Citation

van Zyl Smit D. Int. J. Law Psychiatry 2006; 29(5): 405-421.

Affiliation

Comparative and International Penal Law, University of Nottingham, United Kingdom. dirk.van-zyl-smit@nottingham.ac.uk

Copyright

(Copyright © 2006, Elsevier Publishing)

DOI

10.1016/j.ijlp.2006.01.002

PMID

16784776

Abstract

This article notes that, because understandings of what life imprisonment means are often ambiguous, the life sentence is sometimes perceived to be relatively uncontroversial. Life imprisonment without the prospect of parole for children under the age of 18 years is the most extreme form of this sentence that can be imposed. However, in the United States of America even such sentences have only recently become the subject of public debate. In contrast, in a small but growing number of jurisdictions all life sentences are regarded as constitutionally suspect and contrary to human rights, whilst in the majority of jurisdictions the imposition of life imprisonment is strictly limited. The article traces recent developments in the imposition and implementation of life imprisonment that have evoked some controversy. It pays particular attention to attempts that have been made in practice to ensure that life imprisonment produces punishment that is proportionate to the crime. It points out, however, that a renewed focus on combating dangerous offenders through indeterminate preventive sentences has blunted even this modest safeguard. It warns that this tendency increases the risk of life imprisonment being an unfairly harsh penalty.

Language: en