Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 29, 2024 Mon
Time: 11:54 pm
Time: 11:54 pm
Results for life imprisonment
26 results foundAuthor: Weisberg, Robert Title: Life in Limbo: An Examination of Parole Release for Prisoners Serving Life Sentences with the Possibility of Parole in California Summary: In recent years, California’s prison system has been under federal judicial control because of severe overcrowding, which partly results from the recycling of revoked inmates under parole supervision. The federal litigation has cast a sharp focus on the mandatory parole system created by the 1976 Determinate Sentencing Law and viewed as the legal mechanism by which this recycling has developed. But far too little attention has been given to the prison population serving life sentences with the possibility of parole under older indeterminate sentencing principles, a population that as of 2010 represents a fifth of California state prisoners. More than 32,000 inmates comprise the “lifer” category, i.e., inmates who are eligible to be considered for release from prison after screening by the parole board to determine when and under what condition. (This group of prisoners is distinct from the much smaller population of 4,000 individuals serving life sentences without the possibility of parole (LWOP)). The goal of this project is to examine in empirical detail (a) the lifer population, covering key details of its demographics, and (b) the processes by which lifers are considered for release, including an examination of historical trends in grant and denial rates, the recidivism record of released inmates, and legal and policy analysis of the specific mechanisms of the parolee hearing process. Despite the importance of the lifer population in terms of its size and the major legal and policy changes that have occurred to the parole process for lifers in the last several years, little research has yet been devoted to this topic. This is the first in a series of reports the Stanford Criminal Justice Center (SCJC) will be issuing on this topic. It describes the scope of the population of prisoners serving life sentences with the possibility of parole, as well as the process by which they are considered for release. It also includes initial analysis from our research examining Board of Parole Hearings transcripts the factors that might correlate with grant and denial decisions. Finally, this report identifies important research questions we are now pursuing. Details: Stanford, CA: Stanford Criminal Justice Center, 2011. 30p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 23, 2011 at: http://www.law.stanford.edu/display/images/dynamic/publications_pdf/SCJC%20Lifer%20Parole%20Release%20Sept%202011.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.law.stanford.edu/display/images/dynamic/publications_pdf/SCJC%20Lifer%20Parole%20Release%20Sept%202011.pdf Shelf Number: 122807 Keywords: Life ImprisonmentLife SentenceLife Without ParoleLifersParoleSentencing (California) |
Author: Nellis, Ashley Title: The Lives of Juvenile Lifers: Findings from a National Survey Summary: The United States stands alone worldwide in imposing sentences of life without parole on juveniles. The U.S. achieved this unique position by slowly and steadily dismantling founding principles of the juvenile justice system. Today a record number of people are serving juvenile life without parole (JLWOP) sentences in the U.S. for crimes committed before their 18th birthday. Sentences of life without parole are often erroneously believed to translate to a handful of years in prison followed by inevitable release. The reality is that a life without parole sentence means that the individual will die in prison. This report provides a new perspective on the population of individuals serving life sentences without parole for crimes committed in their youth. It represents the findings of a comprehensive investigation into this population that includes a firstever national survey of juvenile lifers. Through this effort we obtained in-depth information from these individuals about their life experiences prior to their conviction, as well as descriptions of their lives while incarcerated. The findings are sobering, and should become an element of policy discussion regarding this extreme punishment. Details: Washington, DC: The Sentencing Project, 2012. 47p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 2, 2012 at: http://sentencingproject.org/doc/publications/jj_The_Lives_of_Juvenile_Lifers.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://sentencingproject.org/doc/publications/jj_The_Lives_of_Juvenile_Lifers.pdf Shelf Number: 124336 Keywords: Juvenile DetentionJuvenile Offenders (U.S.)Life ImprisonmentSentencing, Juveniles |
Author: American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan Title: Basic Decency: Protecting t5he Human Rights of Children Summary: Six years ago, through polling and focus groups, citizens of Michigan were asked this question: “How should we treat Michigan youth involved in homicide crimes?” People weighed the importance of just punishment, the need for public safety, and also considered their social responsibility to the troubled youth involved in the crime. Results revealed that these Michigan residents were deeply concerned that the most severe sentence our state laws can impose on an adult who commits murder is likewise imposed on a child who did not. They were also uncomfortable to learn that Michigan’s current laws do not allow a jury or a judge to consider a juvenile’s age, abusive upbringing, troubled environment, lack of maturity, or their potential for rehabilitation before imposing adult punishment. Most of those polled were unaware that hundreds of adolescents in our state, some as young as 14, have been sentenced to die in prison without an opportunity to demonstrate their remorse, show their potential for rehabilitation, or prove that they pose no risk to society. The 2006 polling revealed strong public opposition to our current laws, which require sentencing all young people between the ages of 14 and 17, who are convicted of an offense involving a first-degree homicide, to spend the rest of their lives in adult prison without any opportunity for parole. When faced with the issue, people in Michigan strongly supported eliminating the life without parole sentence for juveniles.1 They recognized the distinct differences between adults and developing adolescents, and supported sentencing practices that would protect youthful offenders from the adult consequences of their decisions.2 In 2008 a bipartisan majority of the Michigan House of Representatives passed legislation that would end Michigan’s practice of sentencing young people under the age of 18 to life without parole. The Michigan Senate Judiciary Committee refused to release these bills for a vote and the laws mandating this punishment remain in place. Introduction To date, 376 young people have been sentenced to life without the possibility of parole in Michigan. Only one other state has more. In recent years, editorials in major media outlets have called for, at minimum, judicial discretion in sentencing. Some legislators who initially favored this punishment for youth have since called for reform. Former Representative Burton Leland, a Democrat from Detroit, repudiating his initial support of the 1995 Juvenile Justice Reform Act explained, “We wanted to let thugs know that they can’t hide behind their mother’s apron. Now, 25 years later, I think locking youthful offenders up for life is ridiculous.” 3 Prosecutors, who are central opponents of juvenile life without parole reform, often make the argument of “adult time for adult crime.” However, most adults do not spend the rest of their lives in prison for comparable homicide crimes because prosecutors have full discretion to offer plea bargains of a lesser sentence to those adults charged with homicide crimes. Even where children are offered plea bargains, they are at a significant disadvantage in negotiating these same pleas. In fact, young people in Michigan are more likely to receive longer sentences than adults for comparable offenses. This report examines the arguments for and against reforming Michigan’s laws that mandate a life without parole sentence for youth involved in certain homicide crimes. It addresses the disadvantages children face in the adult criminal justice system and analyzes the data resulting from the implementation of this sentence. This report also explores the fiscal and human costs of sentencing a young person to life without parole (LWOP) in Michigan. Details: Detroit, MI: ACLU of Michigan, 2012. 44p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 16, 2012 at: http://www.aclumich.org/sites/default/files/file/BasicDecencyReport2012.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://www.aclumich.org/sites/default/files/file/BasicDecencyReport2012.pdf Shelf Number: 125310 Keywords: HomicideJuvenile Offenders (Michigan)Life ImprisonmentLife SentenceLife Without Parole, JuvenilesSentencing, Juveniles |
Author: Northern Ireland Criminal Justice Inspection Title: The Management of life and Indeterminate Sentence Prisoners in Northern Ireland Summary: The management of life sentence prisoners is essential for public protection and public confidence in the criminal justice system. It is important that life sentence prisoners are subject to thorough assessment and testing before they can be considered for release as they have been convicted of the most serious offences. This inspection examined progress in implementing the recommendations of Criminal Justice Inspection Northern Ireland’s 2009 review1 of how life prisoners were prepared for release. We also assessed the Probation Board for Northern Ireland’s (PBNI) supervision of released life prisoners in the community. The 2009 CJI review made a total of 18 recommendations: 13 for the Northern Ireland Prison Service (NIPS) and five for the Parole Commissioners for Northern Ireland (PCNI). There were no recommendations for the PBNI. This inspection does not revisit matters that were addressed in CJI’s recent report on corporate governance in the Parole Commissioners.2 It does however, deal with the administration of the PCNI’s business and their operational engagement with other agencies. On this occasion Inspectors found strengths in a number of important areas. They were as follows: • the legislative basis for managing indeterminate sentenced prisoners in Northern Ireland was good, and had been informed by serious pitfalls that arose in England and Wales. The PBNI and the PCNI had comprehensive rules and standards to guide Probation Officers and Parole Commissioners in the detail of their work; • the NIPS had improved their response across a number of areas, including: - the NIPS arrangements for indeterminate sentence prisoners to progress and regress within the prison system were more systematic and transparent than in 2008; and - a dedicated lifer house at Maghaberry Prison was providing a better environment for many of the prisoners held there; • the Parole Commissioners administration and operational level contact with criminal justice agencies was much improved. This was leading to better case management; and • life licensees were being carefully supervised in the community by the PBNI. The inspection report did find a number of areas for improvement: • the NIPS Prisoner Assessment Unit (PAU) had serious problems and needed fundamental re-design. No effective action had been taken in respect of previous NIPS internal reviews or inspection recommendations into the PAU, and it was suspended in April 2011 when things reached crisis point. A pre-release scheme based at a step-down facility is a very important element of preparing life prisoners for release and continuing suspension of the PAU was a major problem; • current methods of delivering psychology services within the NIPS were not greatly valued. There were not enough psychologists to undertake all the forensic assessments, and while Offending Behaviour Programme (OBP) delivery had improved, external substitution was required and was proving costly; • there was scope to further develop prison lifer regimes, for example, for staff to actively engage with lifers at an earlier stage in their sentence, to better identify and respond to the needs of potential lifers, and to transfer more lifers to Magilligan Prison; and • the PBNI needed better access to victims’ relatives in order to offer a valuable service. This report makes a total of 14 recommendations. The three main strategic recommendations are for the NIPS and others to urgently establish a new step-down facility for lifers; to reconfigure the respective roles of the PBNI and the NIPS psychology; and to improve delivery of OBPs in the prisons. If properly implemented these should significantly enhance the quality of risk management and prisoner resettlement, while also delivering financial savings. While there were areas in which operational practice can be significantly improved, CJI’s overall conclusion is that indeterminate sentence prisoners were being well-managed in Northern Ireland, both in prison and while under supervision in the community. The improvements we recommend should be quite manageable in a small jurisdiction which has singular prison, probation and parole organisations. Details: Belfast: Criminal Justice Inspection Northern Ireland, 2012. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 9, 2012 at: http://www.dojni.gov.uk/de/index/ni-prison-service/nips-publications/nips-cjini-inspection-reports/cjini-report---the-management-of-life-and-indeterminate-sentence-prisoners-in-northern-ireland-july-2012.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.dojni.gov.uk/de/index/ni-prison-service/nips-publications/nips-cjini-inspection-reports/cjini-report---the-management-of-life-and-indeterminate-sentence-prisoners-in-northern-ireland-july-2012.pdf Shelf Number: 125521 Keywords: Life ImprisonmentLife SentencesPrisonersPunishmentSentencing (Northern Ireland) |
Author: Barykbayeva, Indira Title: The abolition of the death penalty and its alternative sanction in Central Asia: Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan Summary: The death penalty is the ultimate cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment. It represents an unacceptable denial of human dignity and integrity. It is irrevocable, and where criminal justice systems are open to error or discrimination, the death penalty will inevitably be inflicted on the innocent. In many countries that retain the death penalty there is a wide scope of application which does not meet the minimum safeguards, and prisoners on death row are often detained in conditions which cause physical and/or mental suffering. The challenges within the criminal justice system do not end with the institution of a moratorium or with abolition of the death penalty, as the problem of what to do with the most serious offenders remain. Many countries that institute moratoria do not create humane conditions for prisoners held indefinitely on ‘death row’, or substitute alternative sanctions that amount to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment, such as life imprisonment without the possibility of parole, solitary confinement for long and indeterminate periods of time, and inadequate basic physical or medical provisions. Punitive conditions of detention and less favourable treatment are prevalent for reprieved death row prisoners. Such practices fall outside international minimum standards, including those established under the EU Guidelines on the Death Penalty. This research paper focuses on the application of the death penalty and life imprisonment as an alternative to it across the Central Asia region. Its aim is to provide up to date information about the laws and practices relating to the application of the death penalty in Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan. It includes an analysis of the alternative sanctions to the death penalty, and whether they reflect international human rights standards and norms. This paper takes a country-by-country approach and focuses on: DD The legal framework of the death penalty and its alternative sanction (life imprisonment). DD Implementation of the sentence, including an analysis of fair trial standards. DD Application of the sentence, including an analysis of the method of execution, the prison regime and conditions of imprisonment. DD Statistical information on the application of the death penalty/life imprisonment. DD Criminal justice reform processes in each country. DD Abolition movement in each country. This paper provides detailed and practical recommendations tailored to each country to bring it in line with international human rights standards and norms. Details: London: Penal Reform International, 2012. 65p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 17, 2012 at: http://www.penalreform.org/files/Central%20Asia%20research%20report%20on%20death%20penalty%20and%20life%20imprisonment_ENGLISH.pdf Year: 2012 Country: Asia URL: http://www.penalreform.org/files/Central%20Asia%20research%20report%20on%20death%20penalty%20and%20life%20imprisonment_ENGLISH.pdf Shelf Number: 126063 Keywords: Capital PunishmentDeath Penalty (Central Asia)Human RightsLife Imprisonment |
Author: Haas, Gordon Title: Life Without Parole: A Reconsideration Summary: In Massachusetts, the maximum penalty for murder is life in prison without the possibility of a parole (hereinafter LWOP). Often, when murder is discussed, the most heinous or bizarre murders take center stage, as if their perpetrators, the Charles Mansons or Ted Bundys, are representative of all those serving life sentences. The nearly one thousand men and women serving LWOP in Massachusetts, however, include those who were juveniles at the time of the murder, those who participated in a joint enterprise in which another person committed the actual murder, as well as some who have served decades in prison and who no longer pose a threat to society by reason of rehabilitation and/or age. A considerable number of these thousand individuals both recognize and are repentant of the suffering they have caused, and have done the difficult work needed to transform themselves into, and become agents of, constructive change for others. There should be no gainsaying that any killing of a human being is horrendous. As with all killing, murder, the unlawful taking of a life, sows pain and suffering much beyond the immediate victim or victims. A murder rips through, and often rips apart, close families and friends of the victim, and most often does the same to the murderer’s family and friends. Murders also impact less close associates of the victim and of the offender as well; murder destroys a part of the social fabric of the broader community. It is impossible to deny these impacts. Nothing can absolve the murderer of the responsibility for the consequences of this act, as nothing can reverse that loss of life. All affected survivors are forced to come to terms with the murder, its consequences, and suffer the voids which murder creates. This process can take years, often a lifetime. That said, life is not frozen at the point of a murder. People move on, struggling to self-mend, perhaps even those who perceive themselves as to be frozen by that act. The community is better served by recognizing that movement and embracing such healing in perpetrators and their families and friends as it intends to do in the families, friends and associates of the victims. It is in that healing that the community’s social fabric can be rewoven. There is substantive literature addressing the devastation of murder and the impact on survivors. This paper only intends to address one aspect immediately impacting certain individuals—the murderers—as well as the community, which aspect has not received such attention: the punishment of life-without-parole. This paper argues for the introduction of a parole hearing after twenty-five years of incarceration for those sentenced to LWOP as a way to recognize the healing which can occur in all people, even those who have committed murder. Details: Norfolk, MA: Criminal Justice Policy Coalition, Norfolk Lifers Group, 2010. 51p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed october 9, 2012 at: http://www.realcostofprisons.org/materials/Haas_LWOP.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://www.realcostofprisons.org/materials/Haas_LWOP.pdf Shelf Number: 126652 Keywords: Life ImprisonmentLife Sentences (U.S.)Punishment |
Author: O'Hear, Michael M. Title: Not Just Kid Stuff? Extending Graham and Miller to Adults Summary: The United States Supreme Court has recently recognized new constitutional limitations on the use of life-without-parole (LWOP) sentences for juvenile offenders, but has not clearly indicated whether analogous limitations apply to the sentencing of adults. However, the Court’s treatment of LWOP as a qualitatively different and intrinsically more troubling punishment than any other sentence of incarceration does provide a plausible basis for adults to challenge their LWOP sentences, particularly when they have been imposed for nonviolent offenses or on a mandatory basis. At the same time, the Court’s Eighth Amendment reasoning suggests some reluctance to overturn sentencing practices that are in widespread use or otherwise seem to reflect deliberate, majoritarian decisionmaking. This Essay thus suggests a balancing test of sorts that may help to account for the Court’s varied Eighth Amendment decisions in noncapital cases since 1991. The Essay concludes by considering how this balancing approach might apply to the mandatory LWOP sentence established by 21 U.S.C. §841(b)(1)(A) for repeat drug offenders. Details: Milwaukee, WI: Marquette University Law School, 2013. 75p. Source: Internet Resource: Marquette Law School Legal Studies Paper No. 13-14 : Accessed May 29, 2013 at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2267595 Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2267595 Shelf Number: 128843 Keywords: Life ImprisonmentLife SentenceLife Without Parole (U.S.)Sentencing |
Author: American Civil Liberties Union Title: A Living Death: Life without Parole for Nonviolent Offenses Summary: Life in prison without a chance of parole is, short of execution, the harshest imaginable punishment. Life without parole (LWOP) is permanent removal from society with no chance of reentry, no hope of freedom. One should expect the American criminal justice system to condemn someone to die in prison only for the most serious offenses. Yet across the country, thousands of people are serving life sentences without the possibility of parole for nonviolent crimes as petty as siphoning gasoline from an 18-wheeler, shoplifting three belts, breaking into a parked car and stealing a woman's bagged lunch, or possessing a bottle cap smeared with heroin residue. In their cruelty and harshness, these sentences defy common sense. They are grotesquely out of proportion to the conduct they seek to punish. They offend the principle that all people have the right to be treated with humanity and respect for their inherent dignity. This report documents the thousands of lives ruined and families destroyed by sentencing people to die behind bars for nonviolent offenses, and includes detailed case studies of 110 such people. It also includes a detailed fiscal analysis tallying the $1.784 billion cost to taxpayers to keep the 3,278 prisoners currently serving LWOP for nonviolent offenses incarcerated for the rest of their lives. Our findings are based on extensive documentation of the cases of 646 prisoners serving LWOP for nonviolent offenses in the federal system and nine states. The data in this report is from the United States Sentencing Commission, Federal Bureau of Prisons, and state Departments of Corrections, obtained pursuant to Freedom of Information Act and open records requests filed by the ACLU. Our research is also based on telephone interviews conducted by the ACLU with prisoners, their lawyers, and family members; correspondence with prisoners serving life without parole for nonviolent offenses; a survey of 355 prisoners serving life without parole for nonviolent offenses; and media and court records searches. Details: New York: ACLU, 2013. 240p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 23, 2013 at: https://www.aclu.org/files/assets/111813-lwop-complete-report.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: https://www.aclu.org/files/assets/111813-lwop-complete-report.pdf Shelf Number: 131697 Keywords: Life ImprisonmentLife Sentence (U.S.)Life Without ParolePunishmentSentencing |
Author: Citizens Alliance on Prisons and Public Spending Title: Parolable Lifers in Michigan: paying the Price of Unchecked Discretion Summary: Hundreds of Michigan prisoners sentenced to "parolable life" terms have been eligible for release for one, two or even three decades. As a group, they are aging, low-risk and guilty of offenses comparable to those for which thousands of other people have served a term of years and been paroled. Each parole board decision to incarcerate a lifer for another five years - often based on nothing more than a single board member's review of a file - costs taxpayers roughly $200,000. Americans have certain expectations of government. In times of tight budgets and soaring costs, the one most discussed is cost-effectiveness. We want to spend as few taxpayer dollars as possible to fulfill governmental functions. We also want transparency, so we know how decisions are being made; accountability, so that decisions are subject to review and, if necessary, correction; consistency, so that outcomes are predictable and similarly situated citizens are similarly treated; and objectivity, so that decisions are based on evidence, not emotions or unsupported assumptions. The parole decision-making process for lifers violates all these norms. It is one of the few areas where a group of unelected officials has virtually unlimited power over people's lives and the public purse. Over the last few decades, a series of policy changes with no proven impact on public safety has undermined the parole process for prisoners generally and for lifers in particular. The solutions are simple and straightforward: return to practices that protected both public safety and taxpayers' pocketbooks. Details: Lansing, MI: CAPPS, 2014. 40p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 13, 2014 at: http://www.capps-mi.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Parolable-Lifers-in-Michigan-Paying-the-price-of-unchecked-discretion.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://www.capps-mi.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Parolable-Lifers-in-Michigan-Paying-the-price-of-unchecked-discretion.pdf Shelf Number: 131898 Keywords: Costs of ImprisonmentDecision-MakingJudgesLife ImprisonmentLife Sentence ParoleParole Board |
Author: Lerner, Craig S. Title: Life Without Parole as a Conflicted punishment Summary: Life without parole (LWOP) has displaced the death penalty as the distinctive American punishment. Although the sentence scarcely exists in Europe, roughly 40,000 inmates are serving LWOP in America today. Despite its prevalence, the sentence has received little academic scrutiny. This has begun to change, a development sparked by a pair of Supreme Court cases, Graham v. Florida (2010) and Miller v. Alabama (2012), which express European-styled reservations with America's embrace of LWOP. Both opinions, like the nascent academic commentary, lament the irrevocability of the sentence and the expressive judgment purportedly conveyed-that a human being is so incorrigible that the community brands him with the mark of Cain and banishes him forever from our midst. In the tamer language of the Graham opinion, LWOP "forswears altogether the rehabilitative ideal." This Article tests whether that phrase is a fair characterization of LWOP today, and concludes that the Graham Court's treatment of LWOP captures only a partial truth. Life without parole, the Article argues, is a conflicted punishment. The community indulges its thirst for revenge when imposing the sentence, but over time softer impulses insinuate themselves. LWOP is in part intended as a punishment of incalculable cruelty, more horrible than a prison term of many years, and on par with or worse than death itself. In practice, however, LWOP also emerges as a softer punishment, accommodating a concern for the inmate's humanity and a hope for his rehabilitation. Details: Arlington, VA: George Mason University School of Law, 2013. 76p. Source: Internet Resource: George Mason University Law and Economics Research Paper Series, 13-50: Accessed March 17, 2014 at: http://www.law.gmu.edu/assets/files/publications/working_papers/1350LifeWithoutParole.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.law.gmu.edu/assets/files/publications/working_papers/1350LifeWithoutParole.pdf Shelf Number: 131947 Keywords: Life ImprisonmentLife SentenceLife Without Parole |
Author: Nellis, Ashley Title: Life Goes On: The Historic Rise in Life Sentences in America Summary: n recent years, states around the country have been reconsidering the value of using incarceration as the primary tool for responding to criminal behavior. After a decades-long surge, modest declines in prison populations are now occurring nationally and various state legislatures have reformed sentencing laws that reduce the incarceration of people convicted of certain offenses. In 2011 and 2012, this led to 17 states closing some of their prisons. Despite these developments, the number of prisoners serving life sentences continues to grow even while serious, violent crime has been declining for the past 20 to correlate with increasingly lengthy sentences. This report details the rise of the lifer population in America's prisons, now standing at nearly 160,000, with almost 50,000 people serving life sentences without parole (LWOP). In order to comprehensively assess trends in the use of life imprisonment we undertook a survey of persons serving life sentences in the corrections systems in all 50 states and the Federal Bureau of Prisons during 2012. We sought to obtain data on the number of persons serving such sentences, demographic characteristics, type of offense, and trends in the use of life sentences over time. The lifer population has more than quadrupled in size since 1984. One in nine people in prison is now serving While release could be attained through a successful application for executive clemency, this mechanism for release is rarely utilized. In our 2009 report, No Exit: The Expanding Use of Life Sentences in America, we noted that there were 41,095 people serving LWOP sentences and a total of 140,610 people serving life sentences nationally. Some state departments of corrections have revised these numbers slightly since our last report. The updated numbers are provided.a life sentence and nearly a third of lifers will never have a chance at a parole hearing; they are certain to die in prison. This analysis documents long-term trends in the use of life imprisonment as well as providing empirical details for the offenses that comprise the life-sentenced population. KEY FINDINGS - As of 2012, there were 159,520 people serving life sentences, an 11.8% rise since 2008. - One of every nine individuals in prison is serving a life sentence. - The population of prisoners serving life without parole (LWOP) has risen more sharply than those with the possibility of parole: there has been a 22.2% increase in LWOP since just 2008, an increase from 40,1745 individuals to 49,081. - Approximately 10,000 lifers have been convicted of nonviolent offenses. - Nearly half of lifers are African American and 1 in 6 are Latino. - More than 10,000 life-sentenced inmates have been convicted of crimes that occurred before they turned 18 and nearly 1 in 4 of them were sentenced to LWOP. - More than 5,300 (3.4%) of the life-sentenced inmates are female. Details: Washington, DC: The Sentencing Project, 2013. 30p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 7, 2014 at: http://sentencingproject.org/doc/publications/inc_Life%20Goes%20On%202013.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://sentencingproject.org/doc/publications/inc_Life%20Goes%20On%202013.pdf Shelf Number: 130017 Keywords: IncarcerationLife ImprisonmentLife SentencePrisonersPunishmentRacial Disparities |
Author: Clifford, Jenney Lee Title: Managing a Murderous Identity: How Men Who Murder Experience Life Imprisonment and the Concept of Release Summary: In 1965 capital punishment for murder was abolished in the UK. The Mandatory Life Sentence (MLS) replaced it. The MLS is to this day a political sentence. This thesis examines the MLS in terms of law, policy, practice and management, and, considers through the discourse of prisoners and staff how men who murder experience life imprisonment and the concept of release. My research draws on in depth interviews with 18 prisoners who had experience of life in open conditions and 10 professionals. This thesis contributes to our understanding of the impact of long-term imprisonment, indeterminacy and the management of a murderous identity within open conditions and the community. Analysis of the data indicates that prisoners ascription of identities is based on their perceptions of the nature of the offence, risk, guilt and the appropriateness of the MLS. The prisoners through the implementation of spoiled, co-existing and intersecting identities mediated the impact of the MLS. The research also indicates that prisoner experience of life in closed prison did little to prepare them for the reality of open prison and life in the community. As they near the end of the sentence identities produced to cope with imprisonment become redundant. On or near release the challenge for them became how to implement and/or manage co-existing identities. My study considers how the MLS can be perceived as differentiating the prisoner from other indeterminate prisoners historically in terms of policy, in staff and prisoners perceptions of practice and the MLS prisoners reflections on their own identities. The findings also bring into question current policy and practice within open conditions and the opportunities available for MLS prisoners nearing release. Details: Bath, UK: University of Bath, 2010. 312p. Source: Internet Resource: Dissertation: Accessed July 18, 2014 at: http://opus.bath.ac.uk/27501/1/UnivBath_PhD_2010_J_Clifford_iii.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://opus.bath.ac.uk/27501/1/UnivBath_PhD_2010_J_Clifford_iii.pdf Shelf Number: 132714 Keywords: Indeterminate Sentencing Life ImprisonmentLife Sentence Murder (U.K.) Murderers Prisoners |
Author: Smith, Erin Foley Title: Challenging Juvenile Life Without Parole: How Has Human Rights Made A Difference? Summary: Human rights standards and strategies play an important role in social justice legal advocacy in the United States. Human rights help frame new arguments, offer new venues for challenging existing policies and practices, provide opportunities for coalition-building, and afford new means to bring attention to rights violations. One example of human rights strategies at work in the U.S. is found in advocates' efforts to end a practice unique to the United States: sentencing juveniles to life in prison without the possibility of parole. In forty-two states in the United States, a child who commits a crime can be sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. There are currently approximately 2,500 individuals serving life sentences for crimes they committed when they were below eighteen years of age. For years, advocates have been working to end this practice, which is typically called juvenile life without parole, or "JLWOP." In the past ten years, human rights strategies have played an important role in challenging states' use of the sentence. Human rights have contributed to increased media attention on the issue, two U.S. Supreme Court decisions limiting the practice, and legislative changes at the state level. This case study, based on interviews with a number of advocates working to end the practice, explores how human rights standards and strategies have helped to advance advocacy strategies to end JLWOP. Details: New York: Columbia University School of Law, Human Rights Institute, 2014. 26p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 23, 2014 at: http://web.law.columbia.edu/sites/default/files/microsites/human-rights-institute/files/jwlop_case_study_final_0.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://web.law.columbia.edu/sites/default/files/microsites/human-rights-institute/files/jwlop_case_study_final_0.pdf Shelf Number: 132743 Keywords: Juvenile DetentionJuvenile OffendersLife ImprisonmentLife Sentences |
Author: Child Rights International Network Title: Inhuman Sentencing: Life Imprisonment of Children Around the World Summary: In 2010 CRIN, with other partners, launched a campaign for the prohibition of inhuman sentencing of children - defined to include sentences of death, life imprisonment and corporal punishment. Frustrated by the narrow focus on life imprisonment without parole within the children's rights community, CRIN published a report on life imprisonment in the Commonwealth in 2012, highlighting the prevalence of life imprisonment throughout the Commonwealth States and the different forms that life sentences could take. This report was followed up in 2013 with a report on life sentences for children in the European Union. Life imprisonment sentences cover a diverse range of practices, from the most severe form of life imprisonment without parole, in which a person is sentenced to die in prison so long as their sentence stands, to more indeterminate sentences in which at the time of sentencing it is not clear how long the sentenced person will spend in prison. What all of these sentences have in common, however, is that at the time the sentence is passed, a person is liable to be detained for the rest of his or her natural life. International human rights standards universally condemn life imprisonment without parole for children, and now the United States is the only State which continues to sentence children to this form of extreme sentencing. This focus on the worst forms of the sentence, however, has disguised the practice of less severe or overt forms of life imprisonment. The United Nations has begun to look at life imprisonment of children more generally and in November 2012, the General Assembly urged States to consider repealing all forms of life imprisonment for children. The Human Rights Council, meanwhile, has called on States twice to prohibit life imprisonment of children in law and practice. Nonetheless, 73 States retain life imprisonment as a penalty for offences committed while under the age of 18 and a further 49 permit sentences of 15 years or longer and 90 for 10 years or longer. Life imprisonment and lengthy prison sentences for child offenders are not the preserve of a diminishing few, they can be found in the criminal laws of the majority of States. CRIN is concerned that States are handing out lengthy sentences to children, yet international condemnation is often limited to life imprisonment without parole and the death penalty. It is essential - indeed long overdue - to widen the focus and challenge any sentence which, at the time it is passed, a child is liable to be detained for the rest of his or her natural life. It is also time to look at laws permitting the lengthy detention of children, which fall short of the standards set by the Convention on the Rights of the Child. CRIN, with other commentators, believes that the only justification for the detention of a child should be that the child has been assessed as posing a serious risk to public safety. Courts should only be able to authorise a short maximum period of detention after which the presumption of release from detention would place the onus on the State to prove that considerations of public safety justify another short period of detention. The same principles should apply to pre-trial detention. This report serves to highlight the prevalence and the plurality of laws permitting life imprisonment for children, laws that potentially condemn children to die in prison, and hopes to lead to reviews of the sentencing of children to ensure they are fully compliant with the CRC and other instruments. CRIN believes that life imprisonment, of any type, does not have a place in juvenile justice. Details: London: Child Rights International Network, 2015. 48p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 26, 2015 at: https://www.crin.org/sites/default/files/life_imprisonment_report_final.pdf Year: 2015 Country: International URL: https://www.crin.org/sites/default/files/life_imprisonment_report_final.pdf Shelf Number: 135059 Keywords: Juvenile Detention Juvenile Offenders Life Imprisonment Life SentencesSentencing, Juveniles |
Author: Berry, William W., III Title: Life-with-Hope Sentencing: The Argument for Replacing Life-Without-Parole Sentences with Presumptive Life Sentences Summary: The United States has over 41,000 people serving life-without-parole (LWOP) sentences. It is a phenomenon unparalleled in the history of the world. This rise is attributable to a strange confluence of (1) the increasing use of LWOP as an alternative to the death penalty, (2) abolition of parole by states as part of truth-in-sentencing reforms, and (3) the rise in mandatory minimum sentences, particularly related to sale and distribution of illegal drugs. Nowhere has a state or federal government examined the appropriateness of LWOP sentences or developed a framework to assess whether an offender warrants such a sentence. Given the historical thoughtlessness of determining who receives this serious punishment and the wild increase in such sentences, LWOP sentences clearly need reform. This Article attempts to address this epidemic by demonstrating the shortcomings of LWOP and proposing an alternative sentencing model for serious offenders. This Article, then, argues for the abolition of LWOP sentences. Specifically, the human rights implications of such sentences, the speculative nature of such sentences, and the presence of other sufficient alternatives provide justification for the abandoning of LWOP sentences. Instead, this Article advocates for the adoption of presumptive life sentences as an alternative to LWOP. In Part I, the Article describes the current LWOP crisis. Part II of this Article makes the case for abolishing LWOP sentences. Finally, in Part III, the Article proposes the adoption of presumptive life sentences as a feasible alternative to life without parole, and demonstrates how such sentences can replace LWOP and end the LWOP epidemic. Details: University, MS: University of Mississippi School of Law, 2015. 38p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 20, 2015 at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2567963 Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2567963 Shelf Number: 135306 Keywords: Life ImprisonmentLife Sentences Life Without Parole (U.S.) Punishment Sentencing |
Author: Corrington, David L. Title: Life without Parole for Juvenile Offenders: Questions of Legality and Adolescent Culpability. Summary: Life without parole for juvenile offenders is a controversial issue across the globe. Recently, the United States stands alone as the only country in the world that allows juvenile offenders to be sentenced to life time confinement without the possibility of parole. Furthermore, the U.S. has seen an increase in juvenile waivers and blended sentences, which has resulted in harsher penalties for juvenile offenders who have committed serious and violent crimes. This analysis examines scientific evidence that shows juveniles are different from adults in terms of brain development, rational decision making abilities, and maturity levels. These findings have questioned the reasoning behind imposing adult punishment on adolescent behavior. This analysis also presents the legal arguments suggesting that juvenile life without parole is unconstitutional and violates the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. Arguments for and against life sentences were also presented. This study concludes with a discussion of policy implications, whether the U.S. Supreme Court should abolish juvenile life without parole sentencing practices and explores the possible future direction of juvenile sentencing in the United States. Details: Denton, TX: University of North Texas, 2010. 80p. Source: Internet Resource: Master's Thesis: Accessed April 23, 2015 at: http://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc31530/m2/1/high_res_d/thesis.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc31530/m2/1/high_res_d/thesis.pdf Shelf Number: 135372 Keywords: Juvenile Offenders Life ImprisonmentLife Without Parole |
Author: Great Britain. Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Probation Title: A joint inspection of Life Sentence Prisoners Summary: Although life sentenced prisoners have committed the most serious crimes, most will be released at some point. The public, therefore, have a right to expect that this will not happen unless they can be safely managed within the community and that they will be effectively supervised and monitored. Being sentenced to an indeterminate period of imprisonment brings a unique dimension to incarceration, since it removes the certainty of release on a given date in the future. One of the key transitional phases in the life sentence is the move from the confines of closed prison to the relative freedom of open conditions. It is the stepping stone that leads towards an eventual return to the community. This inspection focused on that crucial period, given its huge importance for the prisoner, along with the equally significant release on life licence. We were interested in how well life sentence prisoners were supported in moving to open prison, preparing for release, reducing risk of harm and likelihood of reoffending, maintaining family and community links and resettling into society. Perhaps because of the length of time already spent in prison, assumptions were often made that life sentence prisoners knew all about 'the system'. This led to an underestimation in the amount of help and advice they needed, for example to prepare for moves to open prison or for Parole Board hearings. They tended to be treated very much the same as other prisoners, with little attention being given to their particular circumstances or to the importance of retaining family ties in order to support their eventual rehabilitation. As a result, some life sentence prisoners were able to serve their sentence with relatively little challenge to their attitudes and behaviour. Once in open conditions, preparation for release relied heavily upon release on temporary licence. The quality of offender assessments left room for improvement, particularly those completed in custody, and confusion abounded about who was responsible for completing these assessments at key times in the life sentence. Sentence planning was weak, in both prison and the community, and offender managers struggled to design meaningful objectives for those who appeared to have done all required work in custody. Nonetheless, the vast majority of those on life licence formed positive relationships with their offender managers, did not reoffend and, despite the stigma of the life sentence, were able to lead useful and productive lives after release. This inspection highlights the importance of both the work undertaken with the prisoner throughout their sentence to address their behaviour and the need for effective joint work between the prison and community to plan and prepare for safe release. This complementary balance is essential for rehabilitation and should inform the successful implementation of Transforming Rehabilitation. This report contains a number of recommendations to achieve this end. Details: London: Criminal Justice Joint Inspection, 2013. 73p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 2, 2015 at: http://socialwelfare.bl.uk/subject-areas/services-client-groups/adult-offenders/criminaljusticejointinspection/158393life-sentence-prisoners.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://socialwelfare.bl.uk/subject-areas/services-client-groups/adult-offenders/criminaljusticejointinspection/158393life-sentence-prisoners.pdf Shelf Number: 129971 Keywords: Life ImprisonmentLife SentencingPrisonersRehabilitation |
Author: Mills, John R. Title: No Hope: Re-examining Lifetime Sentences for Juvenile Offenders Summary: In a handful of U.S. counties, teenagers are still being sentenced to a lifetime in prison with no chance of release. This harsh and increasingly isolated practice falls disproportionately on black and Hispanic youth and is a remnant of an earlier period of punitiveness based on an unfounded prediction of a new class of superpredators that never actually materialized. While the use of this sentence has dramatically declined in recent years, it continues to be practiced in a relatively small number of jurisdictions. The Supreme Court now has the opportunity to declare juvenile life without parole a cruel and unusual punishment, far outside our standards of decency in the twenty-first century. In Miller v. Alabama, the Court took the first step by forbidding mandatory sentences of life without parole for homicide offenses committed by juveniles (JLWOP). The opinion, however, left open the question of whether the Eighth Amendment prohibits the imposition of life without parole upon juveniles entirely. That question, the constitutionality of life without parole sentences for juvenile offenders, is being presented to the Court in two cases. In one case to be argued in October, the Court will consider whether its earlier rulings on this subject apply to past cases and not just cases going forward. A brief offered by the Charles Hamilton Institute for Race and Justice urges the Court to tackle the constitutional question of whether the punishment should stand at all. In another case, an inmate serving a JLWOP sentence has directly presented the question: "Does the Eighth Amendment prohibit sentencing a child to life without possibility of parole?" This report examines the key evidence for answering the question of whether there is now a national consensus against juvenile life without parole. To make this assessment, the Court generally examines legislative enactments and actual sentencing practices. This report catalogs the rapid abandonment of JLWOP, both legislatively and in terms of actual use. Although JLWOP dramatically expanded between 1992 and 1999 - an era of hysteria over juvenile super-predatorssince Miller states have rapidly abandoned JLWOP in law and practice. Nine states have abolished JLWOP after Miller, bringing the current number of jurisdictions completely banning the sentence to fifteen. California and Florida, two of the most frequent users of the sentence, have dramatically limited the reach of JLWOP by restricting its application to a narrow set of circumstances. Moreover, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Washington have abolished JLWOP for a category of offenders. This pace of abolition far outstrips those that occurred in the years prior to the high Court's rulings that the executions of juveniles and the intellectually disabled are unconstitutional. This report provides an in-depth analysis of state and county JLWOP sentencing practices. At the state level, just nine states account for over eighty percent of all JLWOP sentences. A single county, Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania, is responsible for nearly ten percent of all JLWOP sentences nationwide. Orleans Parish, Louisiana, has tenfold the number of JLWOP sentences as its population would suggest. Five counties account for more than one fifth of all JLWOP sentences. JLWOP, in practice, is isolated in a handful of outlier jurisdictions. Finally, state sentencing practices also show marked racial disparities in JLWOP's administration. Starting in 1992, the beginning of the super-predator era, a black juvenile offender would be twice as likely to receive a JLWOP sentence as his white counterpart. The disproportionate application of the punishment on juveniles of color is stark. All of Texas's JLWOP sentences were imposed on persons of color. Pennsylvania has imposed it eighty percent of the time on persons of color. There is now a growing consensus against JLWOP, calling into question its constitutionality. The policy's suspect origins and disparate implementation require rigorous examination to determine whether it serves any legitimate penological purpose. Details: Durham, NC: Phillips Black Project, 2015. 16p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 8, 2015 at: http://static1.squarespace.com/static/55bd511ce4b0830374d25948/t/5600cc20e4b0f36b5caabe8a/1442892832535/JLWOP+2.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://static1.squarespace.com/static/55bd511ce4b0830374d25948/t/5600cc20e4b0f36b5caabe8a/1442892832535/JLWOP+2.pdf Shelf Number: 136976 Keywords: Juvenile OffendersJuvenile SentencingLife ImprisonmentLife SentenceLife Without ParoleMinority GroupsRacial Disparities |
Author: Phillips Black Project Title: Juvenile Life Without Parole After Miller v. Alabama Summary: Across the country, we are beginning to turn the page on juvenile justice policies that are out of step with science, medicine, and common sense. They were informed by the popular myth of the juvenile superpredator. The prophesied generation of superpredators has never materialized, and the promised benefits of criminalizing childhood never arrived. The policies the myth spawned, however, remain. The results of these polices have been troubling. They created a straight line from poorly funded schools to juvenile hall and on to the institutions of adult mass incarceration. Our nation's least-advantaged children, the children of poverty, mental illness, and historically discriminated against groups, have fared the worst under these policies. Children of color have been disproportionately adjudicated as delinquents and institutionalized while their peers were far more frequently allowed to work things out without involving courts and jails. We stripped courts and prosecutors of the discretion required to provide treatment tailored to juveniles' individual needs, blinding our institutions to the reality that children are fundamentally different than adults. And we have sentenced thousands of our nation's youth to die in prison for crimes they committed before they were old enough to vote. The time for change has come. Courts and legislatures are rejecting the most extreme policies that were the product of this era. The use of life without parole sentences for children is waning. Solitary confinement for children is ending. Legislators are promulgating laws permitting courts and prosecutors to treat children differently than adults. And courts are now being required to exercise discretion in light of the unique aspects of the individual child before imposing the most severe sentences authorized for juveniles. This report focuses on this last development. The report catalogues how U.S. jurisdictions have responded to the Supreme Courts mandate to provide individualized sentencing of juveniles before sentencing them to life without possibility of parole. Even as we developed this report, states abandoned the practice of sentencing children to die in prison. We hope that the applicability of this report to juvenile life without parole sentencing will continue to decrease as juvenile life without parole sentences become exceedingly rare. However, we have focused on this mandate because it is premised on the need for individualized consideration at sentencing. We are each more than the worst thing we have ever done, a reality particularly salient for impetuous youth. When sentencing judges are able to consider a juvenile for who that person is as a unique individual and are able to tailor treatment accordingly, the mythical superpredator disappears, and a juvenile justice system very different than the one we currently have will emerge. Details: St. Louis, MO: Phillips Black Project, 2015. 106p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 20, 2015 at: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/55bd511ce4b0830374d25948/t/55f9d0abe4b0ab5c061abe90/1442435243965/Juvenile+Life+Without+Parole+After+Miller++.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/55bd511ce4b0830374d25948/t/55f9d0abe4b0ab5c061abe90/1442435243965/Juvenile+Life+Without+Parole+After+Miller++.pdf Shelf Number: 137030 Keywords: Juvenile OffendersJuvenile SentencingLife ImprisonmentLife SentenceLife Without ParoleMiller v. Alabama |
Author: Sentencing Project Title: Juvenile Life Without Parole: An Overview Summary: An overview of developments regarding Juvenile Life without Parole: An Overview encompasses the impact of the Supreme Court's recent decision in Montgomery v. Louisiana, which will sharply curtail the number of people serving life without parole sentences for offenses committed as juveniles. Approximately 2,500 people are currently serving life without parole for offenses committed as juveniles; 16 states and the District of Columbia have banned the use of the sentence for juvenile offenders. The policy brief traces a decade's worth of Supreme Court rulings, legislative responses to those rulings, and current research about teenage development and the juveniles likely impacted by the decision. Details: Washington, DC: The Sentencing Project, 2016. 5p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 17, 2016 at: http://sentencingproject.org/doc/publications/jj_Juvenile_Life_Without_Parole.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://sentencingproject.org/doc/publications/jj_Juvenile_Life_Without_Parole.pdf Shelf Number: 137877 Keywords: Juvenile OffendersLife ImprisonmentLife SentenceLife Without ParoleSentencing |
Author: Stageberg, Paul Title: Status Report: Juvenile Offenders Serving Life Sentences in Iowa Summary: Over a century ago the United States started developing and implementing juvenile courts; based upon the concept that juveniles were not as mature as adults, and were more amicable to rehabilitation. Current, ongoing research indicates that the human brain does not fully develop until the early to mid-twenties. This brain development research has been a portion of the impetus to the United States and Iowa Supreme Courts to conclude that juveniles are not as culpable as adults and that sentences for juveniles convicted of serious crimes must be individualized to take into account a youth's development and other relevant factors. While advances have been made in the understanding of brain development, scientists are urging caution when linking brain development with human behavior, as the research in this relationship continues. The U.S. Supreme Court has handed down three significant decisions regarding the sentencing of youth prosecuted in criminal (adult) courts: Roper v. Simons, Graham v. Florida, and Miller v. Alabama. Each of these decisions changed sentencing possibilities for youth convicted in criminal (adult) courts. Additionally, in 2013 the Iowa Supreme Court, in State v. Ragland, concluded that the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Miller was a substantive change and in Iowa would apply retroactively. Since 1964, there have been 48 youth in Iowa who have been sentenced to life-in-prison without the possibility of parole. Seven of those sentences were for convictions on non-homicide offenses, and the remaining 41 were for murder in the first degree. Of these, there have been four inmates released from prison, two upon their deaths, one case was overturned, and one was released on parole. In 2011, a change to the Iowa Code established a life sentence with a possibility of parole after serving a minimum of 25-years for those youth convicted of a class 'A' felony that was not a murder in the first degree. This change to the Iowa Code was in response to Graham v. Florida. In 2012 Governor Branstad commuted the sentences of the 38 persons serving life-without-parole for murder in the first degree whose offenses had been committed by offenders under age 18. This commutation order specified new sentences of life imprisonment with the possibility of parole after 60 years. The Governor's commutations were in response to Miller v. Alabama. As of this report there are currently 28 inmates who are in the process of court actions based on the Graham and Miller decisions. Additionally, one of the commuted inmates, Kristina Fetters, has been paroled to hospice after her prison term was re-sentenced. Details: Des Moines: Iowa Department of Human Rights, Division of Criminal and Juvenile Justice Planning, Statistical Analysis Center, 2014. 20p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 5, 2016 at: https://humanrights.iowa.gov/sites/default/files/media/CJJP_Status%20Report--Juvenile%20Offenders%20Serving%20Life%20Sentences%20in%20Iowa.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: https://humanrights.iowa.gov/sites/default/files/media/CJJP_Status%20Report--Juvenile%20Offenders%20Serving%20Life%20Sentences%20in%20Iowa.pdf Shelf Number: 138569 Keywords: Juvenile OffendersLife ImprisonmentLife Sentence |
Author: New South Wales. Parliament. Legislative Council. Standing Committee on Law and Justice Title: Security classification and management of inmates sentenced to life imprisonment Summary: In July 2015 it became publicly known that some inmates sentenced to life imprisonment had been reclassified to a medium or minimum security level. This became a prominent matter in the media following an outcry from the public and victims' families. The Commissioner of Corrective Services subsequently reclassified these inmates from their lower security classifications to maximum security. This inquiry was established soon afterwards to consider how lifers should be classified and whether they should have access to rehabilitation programs. Summary of recommendations Recommendation 1 32 That the NSW Government amend the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Regulation 2014 to establish a separate classification for inmates sentenced to life imprisonment with little or no prospect of release from custody that is based on the risk they pose to the community, preserves the good order of correctional facilities and ensures the safe and effective management of the inmates. Recommendation 2 32 That Corrective Services NSW develop and action a comprehensive communication strategy to educate the public on the operation of the New South Wales correctional system. Recommendation 3 44 That the NSW Department of Justice consider merging the victims registers of the Mental Health Review Tribunal, Juvenile Justice and Corrective Services NSW. Recommendation 4 45 That Corrective Services NSW trial an opt-out Victims Register for victims of inmates sentenced to life imprisonment. Recommendation 5 45 That, as part of the opt-out system at recommendation 4, Corrective Services NSW establish a policy whereby the Victims Register conduct a one-off follow up of victims of inmates sentenced to life imprisonment who have opted-out of the register to ask if the victim would like to reconsider joining the register, and that victims be informed of this policy when they initially make the decision to opt-out. Recommendation 6 49 That Corrective Services NSW establish a policy whereby, as soon as possible following sentencing, the Victims Register provide an information package to victims of inmates sentenced to life imprisonment and offer to telephone or meet with them to explain the correctional system, custodial management practices and the day-to-day life of an inmate and that it consider doing this in the presence of a counsellor. Recommendation 7 49 That Corrective Services NSW develop, in consultation with victim support groups and the Commissioner of Victims Rights, a form to be provided to victims of inmates sentenced to life imprisonment following sentencing that includes a list of matters that victims can nominate to receive updates about, and that this form also be made available to current victims of inmates sentenced to life imprisonment. Recommendation 8 55 That the NSW Government amend the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Regulation 2014 to state that, in cases where the Commissioner for Corrective Services does not adopt the recommendations of the Serious Offenders Review Council, reasons as to why the recommendations were not adopted must be provided. Recommendation 9 62 That the NSW Government consider measures to improve the capacity of the prison system to adequately house, manage and care for aged and frail inmates, including to establish designated units and areas in more correctional centres in New South Wales. Details: Sydney: NSW Parliament, 2016. 94p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 11, 2016 at: http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/committee.nsf/0/344106974ffada7bca257f8a0082b906/$FILE/Final%20Report%20-%20Security%20classification%20and%20management%20of%20inmates%20sentenced%20to%20life%20imprisonment.pdf Year: 2016 Country: Australia URL: http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/committee.nsf/0/344106974ffada7bca257f8a0082b906/$FILE/Final%20Report%20-%20Security%20classification%20and%20management%20of%20inmates%20sentenced%20to%20life%20imprisonment.pdf Shelf Number: 138627 Keywords: Inmate ClassificationInmatesLife ImprisonmentLife SentenceLifersPrisoners |
Author: Perrin, Benjamin Title: Punishing the Most Heinous Crimes: Analysis and recommendations related to Bill C-53 (Life Means Life Act) Summary: Life in prison for a first-degree murder in Canada currently doesn't mean exactly that. The longest period of ineligibility for parole is 25 years, outside cases of multiple murders. While all murders are of course deplorable, many would argue that some killings are so heinous, so offensive to the public and damaging to Canadian society, that the killers should be imprisoned for the rest of their natural lives. This would include violent predators who plan and deliberate about not only killing another human being, but do so while committing egregious crimes such as sexual assault, kidnapping, or terrorist activities. Or they involve the planned and deliberate killing of police officers or other officials tasked with keeping Canadians safe. To address this issue, the federal government has introduced Bill C-53, the Life Means Life Act, which would make life imprisonment without parole a mandatory sentence for certain heinous murders and a discretionary sentence in other instances. These lifers could apply after 35 years to the federal Cabinet for "executive release". There are legitimate reasons for adding life without parole to the Criminal Code, but there are also legitimate criticisms of Bill C-53. The legislation requires amendments if it is to achieve its stated goals without being struck down based on a challenge under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The main arguments supporting Bill C-53 are that it: enhances proportionality in murder sentencing; reflects denunciation and retribution in sentencing On the other hand, the main concerns about Bill C-53 are that it: is unnecessary and will not increase public safety; denies a second chance to convicted murderers; increases pressure on the corrections system and risk to staff and fellow inmates; includes "executive release" as an illusory hope and it is unlikely to be used in practice; and infringes the Charter. After canvassing these arguments, this paper concludes that life without parole would be appropriate and just in certain cases, but that Bill C-53 is vulnerable to being struck down for infringing the Charter as presently drafted. The following recommendations should be adopted: 1) Bill C-53 should be amended so that life without parole would be a discretionary - not a mandatory - sentencing option for heinous murders. The judge should also have the option of ordering a fixed-term parole ineligibility period of between 25 and 75 years. A jury recommendation, if it is a jury trial, should be sought in these cases. 2) The situations where Bill C-53 would currently provide for discretionary life without parole should not provide for that penalty but instead give the sentencing judge the option of ordering a fixed-term parole ineligibility period of between 25 and 75 years, with a jury recommendation where there is a jury. 3) All offenders serving life sentences with parole ineligibility periods greater than 35 years should be eligible to apply for executive release (not simply those sentenced to life without parole), up until the time that they become eligible for parole. 4) The Parole Board of Canada should provide an assessment to the Minister of Public Safety of all offenders serving a sentence of life imprisonment without parole when they apply for executive release at least 35 years after beginning to serve their sentence. 5) The purposes of Bill C-53 should be clearly articulated. Heinous murderers are not sentenced as severely as they should be in Canada and there is constitutional room to enhance their penalties. However, Bill C-53 overreaches in this effort and thus risks failing to achieve needed reform.heinous murders, which are very important sentencing principles for serious and violent crime; spares victims the ordeal of frequent and ongoing automatic parole board hearings for murderers after their parole ineligibility periods have expired; ensures the protection of victims and society; and potentially contributes to general deterrence. Details: Ottawa, ONT: Macdonald-Laurier Institute, 2015. 34p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 21, 2016 at: http://www.macdonaldlaurier.ca/files/pdf/MLI-BPerrinPunishingTheMostHeinousCrimes-05-15-WebReady-v2.pdf Year: 2015 Country: Canada URL: http://www.macdonaldlaurier.ca/files/pdf/MLI-BPerrinPunishingTheMostHeinousCrimes-05-15-WebReady-v2.pdf Shelf Number: 145612 Keywords: Life ImprisonmentLife Without ParoleMurderersPunishmentSentencingViolent Crime |
Author: United States Sentencing Commission Title: Life Sentences in the Federal System Summary: Life imprisonment sentences are rare in the federal criminal justice system. Virtually all offenders convicted of a federal crime are released from prison eventually and return to society or, in the case of illegal aliens, are deported to their country of origin. Yet in fiscal year 2013 federal judges imposed a sentence of life imprisonment without parole on 153 offenders. Another 168 offenders received a sentence of a specific term of years that was so long it had the practical effect of being a life sentence. Although together these offenders represent only 0.4 percent of all offenders sentenced that year, this type of sentence sets them apart from the rest of the offender population. This report examines life sentences in the federal system and the offenders on whom this punishment is imposed. There are numerous federal criminal statutes that authorize a life imprisonment sentence to be imposed as the maximum sentence. The most commonly used of these statutes involve drug trafficking, racketeering, and firearms crimes. Additionally, there are at least 45 statutes that require a life sentence to be imposed as the minimum penalty. These mandatory minimum penalties generally are required in cases involving the killing of a federal official or other government employee, piracy, or repeat offenses involving drug trafficking or weapons. In fiscal year 2013, 69 of the 153 offenders who received a sentence of life imprisonment were subject to a mandatory minimum penalty requiring the court to impose that sentence. Details: Washington, DC: United States Sentencing Commission, 2016. 26p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 7, 2016 at: http://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/research-and-publications/research-projects-and-surveys/miscellaneous/20150226_Life_Sentences.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/research-and-publications/research-projects-and-surveys/miscellaneous/20150226_Life_Sentences.pdf Shelf Number: 145309 Keywords: Federal PrisonersLife ImprisonmentLife Sentences Life Without Parole (U.S.) Punishment Sentencing |
Author: American Civil Liberties Union Title: False Hope: How Parole Systems Fail Youth Serving Extreme Sentences Summary: In our inflated U.S. prison system, parole is supposed to provide an incentive and a path to earn release from prison. Instead, in many states, the parole system is defective and reflexively denies release even to model prisoners who went to prison as teenagers, have already served decades in prison, and no longer pose a safety risk. After growing up in prison, atoning for their crimes, staying out of trouble, and completing all available rehabilitative programming, thousands of people who were sentenced when they were young are finding that the promise of parole is an illusion, no matter what they do to prove their worthiness for release. These young people will needlessly grow old and die behind bars when the parole system fails to do what it is intended to do: identify and release those who have worked for redemption and earned a second chance at freedom. Despite extensive research that youth who commit even serious, violent offenses age out of crime and can be rehabilitated, our nation still incarcerates tens of thousands of people who were teenagers or in their early twenties at the time of their offense and are serving life or de facto life in prison. For most of these individuals, the only real chance for release and to be reunited with their families comes from parole. However, prisoners incarcerated since their youth are routinely denied parole, long after they’ve grown, matured, atoned, and been rehabilitated, and in many cases, solely because of the crime they committed in their youth—not because of who they are now. Parole boards are charged with the ultimate decision of who to release and when, but too often, they operate in obscurity, with little guidance and too much political pressure. In many cases, decisions about release are made in a matter of minutes, without ever meeting the applicant, and with no opportunity to evaluate the individual’s record. These parole boards, composed of a handful of people tasked with tens of thousands of cases each year, have tremendous power but little incentive to grant release, even to people who are fully rehabilitated, have served decades of their sentence, and pose no risk to the community. Even for people sentenced to life in prison as juveniles, the parole grant rates are abysmally low—for example, 0.5 percent of juvenile lifers were granted parole in Florida in 2015, and in Maryland, none have been granted parole in 20 years. But despite this dismal picture, reforms to the parole system are possible and can ensure that deserving individuals, sentenced in their youth, will get a fair, meaningful chance to be released and reunited with their families. Instead of allowing these individuals to grow old and die in prison, the parole process can reward and incentivize rehabilitation and honor our moral obligation to those we send away to grow up in prison. Details: New York: ACLU, 2016. 106p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed December 2, 2016 at: https://www.aclu.org/report/report-false-hope-how-parole-systems-fail-youth-serving-extreme-sentences Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: https://www.aclu.org/report/report-false-hope-how-parole-systems-fail-youth-serving-extreme-sentences Shelf Number: 146275 Keywords: Juvenile JusticeJuvenile OffendersJuvenile ParoleJuvenile SentencingLife ImprisonmentLife SentenceLife Without Parole |
Author: Fair Punishment Project Title: Juvenile Life without Parole in Wayne County: Time to Join the Growing National Consensus? Summary: A new report released today highlights Wayne County's frequent use of juvenile life without parole (JLWOP) sentences, calling the county an "extreme outlier" in its use of the punishment. The report also criticizes D.A. Worthy's decision, which was announced Friday, to again seek life sentences for at least one out of three individuals currently serving this sentence. The report urges District Attorney Kym Worthy to adopt a new approach to dealing with juveniles in response to the U.S. Supreme Court's recent ruling in Montgomery v. Louisiana, which determined that the court's prior decision barring mandatory life without parole sentences for youth must be applied retroactively, and that the punishment is only appropriate in the rarest of cases where a juvenile is determined to be "irreparably corrupt." The report, Juvenile Life Without Parole in Wayne County: Time to Join the Growing National Consensus?, notes that Wayne County is responsible for the highest number of juvenile life without parole sentences in the country now that Philadelphia District Attorney Seth Williams has recently announced that he will not be seeking LWOP sentences for any of the individuals previously sentenced to JLWOP there. Currently there are more than 150 individuals serving JLWOP in Wayne County. While Wayne County has just 18% of the statewide population, it has at least 40% of the JLWOP sentences in the state of Michigan. Most incredibly, African-Americans are 39% of Wayne County's population, but more than 90% of the individuals serving juvenile life with parole sentences from the county are Black. D.A. Worthy's office obtained 27 JLWOP sentences during her tenure. "There is growing national consensus that life without parole is an inappropriate sentence for kids," said Rob Smith of the Fair Punishment Project. "D.A. Worthy's decision to again seek life without parole for one out of three individuals who were convicted as juveniles is completely out of line with the Supreme Court's ruling, mounting scientific research, the practices of prosecutors across the country, and years of experience that have shown us that youth are capable of change and deserve an opportunity to earn their release." The report notes that the Supreme Court has set a high bar to justify a life without parole sentence for juveniles. Given that adolescent brains are not fully developed and the capacity that children have to change, the Court rightfully assumes that it will be rare for an individual to meet the standard required for a JLWOP sentence. The report notes that D.A. Worthy's decision doesn't go nearly far enough in limiting the use of JLWOP, as it ignores mounting scientific evidence and a growing national consensus against the punishment. Details: Cambridge, MA: Fair Punishment Project, 2016. 16p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 18, 2017 at: http://fairpunishment.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/FPP-WayneCountyReport-Final.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://fairpunishment.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/FPP-WayneCountyReport-Final.pdf Shelf Number: 147383 Keywords: Juvenile Offenders Life Imprisonment Life Sentence Life Without Parole Sentencing |