Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: November 22, 2024 Fri
Time: 12:11 pm
Time: 12:11 pm
Results for life sentences
8 results foundAuthor: 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: Ratledge, Leo Title: Inhuman Sentencing: Life Imprisonment of Children in the Commonwealth Summary: This report reviews the laws of Commonwealth States with regards to life imprisonment of children: that is all persons under 18 years of age. For the purposes of this report "life imprisonment" is defined to include a variety of types of sentence under which it is possible for a person to be legally detained for life. Such sentences include: life imprisonment without parole; life impisonment with the possibility of parole; detention at the pleasure of the executive or the courts; and indefinite detention sentences. Details: London: Child Rights International Network, 2012. 45p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 6, 2012 at: http://www.crin.org/docs/Inhuman%20Setencing-1.pdf Year: 2012 Country: International URL: http://www.crin.org/docs/Inhuman%20Setencing-1.pdf Shelf Number: 125867 Keywords: Juvenile DetentionJuvenile OffendersLife Imprisonment, JuvenileLife Sentences |
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 in the European Union Summary: What is immediately obvious from reviewing the justice systems of the European Union (EU), is that life imprisonment of children is now restricted to a small number of States, but that a substantial number of children are affected by such sentences. Within three States - Cyprus, France, and the United Kingdom (including England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland) - life imprisonment remains clearly lawful for children. In 22 States, life imprisonment has now been explicitly abolished for children. While certainly something to celebrate, this statistic masks the extremely long maximum sentences that remain legal for crimes committed while under the age of 18 and the disparity in sentencing across Europe. This report reviews the laws and practices of the States within the EU with regards to life imprisonment of children; that is all persons under 18 years of age. Where official information is available on how many children are affected by the relevant sentences, this has been included, and where government figures are not maintained, this too is highlighted. For the purposes of this report, "life imprisonment" has been defined to include a variety of types of sentence under which it is possible for a person to be legally detained for the rest of his or her natural life for an offence committed whilst under the age of 18 years. Details: London: Child Rights International Network, 2014. 42p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 10, 2014 at: https://www.crin.org/sites/default/files/life_in_the_eu3.pdf Year: 2014 Country: Europe URL: https://www.crin.org/sites/default/files/life_in_the_eu3.pdf Shelf Number: 133633 Keywords: Juvenile DetentionJuvenile OffendersLife Imprisonment, Juvenile (Europe)Life 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: 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: Ghandnoosh, Nazgol Title: Delaying a Second Chance: The Declining Prospects for Parole on Life Sentences Summary: Most people serving life sentences were convicted of serious crimes. Their incarceration was intended to protect society and to provide appropriate punishment. But many were sentenced at a time when "life with the possibility of parole" meant a significantly shorter sentence than it has become today. Many remain incarcerated even though they no longer pose a public safety risk. Researchers have shown that continuing to incarcerate those who have "aged out" of their crime-prone years is ineffective in promoting public safety. Long sentences are also limited in deterring future crimes given that most people do not expect to be apprehended for a crime, are not familiar with relevant legal penalties, or criminally offend with their judgment compromised by substance abuse or mental health problems. Unnecessarily long prison terms are also costly and impede public investments in effective crime prevention, drug treatment, and other rehabilitative programs that produce healthier and safer communities. Despite this body of criminological evidence, the number of people serving life sentences has more than quadrupled since 1984—a faster rate of growth than the overall prison population. Even between 2008 and 2012, as crime rates fell to historic lows and the total prison population contracted, the number of people serving life sentences grew by 12%. By 2012, one in nine people in U.S. state and federal prisons - nearly 160,000 people were there under life sentences. Two factors have driven this growth: the increased imposition of life sentences, particularly those that are parole-ineligible,6) and an increased reluctance to grant parole to the 110,000 lifers who are eligible. This report documents the growing wait for parole among eligible lifers and identifies four factors producing longer prison terms for this population. The findings draw on a national survey in response to which 31 states and the federal government provided data for available years since 1980. The analyses reveal that a variety of policy choices and practices at the state and federal levels have caused recently paroled lifers to serve longer prison sentences than their counterparts in the past. Specifically, and as elaborated in 32 in-depth jurisdiction profiles: In South Carolina, lifers paroled in 2013 had served an average of 27.5 years in prison whereas those paroled in 1980 had served 11.6 years. In Missouri, time served among paroled lifers increased steadily from 15.0 years in 1991 to 25.2 years in 2014. In eight jurisdictions for which data are available since the 1980s, average time served by lifers with murder convictions nearly doubled from 11.6 years for those paroled in the 1980s to 23.2 years for those paroled between 2000 and 2013.8) In California, death before parole is not an uncommon outcome for lifers. A press spokesman for the corrections department has stated that "most lifers will die in prison before they get out on parole" and state records reveal that more lifers with murder convictions died in prison than were paroled between 2000 and 2011. Our examination of the 32 jurisdictions for which we were able to obtain data identifies four key drivers of the growth in prison terms for parole-eligible lifers: Legislation: Lawmakers in several states have made parole much harder to obtain by delaying when lifers can receive their initial parole consideration and by increasing the wait times for subsequent hearings after parole is denied. Gubernatorial Authority: Governors in some states have overhauled the composition of parole boards to appoint members who will reduce parole grants. In a few states, gubernatorial approval is necessary before parole boards can even review cases or for their recommendations to become final. Parole Board Decisions: Parole boards now are evaluating lifers who have served longer sentences than their counterparts in the past. Yet despite a general understanding that older parole applicants pose a reduced risk of recidivism, parole boards have not increased, and sometimes have even reduced, their grant rates. Parole Board Procedures: Most states afford only limited rights to incarcerated individuals during parole hearings and some recently have further narrowed these rights. Lifer parole procedures have broad implications. According to the American Law Institute, the most severe penalties serve as an "anchor point," or a benchmark of severity, on which penalties are established for less serious crimes.10) By placing upward pressure on prison sentences for people with less serious convictions, excessive prison terms for lifers have contributed to a major cause of mass incarceration. To reduce excessive prison terms, The Sentencing Project has previously recommended that states and the federal government abolish sentences of life without the possibility of parole and limit most prison sentences to a maximum of 20 years.11) Based on the findings of this report, we make four additional proposals. To reduce excessive sentences for parole-eligible lifers and to give rehabilitated individuals a meaningful opportunity for release from prison—as the Supreme Court now requires for those convicted as juveniles12)—we recommend that policymakers and parole practitioners: Expedite parole eligibility: Reduce the minimum number of years that lifers must serve before their first parole hearing and shorten wait times for subsequent hearings. Depoliticize and professionalize parole boards: Distance governors from paroling authorities to enable parole decisions to be based on meaningful assessments of public safety risk. Establish a presumption of release: Parole boards should assume that parole candidates are potentially suited for release at the initial, and especially subsequent, parole hearings unless an individual is deemed to pose an unreasonable public safety risk. Improve the integrity of parole hearings: Expand the procedural rights of parole applicants, enable parole applicants to review the evidence used to evaluate their eligibility for parole, and allow the public to review decision-making criteria and outcomes. This report is organized as follows: Section I presents key findings on lifer parole policies, practices, and outcomes across the country based on data provided by state and federal agencies and other organizations. Section II provides an in-depth look at a sample of four states: California, Georgia, Missouri, and New York. These states were chosen based on the size of their lifer populations, the representativeness of their lifer parole procedures and outcomes, geographic distribution, and availability of data. Sections III and IV summarize past research on people serving life sentences and on parole boards, respectively. Section V concludes by recommending reforms to depoliticize the parole process and reverse the excessive growth in prison terms for lifers. The Appendices present details on our methods of data collection and analysis. A supplemental document contains the profiles of all 32 jurisdictions for which we obtained data. Details: Washington, DC: The Sentencing Project, 2017. 40p., app. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 1, 2017 at: http://www.sentencingproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Delaying-a-Second-Chance.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: http://www.sentencingproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Delaying-a-Second-Chance.pdf Shelf Number: 144932 Keywords: Life SentencesLife Without ParoleLifersParole |
Author: Nellis, Ashley Title: Still Life: America's Increasing Use of Life and Long-Term Sentences Summary: The number of people serving life sentences in U.S. prisons is at an all-time high. Nearly 162,000 people are serving a life sentence - one of every nine people in prison. An additional 44,311 individuals are serving "virtual life" sentences of 50 years or more. Incorporating this category of life sentence, the total population serving a life or virtual life sentence reached 206,268 in 2016. This represents 13.9 percent of the prison population, or one of every seven people behind bars. A mix of factors has led to the broad use of life sentences in the United States, placing it in stark contrast to practices in other nations. Every state and the federal government allow prison sentences that are so long that death in prison is presumed. This report provides a comprehensive profile of those living in this deep end of the justice system. Our analysis provides current figures on people serving life with parole (LWP) and life without parole (LWOP) as well as a category of long-term prisoner that has not previously been quantified: those serving "virtual" or de facto life sentences. Even though virtual life sentences can extend beyond the typical lifespan, because the sentences are not legally considered life sentences, traditional counts of life-sentenced prisoners have excluded them until now KEY FINDINGS - As of 2016, there were 161,957 people serving life sentences, or one of every nine people in prison. - An additional 44,311 individuals are serving "virtual life" sentences, yielding a total population of life and virtual life sentences at 206,268 - or one of every seven people in prison. - The pool of people serving life sentences has more than quadrupled since 1984.The increase in the LWOP population has far outpaced the changes in the LWP population. - There are 44,311 people serving prison sentences that are 50 years or longer. In Indiana, Louisiana, and Montana, more than 11 percent of the prison population is serving a de facto life sentence. - Nearly half (48.3%) of life and virtual life-sentenced individuals are African American, equal to one in five black prisoners overall. - Nearly 12,000 people have been sentenced to life or virtual life for crimes committed as juveniles; of these over 2,300 were sentenced to life without parole. - More than 17,000 individuals with an LWP, LWOP, or virtual life sentence have been convicted of nonviolent crimes. - The United States incarcerates people for life at a rate of 50 per 100,000, roughly equivalent to the entire incarceration rates of the Scandinavian nations of Denmark, Finland, and Sweden. Details: Washington, DC: The Sentencing Project, 2017. 37p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 6, 2017 at: http://www.sentencingproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Still-Life.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: http://www.sentencingproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Still-Life.pdf Shelf Number: 145329 Keywords: Life SentencesLife without ParolePunishmentSentencing |