13/opinion/the-misuse-of-life-without-parole.html?_r=0 (accessed December 8, 2014).

The Sentencing Project. ( 2013 ). Life Goes On: The Historic Rise in Life Sentences in America . Washington, D.C.: The Sentencing Project.

The Sentencing Project. ( 2014 ). Juvenile Life Without Parole: An Overview . Washington, D.C.: The Sentencing Project.

University of San Francisco. ( 2012 ). Cruel and Unusual: U.S. Sentencing Practices in a Global Context . San Francisco, CA: School of Law, University of San Francisco.

Van Zyl Smit, Dirk ( 2002 ). Taking Life Imprisonment Seriously . The Hague: Kluwer Law International.

Van Zyl Smit, Dirk . ( 2005 ). “Life Imprisonment Issues in National and International Law.” In Managing Effective Alternatives to Capital Punishment , edited by Nicola Browne and Seema Kandelia . Centre for Capital Punishment Studies Occasional Paper Series Volume Three–Special Edition. London: Centre for Capital Punishment Studies.

Van Zyl Smit, Dirk . ( 2010 ). “ Outlawing Irreducible Life Sentences: Europe on the Brink? ” Federal Sentencing Reporter 23(1): 39–48.

Van Zyl Smit, Dirk , Weatherby, Pete , and Creighton, Simon . ( 2014 ). “ Whole Life Sentences and the Tide of European Human Rights Jurisprudence: What Is to Be Done? ” Human Rights Law Review 14(1): 59–84.

Vera Institute for Justice. ( 2010 ). It’s About Time: Aging Prisoners, Increasing Costs and Geriatric Release . New York: Vera Institute of Justice.

Von Hirsch, Andrew . ( 1976 ). Doing Justice: The Choice of Punishments . New York: Hill and Wan.

Wegman, Jesse . (2014). “Supreme Court Revisits Life Sentences for Juveniles.” The New York Times , December 13, 2014. Available at: http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/12/13/supreme-court-revisits-life-sentences-for-juveniles/?smid=tw-share&_r=0 (accessed December 15, 2014).

Wright, Julian . ( 1990 ). “ Life Without Parole: An Alternative to Death or Not Much of a Life at All? ” Vanderbilt Law Review 43: 529–568.

Wright, Julian . ( 1991 ). “ Life Without Parole: The View from Death Row. ” Criminal Law Bulletin 27: 334–357.

Zeldin, W. ( 2011 ). Norway: Norwegian Criminal Law and the July 22, 2011 Massacre . Library Law of Congress: Global Legal Research Centre. Available at: http://www.loc.gov/law/help/norway-criminal-law/norway-july-22-2011-massacre.pdf (accessed December 8, 2014).

In recent years, lifelong detention has received some scholarly attention (see, for example, Appleton and Grøver, 2007 ; Johnson and McGunigall-Smith, 2008 ; Ogletree and Sarat, 2012 ; and van Zyl Smit, 2010 ).

Johnson and McGunigall-Smith (2008 : 328).

In the United States, for example, various states retain some release mechanisms for LWOP inmates, such as executive commutation.

As noted by Johnson and McGunigall-Smith, in the United States “commutations are rare events for persons sentenced to prison, let alone a prison term of life without parole” (2008: 332). In the state of California, for example, not a single one of the 2,500 individuals sentenced to life without parole between 1978 and 2005 had their sentence commuted (Sundby, 2005, cited by Johnson and McGunigall-Smith, 2008 : 332).

Graham v. Florida , 130 S. Ct 2011, 2034 (2010) (citations omitted).

Dolovich (2012 : 99).

Johnson and McGunigall-Smith (2008 : 339).

Research from Stanford University on California prisoners, for example, found that prisoners serving life with the possibility of parole stood an 18 percent chance of being granted parole, and that the rate of release has never risen above 20 percent in the past 30 years (Weisberg et al., 2011, cited in The Sentencing Project, 2013 : 14). See also Petersilia (1999) and Harvard Law Review (2006) .

Or up to 30 years imprisonment for genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and gross acts of terrorism (see Zeldin, 2011 ).

See Vinter and Others v. the United Kingdom , Apps Nos. 66069/09, 130/10 and 3896/10, Grand Chamber, ECtHR, July 9, 2013, para. 68.

Vinter and Others v. the United Kingdom .

Life imprisonment has been prohibited, for example, in Brazil, Colombia, El Salvador, Nicaragua, and Venezuala (see Mauer et al., 2004 and Newcomen, 2005).

University of San Francisco (2012 : 25).

European Committee for the Prevention of Torture (CPT) (2012 : para. 33).

Ministry of Justice (2014) .

Van Zyl Smit (2010 : 41).

Penal Reform International (2012 : 6).

20 Personal communication with John Pratt , Professor of Criminology at the Institute of Criminology, Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand, November 30, 2014 .

408 U.S. 238 (1972).

The Sentencing Project (2013 : 4).

The Sentencing Project (2013 : 13).

The Sentencing Project (2013 : 5). In Louisiana, for example, one in nine prisoners (11.5 percent) is serving LWOP, and in Pennsylvania, 10 percent of the prison population is permanently imprisoned ( American Civil Liberties Union, 2013 : 11).

The Sentencing Project (2013 : 5).

See de la Vega and Leighton (2008) ; Agyepong (2010) ; Ploch (2012) .

See Dünkel and colleagues (2011) .

The Sentencing Project (2014 : 1). According to The Sentencing Project (2014) , nine states have abolished LWOP sentences for child offenders, and in a small number of other states and the District of Columbia, no one is serving the sentence. Two-thirds of juvenile LWOP sentences have been handed down in just five states: California, Florida, Louisiana, Michigan and Pennsylvania (see also de la Vega and Leighton, 2008 ).

The Sentencing Project (2013 : 11). See also Human Rights Watch (2012) and Nellis (2012) .

Graham v. Florida , 130 S. Ct 2011, 2034 (2010).

Miller v. Alabama , 132 S. Ct 2455 (2012).

See Berry (2013) .

Criminal Justice Act 2003, Section 269 and Schedule 21.

American Civil Liberties Union (2013 : 20). See also Capers (2012) ; Ogletree and Sarat (2012) ; The Sentencing Project (2013) .

ACLU (2013 : 2). As noted by ACLU (2013) , 3,278 prisoners is a conservative estimate of the LWOP population for non-violent offences. It does not include, for example, lengthy determinate or so-called ‘de-facto’ life sentences that exceed a convicted person’s life expectancy.

See Miller v. Alabama (2012) at 2471.

Ogletree and Sarat (2012 : 4–5). See also ACLU (2013) ; The Sentencing Project (2013) .

The Sentencing Project (2013 : 15).

This is not the case across all jurisdictions. In R v. Oakes and Others , for example, the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales makes clear that the primary justification for LWOP is the heinousness of the crime that has been committed. Lord Judge explained that, “the whole life order … is reserved for the few exceptionally serious offences in which, after reflecting on all the features of aggravation and mitigation, the judge is satisfied that the element of just punishment and retribution requires the imposition of a whole life order. If that conclusion is justified, the whole life order is appropriate: but only then. It is not a mandatory or automatic or minimum sentence” ( R v. Oakes and Others [2012] ECWA Crim 2435, para. 29).

Blair (1994 : 198).

See Wright (1990) ; Harvard Law Review (2006) .

For discussion on the implementation of “truth-in-sentencing” laws, see, for example, Kern (1995) ; Ditton and Wilson (1999) ; and Peterselia (1999) .

Brodheim (2011) .

Home Office (2007), cited in Hodgkinson et al. (2009 : 24).

See, for example, Home Office (1997) ; Marquart and Sorenson (1997) ; Hood and Shute (2000) and Mauer et al. (2004) .

As the warden of Louisiana’s Angola Prison has stated, most of his aging charges serving LWOP have long since gone through “criminal menopause,” cited in Abramsky (2004) . Indeed, researchers have persistently found that age is one of the most important predictors of criminality (see, for example, Laub and Sampson, 2003 ). See also Appleton (2010) for an exploration of the process of desistance for a group of released life-sentenced offenders in England and Wales.

Angelotti and Wycoff (2010) .

The average cost of maintaining an aging prisoner in the United States has been estimated to be at least $69,000 a year ( Maur et al., 2004 : 25).

See Vera Institute for Justice (2010) .

See, for example, Flanagan (1981) ; Johnson and Dobranska (2005) ; Johnson and McGunigall-Smith (2008) .

Stewart and Lieberman (1982 : 16). See also Bland (2014) .

For example, in a letter to a national newspaper, one LWOP prisoner in the United Kingdom stated that his whole life order had given him “an invisible licence that said I can breach any laws I want” after he had reportedly stabbed another prisoner in the eye using the sharpened handle of a toilet brush (see Hattenstone and Allison, 2012).

Cited in Bland (2014) .

As Von Hirsch has previously observed: “If one asks how severely a wrongdoer deserves to be punished, a familiar principle comes to mind: Severity of punishment should be commensurate with the seriousness of the wrong…. Disproportionate penalties are undeserved—severe sanctions for minor wrongs or vice versa” (1976: 66).

In the last decade in Georgia, for example, about 60 percent of offenders sentenced to LWOP were convicted of murder. The other 40 percent were convicted of kidnapping, armed robbery, sex crimes, drug crimes, and other crimes, including shoplifting (see The New York Times, 2011 ).

The Sentencing Project has reported that “While 47.2 percent of the lifer population is African American, 58 percent of LWOP prisoners are African American, reaching at least two thirds of the LWOP population in seven states” (2013:10).

Harvard Law Review (2006 : 1838).

Bedau (2004 : 189).

Death Penalty Information Center (2010) .

See also Wright (1990) .

Bedau (1997 : 87). See also Sheleff (1987) ; Appleton and Grøver (2007) .

For example, a survey carried out by Wright (1991) among death-row inmates in Tennessee found that LWOP was perceived by the majority of prisoners to be a harsher punishment than death. See also Simon (2012a) and Franchetti (2014) .

Beccaria (1965 [1764]). For an assessment of the current relevance of Cesare Beccaria’s On Crimes and Punishment (in the 250th year since its publication), see Ferrajoli (2014) .

Durlauf and Nagin (2011: 13–54), cited in Gottschalk (2012 : 235).

Gottschalk (2012 : 235).

Article 10(1) of the ICCPR.

Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (1992) General Comment 21, para. 10.

Article 110(3) of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.

Article 513 of the Cambodia Penal Code.

Council of Europe (1976) Resolution 76(2) on the Treatment of Long-term Prisoners, February 17, 1976, para. 76.

Council of Europe (1976) Resolution 76(2), para. 9.

Council of Europe (2003) Recommendation (2003) 22, September 24, 2003, para. 4a.

Cited in Vinter and Others v. the United Kingdom , para. 62.

That “consideration should be given to the diversity of personal characteristics to be found among life sentence and long-term prisoners and account taken of them to make individual plans for the implementation of the sentence” ( Council of Europe, Recommendation (2003) 23, October 9, 2003, para. 3).

That “prison life should be arranged so as to approximate as closely as possible to the realities of life in the community” ( Council of Europe, Recommendation (2003) 23, October 9, 2003, para. 4).

That “individual planning for the management of the prisoner’s life or long-term sentence should aim at securing progressive movement through the prison system” ( Council of Europe, Recommendation (2003) 23, October 9, 2003, para. 8).

Similarly, the Committee of Ministers Recommendation on Dangerous Offenders, Recommendation (2014) 3, February 19, 2014, states that the risk management of dangerous offenders should “have the long-term aim of their safe reintegration into the community … This should involve an individual plan that contains a staged process of rehabilitation through appropriate intervention” (para. 6). Furthermore, the European Prison Rules, promulgated by Recommendation (2006)2, January 11, 2006, also make clear the object of the regime for all sentenced prisoners, including life and long-term prisoners, is to enable them to live a responsible and crime-free life: “A systematic programme of education, including skills training, with the objective of improving prisoners’ overall level of education as well as their prospects of leading a responsible and crime-free life, shall be a key part of regimes for sentenced prisoners” (para. 106.1). It continues, “In the case of those prisoners with longer sentences in particular, steps shall be taken to ensure a gradual return to life in free society” (para. 107.2).

Council of Europe (2003) Recommendation (2003) 23, October 9, 2003, para. 21.

CPT (2007 : 3).

CPT (2007 : 5).

CPT (2007 : 10).

See Kafkaris v. Cyprus , App. No. 21906/04, ECtHR, February 12, 2008, para. 82.

BVerfGE 45 187. For a detailed discussion of this ruling, see van Zyl Smit (2002) . LWOP has also been prohibited on the same grounds as a form of cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment by the Supreme or High Court in Mexico and Namibia (see van Zyl Smit, 2005 ).

Vinter and Others v. the United Kingdom , para. 119.

See Mavronicola (2014) for a full consideration of the contours of the reducibility requirement in the Vinter ruling.

Vinter and Others v. the United Kingdom , para. 122.

Vinter and Others v. the United Kingdom , para. 120.

Kafkaris v. Cyprus , App. No. 21906/04, ECtHR, February 12, 2008.

Harkins and Edwards v. the United Kingdom (2012) Apps. Nos. 9146/07 and 32650/07, ECtHR, January 17, 2012.

For example, in Kafkaris v. Cyprus (2008) App. No. 21906/04, ECtHR, February 12, 2008, the Court stated that “In accordance with Article 3 of the Convention, the State must ensure that a person is detained under conditions which are compatible with respect for his human dignity … ” (para. 96). The Court also found that “the existence of a system providing for consideration of the possibility of release is a factor to be taken into account when assessing the compatibility of a particular life sentence with Article 3” (para. 99). In Harkins and Edwards v. the United Kingdom (2012) Apps. Nos. 9146/07 and 32650/07, ECtHR, January 17, 2012, the Court concluded that, “an Article 3 issue will arise for a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole in the same way as for a discretionary life sentence … when it can be shown: (i) that the applicant’s continued imprisonment can no longer be justified on any legitimate penological grounds; and (ii) that the sentence is irreducible de facto and de jure”(para. 138).

Trabelsi v. Belgium , App No. 140/10, ECtHR, September 4, 2014.

The concurring opinion of Judge Power-Forde in Vinter clearly encapsulates the essence of the importance of human dignity and the right to hope: “[W]hat tipped the balance for me in voting with the majority was the Court’s confirmation, in this judgment, that Article 3 encompasses what might be described as ‘the right to hope’ … The judgment recognizes, implicitly, that hope is an important and constitutive aspect of the human person. Those who commit the most abhorrent and egregious of acts and who inflict untold suffering upon others, nevertheless retain their fundamental humanity and carry within themselves the capacity to change. Long and deserved though their prison sentences may be, they retain the right to hope that, someday, they may have atoned for the wrongs which they have committed. They ought not to be deprived entirely of such hope. To deny them the experience of hope would be to deny a fundamental aspect of their humanity and, to do that, would be degrading.”

See especially van Zyl Smit and colleagues (2014) for a critical discussion of the type of review required to satisfy the principles established by the Court.

For an overview of the emerging critique of Vinter and Trabelsi , see Mavronicola (2014) and Lavrysen (2014) .

See, for example, Barrett (2013) .

Hutchinson v. the United Kingdom , App. No. 57592/08, ECtHR, February 3, 2015.

Hutchinson v. the United Kingdom , para. 25.

See Ö calan v Turkey , App. Nos. 24069/03, 197/04, 6201/06 and 10464/07, March 18, 2014; Magyar v. Hungary , App. No. 73593/10, ECtHR, May 20, 2014; Trabelsi v. Belgium , App. No. 140/10, ECtHR, September 4, 2014; Harakchiev and Tolumov v. Bulgaria , App. Nos. 15018/11 and 61199/12, ECtHR, October 8, 2014 and Bodein v. France , App. No. 40014/10, ECtHR, November 13, 2014.

See Vinter and Others v. the United Kingdom , Apps. Nos. 66069/09, 130/10 and 3896/10, Grand Chamber, ECtHR, July 9, 2013.

Trabelsi v. Belgium , App. No. 140/10, ECtHR, September 4, 2014.

The importance of the preservation of human dignity and the right to hope in contemporary penal systems has been reiterated most clearly in a recent address by Pope Francis to a delegation from the International Association of Penal Law in which he called life imprisonment “a hidden death penalty” ( The Guardian, 2014 ). See also Almenara and van Zyl Smit (2015) .

Graham v. Florida , 130 S. Ct 2011, 2034 (2010). In Graham v. Florida , the Court held that imposing a sentence of LWOP on a juvenile non-homicide offender violates the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment. In an opinion by Justice Kennedy, the Court found support for its conclusion in the practices of other nations and the international community. Justice Kennedy observed that the United States, “in continuing to impose life without parole sentences on juveniles who did not commit homicide, … adheres to a sentencing practice rejected the world over.” He further explained that: “The Court has treated the laws and practices of other nations and international agreements as relevant to the Eighth Amendment not because those norms are binding or controlling but because the judgment of the world’s nations that a particular sentencing practice is inconsistent with basic principles of decency demonstrates that the Court’s rationale has respected reasoning to support it.”

Miller v. Alabama , 132 S. Ct 2455 (2012). It is worth noting that in the conclusion to his dissent in Miller v. Alabama , Judge Alito warned: “Future cases may extrapolate from today’s holding, and this process may continue until the majority brings sentencing practices into line with whatever the majority views as truly evolved standards of decency.” More recently, the Supreme Court has announced that the Court will consider whether the ruling in Miller should be applied retrospectively (see Wegman, 2014 ). See also Ploch (2012) for critical discussion on how the concept of human dignity can be used to strengthen the rights of prisoners to rehabilitation in the United States, and Simon (2012b) for discussion on the prominence of the principle of dignity in the United States in several sectors outside of the penal field.

See, for example, St. John and Gerber (2014) .

• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Institutional account management
• Rights and permissions
• Get help with access
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

Life Imprisonment in Asia

• © 2023
• Dirk van Zyl Smit 0 ,
• Catherine Appleton 1 ,
• Giao Vucong 2

School of Law, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK

You can also search for this editor in PubMed   Google Scholar

Centre for Research and Education in Security, Prisons and Forensic Psychiatry, St Olav's University Hospital, Trondheim, Norway

School of Law, Vietnam National University, Hanoi, Vietnam

• The first book with concrete information on the law and practice of life imprisonment in Asia
• Debates life imprisonment in Asia, both as an alternative to the death penalty and as a punishment in its own right
• The only book to assess the human rights implications of the different forms of life imprisonment in Asian countries

Part of the book series: Palgrave Advances in Criminology and Criminal Justice in Asia (PACCJA)

2199 Accesses

3 Citations

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this book

• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info
• Durable hardcover edition

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Other ways to access

Licence this eBook for your library

Institutional subscriptions

Table of contents (14 chapters)

Front matter, asian life imprisonment in worldwide perspective.

• Dirk van Zyl Smit, Catherine Appleton

Life Imprisonment in Australia: Restoring a Hope of Release and the Phuong Ngo Case

• John Anderson, Hannah Williams, Daniel Matas

Life Imprisonment in Bangladesh: Ensuring a Constructive Prison Experience for Life-Sentenced Prisoners

• Zelina Sultana, Nasrin Akter

Life Imprisonment in China

• Zhiyuan Guo, Rong Ma

Life Imprisonment in Hong Kong

• Daniel Pascoe

Life Imprisonment in India: Will the Prison Doors Ever Open for Life-Sentenced Prisoners?

• Shruti Bedi, Madhurima Dhanuka

Life Imprisonment in Indonesia: Is Its Use Appropriate in the National Criminal Justice System?

• Go Lisanawati

Life Imprisonment in Japan: The Existing Legal System and Alternative Sanctions for the Death Penalty

Life imprisonment in malaysia: prospects for law reform.

• Farah Nini Dusuki, Melati Abdul Hamid

Life Imprisonment in New Zealand

• Jordan Anderson

Life Imprisonment in Singapore: Legal and Sociological Perspectives

Life imprisonment in south korea: life imprisonment law and practice in the shadow of the death penalty.

• You-Jeong Jeong, Osamu Niikura

Life Imprisonment in Taiwan

• Jiang-Jia Wang, Tzu-Wei Lin

Life Imprisonment in Viet Nam: Reflections on Reforms from a Human Rights Perspective

• Lan Chi Le, Giao Vucong

Back Matter

• Life Imprisonment
• Human Rights
• Death Penalty

About this book

Editors and affiliations.

Dirk van Zyl Smit

Centre for Research and Education in Security, Prisons and Forensic Psychiatry, St Olav's University Hospital, Trondheim, Norway

Catherine Appleton

Giao Vucong

About the editors

Dirk van Zyl Smit is Emeritus Professor of Comparative and International Penal Law, University of Nottingham and Emeritus Professor of Criminology, University of Cape Town.

Catherine Appleton is Senior Research Fellow at the Centre for Research and Education in Security, Prisons and Forensic Psychiatry, St Olav’s Hospital and at the Department of Mental Health, Norwegian University of Science and Technology in Trondheim.

Vucong Giao is Head of the Department of Constitutional and Administrative Law and Director of the Research Center for Human and Citizen’s Rights under School of Law, Vietnam National University, Hanoi (VNU-LS).

Bibliographic Information

Book Title : Life Imprisonment in Asia

Editors : Dirk van Zyl Smit, Catherine Appleton, Giao Vucong

Series Title : Palgrave Advances in Criminology and Criminal Justice in Asia

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-4664-6

Publisher : Palgrave Macmillan Singapore

eBook Packages : Law and Criminology , Law and Criminology (R0)

Copyright Information : The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023

Hardcover ISBN : 978-981-19-4663-9 Published: 01 December 2022

Softcover ISBN : 978-981-19-4666-0 Published: 02 December 2023

eBook ISBN : 978-981-19-4664-6 Published: 30 November 2022

Series ISSN : 2946-2878

Series E-ISSN : 2946-2886

Edition Number : 1

Number of Pages : XVI, 360

Number of Illustrations : 2 b/w illustrations, 8 illustrations in colour

Topics : Criminology and Criminal Justice, general , Prison and Punishment , Human Rights , Criminal Law and Criminal Procedure Law , Social Justice, Equality and Human Rights

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

Life imprisonment

Latest updates, informal life imprisonment.

A policy briefing on this harsh, hidden sentence There is growing recognition that life imprisonment is a severe sentence that, if it is used at all, should be imposed sparingly, implemented humanely and give people serving life sentences hope of release when they cease to pose a danger to society. Informal life imprisonment can be […]

Languages: English

Annual Report

Annual Report 2022

This Annual Report outlines the impact of our work and achievements in 2022, including: In 2022 we supported national authorities, civil society and other stakeholders across 15 countries in five regions to bring change so that ultimately the human rights of people in contact with criminal justice systems are better protected.  We put people at […]

Global Prison Trends annual series

Global Prison Trends is PRI's annual flagship series. Published every year since 2015, the series identifies topical developments and challenges in criminal justice and prison policy and practice, and contributes to the monitoring of crime trends and operations of criminal justice systems.

• Entertainment
• Environment
• Information Science and Technology
• Social Issues

Home Essay Samples Social Issues Death Penalty

Life Imprisonment vs Death Penalty: A Comparative Analysis

Table of contents, introduction, the humanitarian perspective, cost analysis, deterrent effect, moral and ethical implications, potential for rehabilitation, psychological impact on prisoners and society, works cited.

*minimum deadline

Cite this Essay

To export a reference to this article please select a referencing style below

• Public Shaming
• Asian American Discrimination
• Islamophobia
• Gender Inequality
• Universal Declaration of Human Rights
• Black Power Movement

Related Essays

Need writing help?

You can always rely on us no matter what type of paper you need

*No hidden charges

100% Unique Essays

Absolutely Confidential

Money Back Guarantee

By clicking “Send Essay”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement. We will occasionally send you account related emails

You can also get a UNIQUE essay on this or any other topic

Thank you! We’ll contact you as soon as possible.

The Pros and Cons of Life Imprisonment and the Death Penalty

This essay about the contrasting implications of life imprisonment and the death penalty examines their roles as mechanisms of retribution and deterrence in the criminal justice system. It explores the advantages and disadvantages of each, highlighting life imprisonment as an opportunity for redemption and a reversible option, and the death penalty as a potent deterrent but an irreversible and morally contentious choice. The discussion emphasizes the need for careful consideration of justice and morality in choosing appropriate punitive measures.

How it works

Navigating the labyrinth of justice, the dichotomy between life imprisonment and the death penalty sparks profound discourse, as both stand as bastions of retribution and deterrence within the criminal justice system. Delving into their nuances illuminates a tapestry of advantages and pitfalls, igniting fervent debate among legal scholars, policymakers, and the populace. Here, we embark on an odyssey through the pros and cons of these divergent paths of punishment.

Life Imprisonment:

A Beacon of Hope: Within the confines of life imprisonment lies the glimmer of redemption.

In this journey, offenders traverse the path of rehabilitation, seeking absolution and transformation. Over time, some may find solace in remorse, striving to contribute positively to the tapestry of society.

The Antidote to Irreversible Justice: Unlike its counterpart, life imprisonment presents a safety net against the precipice of irreversible mistakes. Should the scales of justice tilt askew with new revelations or the unveiling of wrongful convictions, the shackles of incarceration can be unbound, offering restitution to the unjustly accused.

The Frugal Alternative: Contrary to popular belief, the fiscal ledger favors life behind bars. The convoluted labyrinth of appeals and legal fees tethered to death penalty cases incurs a weighty toll on taxpayers’ coffers, making life imprisonment a more economically prudent choice in the long haul.

A Testament to Humanity: Opting for life imprisonment over the death penalty echoes a resounding affirmation of human dignity. It reverberates with the belief in the potential for redemption and underscores the intrinsic worth of every soul, irrespective of their past transgressions.

The Hollow Echo of Justice: For the victims and their kin, life imprisonment may ring hollow, bereft of the closure that the ultimate penalty affords. The absence of a final reckoning may leave wounds unhealed, shadows lingering in the corridors of justice.

The Specter of Recidivism: Despite the veneer of rehabilitation, the specter of recidivism looms large. Within the crucible of incarceration, the embers of past misdeeds may reignite, casting doubt on the efficacy of redemption and posing a potential threat to public safety.

Strain on Correctional Bastions: Life imprisonment places a strain on the bulwarks of correctional institutions. The perpetual housing, healthcare, and sustenance of lifers tax the already burdened resources, casting shadows on the quality of life for both denizens and custodians of the carceral realm.

The Abyss of Despair: Condemning souls to an eternity behind bars can beget a descent into the abyss of despair. The gnawing tendrils of hopelessness may sap the resolve for rehabilitation, casting asunder the prospect of societal reintegration.

The Death Penalty:

A Sentinel of Deterrence: Advocates tout the death penalty as a bulwark against the tide of crime, casting a shadow of fear over potential perpetrators. The looming specter of capital punishment serves as a stark deterrent, dissuading individuals from traversing the path of transgression.

The Pinnacle of Justice: For some, the death penalty stands as the apex of justice, offering a semblance of closure and retribution for victims and their kin. The finality of the sentence draws a curtain on the saga of suffering, providing a cathartic denouement to the theater of justice.

The Culler of Costs: Contrary to conventional wisdom, the ledger may tilt in favor of the death penalty. Streamlining the appeals process and expediting executions may yield cost savings, offering a pragmatic solution to the fiscal conundrum plaguing the halls of justice.

A Terminal Verdict: The death penalty ensures that the most heinous of offenders face the ultimate reckoning for their deeds. The irrevocable nature of the sentence begets a sense of closure, drawing a line in the sand and heralding the denouement of the saga of justice.

The Guillotine of Innocence: The specter of wrongful executions casts a pall over the hallowed halls of justice. Despite safeguards, the specter of erroneous convictions haunts the annals of the death penalty, rendering it a harbinger of injustice rather than a beacon of retribution.

A Moral Quandary: The death penalty unfurls a tapestry of moral and ethical quandaries, questioning the sanctity of life and the hubris of state-sanctioned retribution. The specter of cruel and unusual punishment looms large, casting aspersions on the moral fabric of society.

The Capricious Hand of Justice: Critics decry the death penalty as a capricious arbiter, swayed by the tempests of race, class, and geography. The specter of arbitrariness erodes the legitimacy of the sentence, rending asunder the veil of justice.

The Ephemeral Curtain: Unlike its counterpart, the death penalty offers no reprieve, no glimmer of hope for redemption or rehabilitation. Once the die is cast, the narrative of the condemned reaches its terminus, shrouded in the pall of finality.

In summation, the discourse surrounding life imprisonment and the death penalty transcends mere rhetoric, delving into the very fabric of justice and morality. Each path presents its own labyrinth of complexities, beckoning stakeholders to navigate the murky waters of retribution and redemption. As we traverse this odyssey, let us heed the clarion call of reason and empathy, seeking solace in the pursuit of a fair and equitable criminal justice system.

Cite this page

The Pros And Cons Of Life Imprisonment And The Death Penalty. (2024, Apr 29). Retrieved from https://papersowl.com/examples/the-pros-and-cons-of-life-imprisonment-and-the-death-penalty/

"The Pros And Cons Of Life Imprisonment And The Death Penalty." PapersOwl.com , 29 Apr 2024, https://papersowl.com/examples/the-pros-and-cons-of-life-imprisonment-and-the-death-penalty/

PapersOwl.com. (2024). The Pros And Cons Of Life Imprisonment And The Death Penalty . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/the-pros-and-cons-of-life-imprisonment-and-the-death-penalty/ [Accessed: 12 May. 2024]

"The Pros And Cons Of Life Imprisonment And The Death Penalty." PapersOwl.com, Apr 29, 2024. Accessed May 12, 2024. https://papersowl.com/examples/the-pros-and-cons-of-life-imprisonment-and-the-death-penalty/

"The Pros And Cons Of Life Imprisonment And The Death Penalty," PapersOwl.com , 29-Apr-2024. [Online]. Available: https://papersowl.com/examples/the-pros-and-cons-of-life-imprisonment-and-the-death-penalty/. [Accessed: 12-May-2024]

PapersOwl.com. (2024). The Pros And Cons Of Life Imprisonment And The Death Penalty . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/the-pros-and-cons-of-life-imprisonment-and-the-death-penalty/ [Accessed: 12-May-2024]

Don't let plagiarism ruin your grade

Hire a writer to get a unique paper crafted to your needs.

Our writers will help you fix any mistakes and get an A+!

Please check your inbox.

You can order an original essay written according to your instructions.

Trusted by over 1 million students worldwide

1. Tell Us Your Requirements

2. Pick your perfect writer

3. Get Your Paper and Pay

Hi! I'm Amy, your personal assistant!

Don't know where to start? Give me your paper requirements and I connect you to an academic expert.

short deadlines

100% Plagiarism-Free

Certified writers

• Newsletters
• Account Activating this button will toggle the display of additional content Account Sign out

Why Write About Life in Prison?

Because every story needs hope..

This essay is excerpted from The Sentences That Create Us: Crafting A Writer’s Life in Prison, a recently released collection of essays from Haymarket Book and PEN America. Edited by PEN America’s Director of Prison and Justice Writing, Caits Meissner, the book weaves together insights from over 50 justice-involved contributors and their allies to offer inspiration and resources for creating a literary life in prison. 

It started out just another day in prison: I shuffled the deck for a game of spades. My opponents had either been cheating or were having one hell of a lucky streak. Or maybe I just sucked at stacking the deck. I was certain I’d gotten all the cards just where I’d wanted them, when everyone stopped talking, eyes wide.

With my back to the window, I smelled the acrid stench of old insulation and smoldering cloth before turning toward the flames. Outside, grown men with faces covered in towels and T-shirts ran every which way. Prisoners were laying waste to the building’s weak points: the windows and doors. I’d later hear that some officers—fearing for their own safety—opened doors and stood back as their prisoners revolted in response to the warden’s lockdown orders. A billowy plume of smoke rose from where the chow hall used to be. A brick exploded against the metal grate barricading the window, and glass shards cascaded through the room. As my opponents rushed out into the chaos, the cards fell to the floor, the king of spades staring up.

The entire prison began to riot.

The year was 2009. The aftermath was Kentucky’s costliest riot in history. A friend of mine asked if I could help him put the experience into words for his family. For the first time since my imprisonment, I sat down to capture the havoc and devastation on paper. With pen to paper, my words flowed like the tears I was too ashamed to cry.

I’d never before been asked to describe the hell of prison. Why had I resisted depicting my environment for so long? I’d always wanted to be a creator of worlds, an author, an artist with words. Only somewhere along the way, I’d become convinced I wasn’t smart, educated, or articulate enough to say anything someone else would ever give a damn to hear. My dream of being an author was beat down by the poverty I was raised in, my inability to focus on my teachers, their lessons, and my grades, and eventually by the drug addiction I used to mask my inadequacies.

Three years into my incarceration, I was asked, “When you were little, what did you want to be when you grew up?”

It was then I decided to do something different. My pursuits turned to writing. I’d ask any and everyone for help. I’d finally dream. I’d change! But there was the nagging thought: Would anything I put down on the page make a difference? It was discomforting to not know where to begin, or what I wished to say.

Who was I as a writer? I found myself emulating all of my favorite authors in an attempt to locate my voice. But everything I wrote received the same critiques. Despite my imitation, I wasn’t making the progress I wanted. I still needed to work on my dialogue, characters, and plots. Discouraged, I stopped showing anyone my work. For a time, I stopped writing altogether.

It was only after my success with the riot piece that I felt comfortable enough to want people to read my work again. I felt validated, even if only temporarily. By then, the piece had been published on prisonwriters.com, and now all I had to do was wait. Someone would recognize my greatness, I thought to myself. And someone did—just not in the way I’d imagined it.

The friend who I’d written the riot piece for signed me up to join a group from Pioneer Playhouse, a local theater bringing the arts to prison. I was less than thrilled. Though I had zero interest in acting or writing plays, the prison offered nothing else.

I took the risk and joined the Voices Inside program.

“Write about what you know,” said the instructor. “Write from the gut.”

“I’m not writing about prison. Nobody gives a damn about prison,” I replied.

As it turned out, though my prison riot piece had been published, aside from pats on the back from a few of my fellow inmates and a small fifteen-dollar payment for the article, no one else said a thing about it. I’d bled on the page, and no one seemed to care, or even notice. The other twenty inmates of the very first Voices Inside class all agreed—no one wanted to write about the hell we all woke up to every morning. Instead, we showed up with our knockoffs of popular sitcoms, SNL skits, and all too many thinly veiled retellings of Romeo and Juliet.

The work was uninspired. The plays we would go on to write and perform in class all suffered greatly for our avoidance. With excuses of writer’s block, procrastination, and sheer refusal, we were lying to ourselves.

In attempting to tell stories—any stories—to avoid the topic of prison, we weren’t being true to our stories. I decided to set down the heavy sack of shame that I’d lugged around everywhere since my conviction. I wrote a new play in which I spoke of my own incarceration, not as something that had taken my life from me, but as something that had allowed me the time, separation, freedom to examine “my life.”

I wasn’t dead. None of us were. And though we’d all been stripped away from our families, our comforts, our routines and were confined to this “new normal,” our lives had not come to an end.

My first prison play involved the very people I’d spend the next twenty-five years locked away from: my children. With myself as the protagonist, I used my children’s hypothetical questions, blame, and confusion over my absence as the antagonist to reveal every truth I’d once steered clear of. Ultimately, guilt and innocence aside, it was my own poor choices that had put me in a prison of my own making.

I staged the play in the crowded classroom we used each week. Desks were moved aside to make an improvised auditorium with a few rows of plastic chairs. The play took place in the span of a visit with my now-grown children—strangers to me, with the names and once-familiar faces of the young people they’d been fifteen years before.

I wrote them as tragic characters who’d missed out on the father who had never put down roots, never truly loved their mother, never even attempted to be the man his children needed him to be. In the play, my daughter, the eldest, arrived on the scene to confront me with her anger. How could I ever leave her alone with two small brothers and a drug addict for a mother? Had I been the one to put the pipe to her mother’s lips, the needle in her veins? Did I know about the overdoses? All the strange men who’d found their way into my daughter’s bedroom in the middle of the night? Did I know all of the pain my being incarcerated had caused? Was I happy? Did I know all of the terrible things my children had grown up hearing about me? Did I know?

The man playing my daughter slapped me in the face with her last question before rushing offstage in tears. A voice from the audience called out: “Fucking go after her, man!” But the play ended with my character being restrained by an officer’s single hand.

Afterwards, I sat devastated and exposed. But as I glanced around the room, everyone’s resentment toward the man playing the officer was clear. I could feel them stewing on the same question. How do we begin to comfort the loved ones our decisions have taken us away from?

“That child needed her father,” said the man beside me. “I hate prison,” he said, placing his own comforting hand on my shoulder. “That really happens.”

Eleven years later, I still hear my fellow prisoners complain of having to share the details with those in their lives who know nothing about the realities of prison. No one wants to relive the grief of their incarceration. Ripping off scabs is painful. Their reticence is valid. I am patient. They have to find the courage on their own terms, within their own voices.

Why write about prison? Every story needs hope.

In our stories, we may have started out the murderers, rapists, thieves, and addicts, the monsters, the bad guys, the adversaries, the villains, the defendants, but prison does not have to be the end of our tale. If we don’t write our own endings, we hand our pens over to the legislators, owners of privatized prisons, and propagators of the lies behind mass incarceration.

I write about prison because there are more people in prisons in America than populate some small countries.

Because my experiences are the experiences of countless others. I write because there is truth in our stories that cannot, must not, be denied: the separation from our families, the toll on our loved ones, all the wasted time, the warehousing of our bodies, and our fruitless efforts to prevail against a flawed reality of incarceration.

That is the story I dare everyone to acknowledge. And only people behind bars can tell it as it truly is.

• Death Penalty Essays

Death penalty and life imprisonment Essay

Debate on which is more appropriate in the penal systems all around the world, between life in prison and the death sentence has been a controversial issue. This is between the proponents and the opposers of these punishments, as they both have advantages and disadvantages in issues of morality and economic implications for governments. In order to ascertain that life imprisonment is the best alternative to death penalty, it is best to assess the merits and demerits of both forms of punishment and their impact to the society.

Struggling with your HW?

Get your assignments done by real pros. Save your precious time and boost your marks with ease. Just fill in your HW requirements and you can count on us!

• Customer data protection
• 100% Plagiarism Free

Death sentence holds plenty of moral controversy owing to the taking of another’s life. However, it is disputed because of mistakes made in sentencing that are claimed to be rare. The death sentence is given when there exists conclusive evidence on the guilt of a suspect (Smith). The evidence is usually in the form of DNA, and a plus for the death row inmates is that there is a chance to appeal the decisions to sentence them to death. Therefore, it is argued that any person convicted to death stands a chance to prove their case and plead their innocence allowing them to live. In this case, the claim is that it is extremely difficult to sentence an innocent person to death owing to the numerous appeal opportunities accorded to them. In addition, the presence of DNA testing helps to exonerate many, although not entirely. Therefore, the DNA of the convicted may lead to conviction of many due to wrong time and wrong place occurrences, circumstantial evidence. Thus, the Death sentence is appropriate in ridding the society of people committing capital offences, in spite of doing injustice to some. However, life in prison as a sentence is the viable option as compared to the death sentence as delivers more and reduces the chances of exposing innocent people to risk of dying (procon.org). This is because; life in prison is swift, severe and certain providing justice to the victims of the committed crime.

In addition, another reason for the support of death penalty is the cost that the society has to bear concerning maintaining prisoners on life imprisonment (Smith). Therefore, the financial and economic costs of maintaining a prisoner serving life are astronomical to the tune of $50000 a year (Smith). This is more than an individual spends in their normal day-to-day life outside the prison as some earn even less than that. Sentencing such a person to death is easier for the society, as it does not have to shoulder the costs of providing for the needs of the inmates. In addition, the death sentence is more suitable as those sentenced to life in prison are at times released under the context of rehabilitation and overcrowded prisons. This allows them to return to the society and continue with their criminal activities. This way, taking the life of the criminal, ensures with maximum certainty that the crime will not be committed again, but by the same person. However, this is not the case, as there is existence of sentences that subject criminals to life imprisonment with no chance of parole. This way, inmates have way of leaving thus the death sentence is rendered redundant.

However, Life imprisonment is the better option of the two due to its deterrent nature, as the death sentence is not a deterrent measure to stopping crime. This is because; only sane people can plan any crime that is punished by death, as they have the time and ability to carry out the plans that end up in the crime (Smith). This way punishing people by having theme serve time in prison where they cannot enjoy their freedom and some rights reduces the chances of similar crimes recurring, either perpetrated by the same person or other members of the society. In addition, life in prison ensures that no more crimes are committed by the government in the name of protecting the safety of the public through executions (Procon.org). This way, it allows resources to be turned to other issues that require attention other than attempting to exhaust legal channels in a bid to save lives. This is commonly seen in death sentences where convicts spend time and resources in appealing sentences handed down to them. Life in prison is more suitable, as compared to the death sentence as it offers no option of a minimum or maximum time to be served in prison or parole owing to good conduct in prison. This is unlike common belief that life imprisonment allows for inmates to be released if their conduct is deemed suitable for interaction with other members of the society (procon.org)

Used our essay samples for inspiration ?

For more help, tap into our pool of professional writers and get expert essay editing services!

In addition, a sentence committing the criminal to life in prison allows retributive justice to be functional. This is as opposed by the death sentence that does not allow the criminal to think over their actions and consequences. This is because, the society counters the crime by killing the criminal and not allowing them to reconcile with the victims or the society that the criminal has wronged (procon.org). In this manner, life in prison rids the society of the violence that accrues in the name of justice by taking the life of another to avenge the original life that the criminal took. In logical terms then, the government should be killed for killing a criminal, which in turn leaves the world in a state of anarchy. This is owing to the general logic that capital crime should be punished capitally; by having the offender who killed face death. The offender ends up dead because of the actions perpetrated by an authority. The key question in this case would be on who would take the responsibility of punishing the authorities for their capital crimes. As stated earlier that the cost of sentencing a criminal to life in prison is higher than the death sentence, this is not the case. While going through the tedious process of exhausting the legal channels in a quest to save a life, the convicts remain in the same prisons. This beats the purpose of calling life imprisonment expensive because some of these drag on for a long time thus incurring more expenses than those of inmates in for life (Death penalty focus). This is both exhaustive, economically, to the society and the offender as they both spend too much in attempt to oppose each other’s actions.

In addition, religious groups go with life imprisonment as religious laws view human life as sacred in any case and thus no one has the right to take it except the creator (Liao). As a result, religious groups are against the death penalty as it advocates for taking human life, while there exists a morally cheaper way that does not violate religious laws or the sanctity of human life. Life imprisonment also allows the judicial system to work efficiently with fewer backlogs. This is because; there are fewer appeals to cases of guilty convicts as compared to the numerous ones filed by those in death row (Messerli). It is argued that the death sentence ensures that crime rates go down and failure to implement it results in increased crime rates. However, this is not the case as most of the countries that have scraped the death sentence still enjoy low crime rates with implementation of life imprisonment with no chance of parole (Competition master.com). Those that still execute the death sentence are of the belief that the threat, fear and intimidation of people with the death penalty ensures that people stick to social norms and follow the law accordingly. Concerning punishment for capital such as murder, the common belief is that the crimes were planned prior to their execution. This, however, is not usually the case, as most of them are usually unplanned and the result of drunkenness, anger and short-term loss of rational and logical thinking (Competition master.com). Due to this logical deduction, sentencing an individual to the death sentence is illogical on many levels of reasoning due to severe punishments for accidents in some cases. In addition, compensation has become known as an alternative form of punishment in which the person committing the crime is punished in ways focussing on the victim.

In conclusion, since the debate on which form of punishment should be carried for the various crimes and its moral and economic viability, controversy will always arise. Life imprisonment is a better form of punishment, as compared to the death sentence as it allows the society to benefit from the value of offenders in other fields of life. This means that the offender is kept alive in life imprisonment and works to meet the needs that the victim met during the period he or she was living. Moreover, in this way, the offender gives back to society in terms of services rendered as money is of little, if any, value in the prison system by probably teaching the illiterate. Hence, governments and all entities involved in administration of justice should opt and advocate for life imprisonment to death penalty.

Works Cited

Procon.org. Is Life in Prison Without Parole a Better Option than the Death Penalty? 2009. Web. 17 Jul. 2012.

Messerli Joe. Should the Death Penalty be Banned as a Form of Punishment? BalancedPolitics.Org. n.d. Web. 17 Jul. 2012.

Death Penalty Focus. The High Cost of the Death Penalty. n.d. Web. 17 Jul. 2012.

Smith, Michael. Society Benefits from Death Penalty. Daily Herald, April 23, 2012. Web. 17 Jul. 2012.

Liao, Hali. Life Imprisonment is Better. 1999. Web. 17 Jul. 2012.

Competitionmaster.com. Life Imprisonment is a Good Alternative to Capital Punishment. 2012. Web. 17 Jul. 2012.

Related Essays

Find Free Essays

We provide you with original essay samples, perfect formatting and styling

Request must contain at least 2 characters

Popular Topics

Samples by Essay Type

Cite this page

About our services

Topic Death Penalty

Level High School

This sample is NOT ORIGINAL. Get 100% unique essay written under your req

• Only $11 per page
• Free revisions included

Studyfy uses cookies to deliver the best experience possible. Read more.

Studyfy uses secured cookies. Read more.

A Day in the Life of a Prisoner

“we aren’t deadbeats — our days are, in fact, incredibly full.”.

People are constantly asking me: What’s a day in prison like? Is it boring? Or are you busy? So the other day, I toted a pocket-sized notebook with me everywhere I went, scribbling down every single thing I did.

I thought I’d share my findings with you to show you that we prisoners aren’t deadbeats — our days are, in fact, incredibly full.

At 1:30 a.m., I’m jarred awake in my cell by an officer wielding the brightest flashlight in the world. He gives me 10 minutes to throw on some clothes and escorts me to the isolation cells, where I strip down again for a thorough search and begin a three-hour suicide watch. This is my prison job: to sit with inmates deemed suicidal and just talk with them, and make sure they don’t try anything.

The 18-year-old black kid I’m assigned to on this day is soft-spoken, and severely depressed. (I’m 43 and white.) He opens up surprisingly quickly about the many horrors of his childhood. He’s lived a very hard life, which is typical for incarcerated people but is always deeply upsetting nonetheless. I almost cry several times. There’s not much I can do for him except listen, so I do so as if this young man is my own child.

Shift over, I’m strip-searched again and escorted back to my housing unit, where I take a quick shower, stretch, meditate, pray, then climb back under my itchy wool blanket and hit the sack around 6 a.m.

I wake up at 10, thanks to all the hooting and hollering outside my cell. I take a few minutes to center myself, climb from my top bunk and am met by my service dog in training, Ross.

As I dress, Ross wags his tail and prods me with his cold, wet nose, which never fails to make me smile.

I then hike down the Rock (our term for the cell block) to the communal bathroom I share with 48 other inmates, brush my teeth between four young kids who are rapping, handle my morning business on the toilet, and return to my cell once again, where I pour Ross another bowl of water, buckle on my pouch full of treats, then venture back out into the bowels of our unit with the dog in tow. We spend the next 40 minutes training him to follow my commands.

Next, I grab my tablet and a cup of instant coffee, and hurry to our JPay.com (a prison email service) kiosk (a computer encased in damn-near indestructible stainless steel), which is my only window to the outside world.

There, I pay a guy a ramen noodle soup for holding me a spot in line, then plug my tablet in and upload and download emails.

Once finished, I jog over to our unit’s kitchen area, where I wait in line to use one of two microwaves shared by 96 convicts. Luckily, I’m able to heat up my coffee before I hear, “Five minutes til count time, people,” blaring over the PA system in the same dull, unsympathetic voice that has spewed these words multiple times a day, every day, for years.

“Be on your bunks and be visible! I repeat, be on your bunks and be visible for 11:30 count or you will get a ticket!”

During count, I write a few emails (to be uploaded later) and listen to the news on the radio as I lie in bed waiting for the guards to make their rounds. I then throw on my workout clothes (a pair of tattered pants covered in patches), shrug on my state-issued “winter” coat, and stand by my cell door, waiting for it to open.

Count times in prison are an imprecise science, from a convict’s point of view. Sure, they start at the same times each day: 5 a.m., 11:30 a.m., 4 p.m., 9 p.m., and midnight. But when each one might end is anybody’s guess. It’s basically purgatory.

On this particular day, I get lucky. Count is cleared at 12:10, which means I’m out the door and on the yard by 12:20.

I usually pick this time slot to head out to the yard because it’s virtually empty — most inmates are inside right now having lunch. I run a few miles, do pullups, pushups, sprints, and finish with weights and stretches.

When the prison opens its massive, razor-wire-topped gates at 1:40 for a controlled mass-movement to the yard, I head inside like a fish swimming upstream through a river of convicts. Hundreds of them. At times like these, I need to stay hyper-vigilant. In such a crowd, a man could get butchered and the guards wouldn’t know it until they discovered his bloodless corpse lying crumpled on the walkway after the crowd had passed. I duck and dodge, pausing a few times to say hi when someone calls out my name.

Safely back in my housing unit, I mark my place in line for the shower (there’s just one) by dropping my towel and soap dish outside the stall. I then fix myself a bowl of instant oatmeal using our hot water dispenser, stir in a spoonful of peanut butter, a handful of cashews, almonds, and sunflower seeds, mix a cup of milk (powdered), dig a few bananas out of my locker (purchased on the black market), then sit down to enjoy lunch as I await my turn to bathe.

The shower is the one place I’m guaranteed to find solitude, if only for ten minutes at a time. By now it’s around 3, so I grab another cup of coffee, return to my cell, pull up to the desk that my bunkie and I share, and study Spanish grammar before doing some writing in my native tongue. Sometimes fiction, sometimes poetry, sometimes creative nonfiction.

Today it's fiction.

From 3 until 6, I soar free. I delve into my fantasy world and live vicariously through my protagonists as they experience love and loss, battle evil, and fight to make their world a better place. (I am forced to pause for twenty minutes, though, while I jump up onto my bunk at 4:30 for count time.)

At 6:10 or so, I roll out with the herd of orange- and blue-clad convicts heading toward the chow hall. There we wait in one of two lines that snake between long dining tables lined with small circular stools as guards bellow: “Tuck in your shirts, gentlemen. Or you will get a ticket.” We eventually arrive at the filthy, food-splattered serving counters, where Trinity (our privatized food-service contractor) ladles us a tray of gray plop they call “Turkey Ala King,” a rock-like biscuit, and canned green beans overcooked into a tasteless, scentless mush. I choke down what I can, then scram. The chow hall, too, is a dangerous place to linger.

After dinner, I teach a writing class that usually lasts about an hour. Today, it runs over, because we actually have quite a lot of fun learning the difference between active and passive voice. Around 8 I call Mom. At $3 (almost twice my daily pay) per 15-minute phone call, I can only afford to speak to her once or twice a week.

Quickly and efficiently, with skill honed over many years of phone company abuse, Mom fills me in on her life (her feet hurt from standing up all day at work, and she’s getting a new roof on her house), and talks about my brother David’s upcoming wedding (it’s going to be beautiful). As usual, a robotic voice suddenly breaks in: “You have one minute remaining. Thank you for using GTL.”

Mom often cries. Sometimes I do, too. Then our phone call is over until next week.

At 8:30, I take Ross out the back door of our unit for his final potty break. I then jog upstairs to the microwave area, heat myself a ramen noodle soup, and pop myself some popcorn. 9 count hits. This is my chill-out time. For the next two hours, I sit on my bunk and slurp noodles and crunch popcorn while I watch T.V. or read a book.

Day complete, I kill my T.V. and lamp, stretch, meditate, then pray, and finally burrow my way under the itchy wool blanket again, and doze off.

One more day down. Somewhere around 3,650 to go …

Jerry Metcalf, 43, is incarcerated at the Thumb Correctional Facility in Lapeer, Michigan, where he is serving 40 to 60 years for second-degree murder and two years for a weapons felony, both of which he was convicted of in 1996.

Our reporting has real impact on the criminal justice system

Our journalism establishes facts, exposes failures and examines solutions for a criminal justice system in crisis. If you believe in what we do, become a member today.

Stay up to date on our reporting and analysis.

Is a Life Imprisonment Sentence on a Juvenile a Cruel and Unfair Punishment? Essay

Case summary.

In Miller v. Alabama, 132 S. Ct. 2455 (2012), the Supreme Court ruled that sentencing a juvenile to life imprisonment without the probability of parole was unconstitutional. Evan Miller and Colby Smith assaulted a neighbor and set his trailer on fire. Arson resulted in the death of the neighbor. The Alabama court charged Miller with murder as a juvenile, before transferring him to the adult court. According to Alabama law, a guilty verdict would have resulted in life imprisonment without the probability of parole. The jury found Miller guilty and condemned him to life imprisonment without the probability of parole. Miller challenged the constitutionality of the ruling (Chemerinsky, 2012).

In 2003, as a 14-year boy, Miller assaulted and robbed his neighbor, Cole Cannon, after he had visited Miller’s home. While Cannon was in Miller’s home, Miller and Colby Smith, a friend, stole his baseball cards from his trailer. Later, Miller and Smith found Cannon lying unconscious in his trailer due to drinking and smoking. Miller stole $300 and a driver’s license from Cannon’s wallet. Thereafter, there was a confrontation between Miller and Cannon, after Cannon regained consciousness and found Miller with his wallet. During the confrontation, Smith and Miller hit Cannon until he lost consciousness. Thereafter, the co-defendants fled the scene of the incident. They returned later and tried to clear out the blood from the scene. Finally, they decided to set the trailer on fire to conceal their crime (Chemerinsky, 2012). While they were setting the trailer on fire, Cannon was still in the trailer. Therefore, the co-defendants had a guilty mind ( men’s rea ) before committing the guilty action ( actus reus ). They had a guilty mind after physically assaulting Cannon. This is the main reason that made them attempt to conceal their crime. However, in the course of concealing the crime, they committed another crime. Therefore, there was temporal concurrence as actus reus and men’s rea occurred simultaneously (Emanuel, 2007).

Was the Alabama court right in sentencing a juvenile to life imprisonment without the likelihood of parole?

The jury ruled that the life imprisonment verdict violates the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, which protect offenders from cruel and unusual punishments.

Juveniles’ immaturity and failure to comprehend the repercussions of their actions were the key factors that made the jury term the sentence as cruel and unusual. In addition, the jury ruled that juveniles do not control their social environment, which may make them commit crimes. Therefore, the Alabama court passed a wrong judgment in the trial. In addition, the Alabama court was harsh in its judgment since Miller was the first offender. However, the ruling of this case does not prohibit juveniles from receiving life sentences. The ruling ensures that judges should take into consideration the nature of the crime and the defendant’s social environment before sentencing a juvenile to life imprisonment without the likelihood of parole (Chemerinsky, 2012). The court can still sentence repeated juvenile offenders to life imprisonment.

The Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the US constitution prohibit courts from giving cruel and unusual punishments to offenders. In Miller v. Alabama, the petitioner claimed that sentencing him to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole violates his constitutional rights, which protect him from facing cruel and unusual punishments (Shahidullah, 2008). However, the Alabama prosecution supported the sentence of life imprisonment without the probability of parole. The state of Alabama argued that the sentence was suitable according to the severity of the offense.

In a murder trial, the burden of proof lies with the prosecution. The prosecution must convince the jury that the defendant committed the crime. In addition, the prosecution must prove that the defendants committed the offense willfully and were conscious of their actions. Insanity, intoxication, and infancy are some of the most common grounds for dismissal of murder trials. The above factors imply that the defendant did not understand the repercussion of their actions while committing the crime (Stephens & Scheb, 2007).

A juvenile’s brain is not fully developed. Therefore, the juvenile may not know the repercussions of their actions. Underdevelopment of juveniles’ brains increases the probability of juveniles engaging in risky activities. This is due to their inability to make correct judgments. The neurological development of juveniles makes actus reus and men’s rea have little significance in the case. The guilty mind ( men’s rea ) may motivate a juvenile to commit a guilty action ( actus reus ). Thus, a juvenile may use infancy as the defense against a criminal conviction.

Insanity, infancy, intoxication, incompetency, and procedural issues are the main issues that a defendant may use in the defense. The above factors may render actus reus and men’s rea invalid. In Miller v. Alabama, the petitioner used infancy successfully in overturning his sentence. The jury ruled that it was unconstitutional for the previous court to sentence the petitioner to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. In the future, defense attorneys may use Miller v. Alabama in challenging the constitutionality of life imprisonment of juveniles.

Chemerinsky, E. (2012). It’s now the John Roberts court. The Green Bag , Vol.14, No.4. Pp. 2002-2059.

Emanuel, S.L. (2007). Criminal law . New York: Aspen Publishers.

Shahidullah, S.M. (2008). Crime policy in America: Laws, institutions, and programs . Lanham, MD: University Press of America.

Stephens, O.H. & Scheb, J.M. (2007). American constitutional law: Civil rights and liberties . Belmont, CA: Cengage Learning.

• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2022, May 3). Is a Life Imprisonment Sentence on a Juvenile a Cruel and Unfair Punishment? https://ivypanda.com/essays/is-a-life-imprisonment-sentence-on-a-juvenile-a-cruel-and-unfair-punishment/

"Is a Life Imprisonment Sentence on a Juvenile a Cruel and Unfair Punishment?" IvyPanda , 3 May 2022, ivypanda.com/essays/is-a-life-imprisonment-sentence-on-a-juvenile-a-cruel-and-unfair-punishment/.

IvyPanda . (2022) 'Is a Life Imprisonment Sentence on a Juvenile a Cruel and Unfair Punishment'. 3 May.

IvyPanda . 2022. "Is a Life Imprisonment Sentence on a Juvenile a Cruel and Unfair Punishment?" May 3, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/is-a-life-imprisonment-sentence-on-a-juvenile-a-cruel-and-unfair-punishment/.

1. IvyPanda . "Is a Life Imprisonment Sentence on a Juvenile a Cruel and Unfair Punishment?" May 3, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/is-a-life-imprisonment-sentence-on-a-juvenile-a-cruel-and-unfair-punishment/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Is a Life Imprisonment Sentence on a Juvenile a Cruel and Unfair Punishment?" May 3, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/is-a-life-imprisonment-sentence-on-a-juvenile-a-cruel-and-unfair-punishment/.

• Miller v. Alabama Case Analysis
• Murder of Kitty Genovese
• Crimes Against Property, Persons, and Public Order
• Crime Challenges in the 21st Century
• Juvenile Courts and Their Objective
• Punishments for Juvenile Offenders
• The Practice of Sealing Juvenile Court Records
• Juvenile Treatment: The High Scope Perry Preschool Project

• International edition
• Australia edition
• Europe edition

Prison release of Golden Dawn founder angers Greek anti-fascists

State prosecutor reportedly opposed release of neo-Nazi Nikos Michaloliakos four years into 13-and-a-half-year sentence

The unrepentant founder of Greece’s neo-Nazi Golden Dawn, who insisted followers addressed him as the Fuhrer, has been released from prison four years into a sentence of 13 and a half years, having been convicted of operating a criminal organisation that posed as a political party.

Nikos Michaloliakos, a Holocaust denier and admirer of Adolf Hitler, was allowed to return to his home in Athens this week although his “conditional discharge” was only made public on Thursday.

The news sparked fury among members of the country’s anti-fascist movement. “It’s a scandalous decision,” said Petros Constantinou, the chief coordinator of the front, known as Keerfa. “It did not need to happen and will give the green light to fascists to regroup and continue attacks ahead of the European elections.”

He said operatives of the far-right, ultra-nationalist party still ran branches in Thessaloniki despite it being officially disbanded.

Michaloliakos, an anti-vaxxer who spent a large part of his imprisonment in a rehabilitation clinic after becoming seriously ill during the coronavirus pandemic, was sentenced at the end of a landmark trial to 13-and-a-half years in jail for crimes ranging from violent attacks on immigrants, to weapons offences and the murder of an anti-fascist musician.

Greek media reported his release application had been vigorously opposed by a state prosecutor. The magistrate had argued that despite meeting the criterion of serving three fifths of his jail term, once pre-trial detention was taken into account, the 67-year-old showed no remorse for his actions and should not be set free.

The discharge, agreed by a judicial council in the central town of Lamia, stipulated that Michaloliakos was banned from fraternising with other far-right activists and would have to present himself at a local police station once a month. He was also forbidden from leaving the greater Athens region of Attica.

Golden Dawn rose to prominence during Greece’s near decade-long debt crisis, drawing support from segments of the population who were hit hard by austerity measures that successive governments were forced to enact in exchange for bailout loans from the EU and the International Monetary Fund. At the height of its power, the extremists were the nation’s third-biggest political force, with 18 seats in parliament.

Golden Dawn hit squads sowed such terror on the streets the party was branded Europe’s most violent neo-fascist group. Gangs, often riding motorbikes, dressed in black and wielding batons, knuckledusters and worse, actively sought out and targeted enemies, real and perceived, starting with immigrants and leftists.

Tellingly, far-right parties elsewhere steered clear of the Greek neo-Nazis.

Analysts expressed surprise at the speed with which Michaloliakos’ request for release had been handled. The disgraced leader returned home as the Greeks marked Holy Week, in the run-up to Orthodox Easter this weekend.

after newsletter promotion

“What needs to be asked is whether the criteria that would apply for any other leader of a criminal organisation were applied in this case,” said Kostis Papaioannou, the director of Signal, a research centre tracking the far right. “There’s not a chance in a million that if Michaloliakos were a convicted leader of an armed group of the far left he would be freed like this.”

The move came days after Greece’s supreme court banned another extremist party, the Spartans, from contesting next month’s European elections, arguing the organisation, which has 11 MPs, “aims at the weakening and demise of the democratic political system, particularly through the use of violence or incitement to violence”.

Several of its deputies face charges of electoral fraud, with the fate of the Spartans’ parliamentary group expected to be decided soon by a special court.

“As in other European countries, the far right and its political ideas are gaining traction in Greece,” noted the veteran leftwing author and Golden Dawn expert Dimitris Psarras. “But Golden Dawn does not have any real power or political expression and Michaloliakos is a spent force. His release does not spell danger for Greece.”

Most viewed