In my September 2014 blog titled: \"life sentence and still start resocialising?\", I argued for a periodic reassessment of a life sentence imposed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Should detention at a certain point in time no longer reasonably serve a purpose recognised under criminal law, a life sentence should be released by a pardon. Although life imprisonment remains in principle life imprisonment, this would give the offender the prospect of freedom. Should that perspective be lacking, the ECtHR speaks of inhuman and degrading treatment of prisoners.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Three years and several court rulings later, the time has come. Since 1 September last, a new regulation has been in place, stipulating that life prisoners are entitled to a reassessment of their sentence after 27 years of detention at the latest. While this is not in line with recommendations of the ECHR to give life sentences that clarity 'already' after 25 years, the prospect of reassessment\/gratification and thus freedom for the convicted is a gain. But how real is that prospect of freedom really?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Before being eligible for a reassessment, the offender will have to have participated in reintegration activities, such as leave of absence. But only after 25 years and a positive advice from an advisory board may a convict participate in those reintegration activities. The advisory board assesses the application for reintegration according to the following criteria: the risk of recidivism, the danger of delinquency, the behaviour and development of the life sentence during detention and - finally - the impact on the victims and survivors and, in the key to this, retribution.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
I can agree in principle with the first three criteria. The life-sentenced person who wants to retain his prospect of freedom will have to have behaved and developed well during his 25-year imprisonment. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
But I find the last criterion objectionable. Even after 25 years of continuous penance and preparation for return to society, such as participating in work, the severity of the offence may still prevent a pardon because of the impact on the relatives. This de facto leads to 25 years -or longer- of uncertainty for the convicted person as to whether he will ever be released. After all, great suffering has almost always been inflicted on the victims and\/or next of kin and their forgiveness is usually beyond the convict's control.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
This uncertainty makes me wonder whether, at the start of the sentence, it is sufficiently clear to the life sentence prisoner what objective criteria will be applied at the time of reassessment so that he knows what requirements will have to be met if he is to be eligible for a reduced sentence. In my view, too much uncertainty about the likelihood of release still leads to inhumane treatment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The question of whether or not this built-in uncertainty is humane is now before the Supreme Court. That will also rule whether the reassessment after the 25-year term has expired is too late. The Advocate General concluded last week that the new regulation is sufficient and the imposition of a life sentence no longer constitutes inhumane treatment as referred to in art. 3 ECHR. If the Supreme Court follows this reasoning, the European Court will have the last word on the matter.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Mr D.M. Penn<\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
In mijn blog van september 2014 met de titel: \u201clevenslang gestraft en toch beginnen met resocialiseren?\u201d, pleitte ik voor een periodieke herbeoordeling van een opgelegde levenslange gevangenisstraf. Zou detentie op een zeker moment in redelijkheid geen strafrechtelijk erkend doel meer dienen, zou de levenslanggestrafte door gratieverlening vrij moeten kunnen komen. Hoewel levenslang in beginsel levenslang […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[11],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3366","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-strafrecht"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/penn.nl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3366","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/penn.nl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/penn.nl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/penn.nl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/penn.nl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3366"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/penn.nl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3366\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/penn.nl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3366"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/penn.nl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3366"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/penn.nl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3366"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}