life imprisonment
Recently Published Documents


TOTAL DOCUMENTS

305
(FIVE YEARS 135)

H-INDEX

8
(FIVE YEARS 2)

Author(s):  
Christian Whalen

AbstractArticle 37 is inspired by the provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). However, it extends the ICCPR’s provisions to the protection of the children by: (1) imposing the prohibition of life imprisonment for children without the possibility of release; (2) demanding that detention of a child shall be used as a measure of last resort and be imposed for the shortest period of time; and (3) providing to children deprived of liberty the right to maintain contacts with their family members. Article 37 imposes a child-centred understanding of its provisions and rights. These rights extend beyond the ambit of child justice administration to all situations where children may be deprived of liberty, including, for example, child protection settings, health care settings, and immigration settings. This chapter analyses Article 37 rights in accordance with four essential attributes, as enumerated in its four constituent paragraphs: (1) the prohibition in paragraph (a) on torture or ill-treatment, specifically ruling out capital punishment and life imprisonment without parole for minors; (2) the prohibition in paragraph (b) of unlawful and arbitrary deprivations of liberty, insisting that such sanctions are a measure of last resort that must only be imposed for the shortest appropriate period; (3) the limitations on the deprivation of liberty, including the core commitment in paragraph (c) to upholding the child’s inherent dignity and right to be treated with humanity in such circumstances; and (4) the right, in paragraph (d), to minimal due process guarantees which must accompany any child’s deprivation of liberty. While youth criminal justice practice varies greatly from state to state, Articles 37 and 40 have emerged as a codification of global standards set out in the Beijing Rules and a summary prompt to the adoption of guidelines and minimum rules for the protection of children deprived of liberty and the prevention of youth crime. Article 37 should therefore be applied consistently with the recent General Comment no. 24 (2019) on Children’s Rights in the Child Justice System.


2021 ◽  
Vol 23 (4) ◽  
pp. 305-320
Author(s):  
Edward O. Okumagba

The loss of an estimated $4.5 billion in 2020 by Nigeria to petroleum pipeline vandalism and crude oil theft has necessitated a critical assessment of the legal frameworks for the prevention of petroleum pipeline vandalism in Nigeria. This paper utilizes source materials relating to the title by examining the impacts of existing legal frameworks for the prevention of petroleum pipeline vandalization in Nigeria. It x-rays amongst others the provisions of sections 2 and 7 of the Petroleum Production and Distribution (Anti-Sabotage) Act and Miscellaneous Offences Act which imposes the death penalty and life imprisonment with the aim of deterring offenders without creating a court to try offenders. It reveals that in the face of such stringent sanctions, the activities of petroleum pipeline vandalism have continued unabated albeit a thriving business that is likely to arm the Nigerian economy in COVID-19 pandemic era. In addition, with an already perceived “compromised” criminal justice system, the paper concludes by advocating for change in policy strategy that will include the creation of a special court by amending existing legal frameworks to try offenders of the activities of petroleum pipeline vandalization.


2021 ◽  
Vol 5 (S4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Oleksandr I. Kozachenko ◽  
Volodymyr Zarosylo ◽  
Mykola O. Gelemei ◽  
Mykhailo I. Stankovych ◽  
Mykola M. Yatsun

The article analyzes some areas of cooperation between law enforcement agencies of the European Union in the field of pre-trial investigation. Particular attention is paid to the European Arrest Warrant and its application. Ukraine aspiring to become a member of the EU must take into account all issues related to the issuance and execution of these warrants. Particular attention is paid to the analysis of more specific problems related to criminal-executive criteria for the perception of life imprisonment as subspecies of imprisonment for a certain period; systemic content ratio of general penitentiary norms, which determine the legal status of convicts sentenced to life imprisonment, and special ones, which should reproduce peculiarities of regime requirements of penitentiary institutions of different security levels (in particular, medium and maximum). It is proved that clarity, completeness and system-legal balance will be facilitated by the formal reproduction in the law of classification of all criminal-executive norms of Chapter 22 of the Criminal Executive Code (hereinafter–CEC) (based on a certain criterion) into norms of general and special significance, which in turn should be divided into the following subtypes. Moreover, the EU countries do not yet have the appropriate practice in the application of these warrants.


2021 ◽  
Vol 5 (S4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Viktor Konopelskyi ◽  
Valentyna Merkulova ◽  
Oksana Hrytenko ◽  
Kateryna Pogrebna ◽  
Harehyn Muradyan

The article is devoted to the consideration of essence and tendencies of reforming the criminal-executive legislation of Ukraine concerning the procedure and execution and serving life imprisonment conditions. Certain debatable provisions, both theoretical and legal, concerning procedure and conditions of life service executing punishment are considered. It is proved that clarity, completeness and system-legal balance will be facilitated by the formal reproduction in the law of classification of all criminal-executive norms of Chapter 22 of the Criminal Executive Code (hereinafter–CEC) (based on a certain criterion) into norms of general and special significance, which in turn should be divided into the following subtypes. General penitentiary provisions, which determine the initial legal status of persons sentenced to life imprisonment, provide a list and features of the rights, legitimate interests, responsibilities of convicts, ways (mechanism) to comply with safe conditions of detention, etc. General penitentiary provisions, which define the basic principles for implementation of changes in detention conditions during execution and serving a sentence (essence, tasks, forms, general requirements for material grounds for application, procedural issues of progressive system implementation, definition of disciplinary system).


2021 ◽  
Vol 1 (11) ◽  
pp. 823-830
Author(s):  
Yahya Rofi Triatmaja ◽  
Mitro Subroto

Each type of violation has its own term of punishment. For crimes such as theft and robbery, it ranges from 5 – 10 years in prison. However, it is different with the act of drug abuse and murder which gets a life sentence. For those who are still laymen, life imprisonment means that the convict spends the rest of his life in a correctional institution. But in reality it is not so. Life sentences range from 20-25 years. The research method used is descriptive qualitative. In this approach, the research procedure produces descriptive data in the form of written or spoken words from the observed people and observed behavior. The qualitative approach is carried out in natural conditions and is discovery. In a qualitative approach, the researcher is the main instrument. This approach is used to review the quality of the implementation of rights that are not obtained by life inmates in Class I prisons in Surabaya, the results are then described in detail. Data collection techniques used were interviews to obtain information on the implementation of rights that were not obtained by lifelong prisoners and documentation to obtain references. The results of this study are in the form of an explanation of the implementation of rights that are not obtained by lifelong prisoners at the Class I prison in Surabaya.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Sean Mallett

<p>Section 102 of the Sentencing Act 2002 gives judges’ only limited discretion when sentencing for stage-1 murder: the discretion to rebut the presumption of life imprisonment in circumstances where the sentence would otherwise be “manifestly unjust”. This is a high threshold, and the Court of Appeal has said that it will be met only in exceptional cases. The judgment in R v Cunnard is the first time that a person who derived their conviction of murder from a principal offender has had the presumption displaced, and this essay explores whether or not this decision has lowered the threshold to establish manifest injustice. Although Miller J’s judgment conforms to the common features that exist in the few cases where the presumption has been successfully displaced, it is not without criticism. There are issues as to whether an overall assessment of the circumstances of the offence and the offender were made, as well as significant concerns regarding the emphasis the judge placed on sentence parity between co-offenders.</p>


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Sean Mallett

<p>Section 102 of the Sentencing Act 2002 gives judges’ only limited discretion when sentencing for stage-1 murder: the discretion to rebut the presumption of life imprisonment in circumstances where the sentence would otherwise be “manifestly unjust”. This is a high threshold, and the Court of Appeal has said that it will be met only in exceptional cases. The judgment in R v Cunnard is the first time that a person who derived their conviction of murder from a principal offender has had the presumption displaced, and this essay explores whether or not this decision has lowered the threshold to establish manifest injustice. Although Miller J’s judgment conforms to the common features that exist in the few cases where the presumption has been successfully displaced, it is not without criticism. There are issues as to whether an overall assessment of the circumstances of the offence and the offender were made, as well as significant concerns regarding the emphasis the judge placed on sentence parity between co-offenders.</p>


2021 ◽  
Vol VI (III) ◽  
pp. 13-26
Author(s):  
Hafiz Abdul Rehman Saleem ◽  
Imtiaz Ahmad Khan ◽  
Hamid Mukhtar

Life imprisonment without parole and commutation (LWOP) came under Ninth Amendment to the 1997 Criminal Law of Peoples Republic of China as a proviso to the suspended death penalty for corruption crimes. The legislative intent given for the arrival of new punishment depicts LWOP as a solution for the disparity in a suspended death sentence, controlling judicial discretion and proportional punishment for corruption which is debated as not an exhaustive and compelling justification. The manuscript addresses a substantive question; if LWOP is suitable for the criminal justice system in China? And is answered under three normative claims, namely necessity, effectiveness, and humanness.The examination of the topic contends LWOP is more of an effective tool in broader anti-corruption strategy than a need for domestic utilization.LWOP in China gives no hope of release and stands inconsistent with Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights


Author(s):  
Marina Simović ◽  
Vladimir Simović

Life imprisonment is the term for a prison sentence based on which a convicted person remains in prison for their whole life. After the death penalty, it is the severest criminal sanction. Many countries have introduced it in their legislation as a substitute for the death penalty. On the other hand, many legislations have, along with the long-term sentence, introduced the possibility of the convicts’ release, most often conditional release. From the second half of the 20th century onwards, life imprisonment as well as the death penalty has most often been regarded an inhumane and inefficient sanction, given that people sentenced to life imprisonment are considered permanently excluded from society, that is, losing any kind of interest in rehabilitation. This paper analyses the issues related to long-term sentences - life imprisonment in the countries of the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (SFRY) and in the contemporary European criminal law.


Obiter ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 34 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
GP Stevens

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


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document