Does life imprisonment without the possibility of parole breach article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights? : a comparative analysis

Abstract

States are given the liberty to impose criminal measures as they deem fit when a particular crime has been committed, with the greater the severity of the crime, the greater the criminal measure imposed. Life imprisonment is typically reserved for the most heinous crimes and is the most severe form of punishment in most statute books in the European Continent. This Academic writing will analyse the historical justification, in terms of penological goals, behind the imposition of such a measure and determine the historical rationale why such a sanction became widely used throughout Europe. Another objective of this academic writing is determining the stance held by the European Court of Human Rights concerning the imposition of a life sentence without any possibility of the inmate being afforded release and whether such can be deemed to be inherently undignified to constitute inhuman and degrading treatment in terms of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The legislation and jurisprudence of various European countries will be analysed to determine if they adhere to the principles and findings of the European Court of Human Rights. Jurisdictions wherein life imprisonment has been abolished, will also be examined to understand the ra8onale behind such an abolition. The author will conclude this academic writing by answering the question posed: whether Life Imprisonment Without the Possibility of Parole Breach Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The author will then give his opinion on whether the European Countries which have been scrutinised adhere to the principles of the European Court of Human Rights, and suggestions be made on what measures the respective legislators should take to address any deficiencies.