Lifelong Segregation by Prison Sentence – Pros and Cons
Апстракт
Occasional occurrence of severe criminal offences of sexual abuse of children
and the disabled where the victims suffered lethal consequences has spurred a
campaign for Criminal law amendment which requires that the extreme forms of
such crimes may demand life sentence without possibility of parole. National
Assembly of the Republic of Serbia has approved the amendments and accepted
persistence on retribution despite the efforts made by the expert community and
practitioners to express their disapproval and emphasize arguments against such
drastic legal regulation. The dispute also refers to such way of punishment being
in contrast to our obligation to accept international conventions, such as The
Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, The
Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment
or Punishment and other certified international agreements, due to the fact that
torture, inhuman or degrading treatment or punish...ment are forbidden under all
circumstances. Additional argumentation is provided by the practice of European
Court of Human Rights regarding life imprisonment, according to which
countries which have signed the Convections are obligated to ensure a legal
procedure in their national legislation which makes life sentences, after maximum
twenty five years from its beginning, subject to revision and inspection on
whether any significant changes in the convict’s life have occurred and whether
any improvement towards rehabilitation has been achieved which would render
the continuation of the imprisonment unjustifiable by any penal explanation. The
aim of the paper is to refer to arguments both for and against legal regulation
which favor retribution and discard the convicts’ rehabilitation despite empirical
discoveries which indicate the counter-productiveness of such efforts.
Кључне речи:
life sentence / penal policies / retribution / rehabilitationИзвор:
'Social Changes in the Global World“, 2019, 233-245Издавач:
- Универзитет „Гоце Делчев“-Штип, Правен факултет Штип, Република С. Македонија Шеста меѓународна научна конференција Зборник на трудови
Институција/група
rFASPERTY - CONF AU - Jovanić, Goran AU - Petrović, Vera PY - 2019 UR - http://rfasper.fasper.bg.ac.rs/handle/123456789/3206 AB - Occasional occurrence of severe criminal offences of sexual abuse of children and the disabled where the victims suffered lethal consequences has spurred a campaign for Criminal law amendment which requires that the extreme forms of such crimes may demand life sentence without possibility of parole. National Assembly of the Republic of Serbia has approved the amendments and accepted persistence on retribution despite the efforts made by the expert community and practitioners to express their disapproval and emphasize arguments against such drastic legal regulation. The dispute also refers to such way of punishment being in contrast to our obligation to accept international conventions, such as The Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, The Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment and other certified international agreements, due to the fact that torture, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment are forbidden under all circumstances. Additional argumentation is provided by the practice of European Court of Human Rights regarding life imprisonment, according to which countries which have signed the Convections are obligated to ensure a legal procedure in their national legislation which makes life sentences, after maximum twenty five years from its beginning, subject to revision and inspection on whether any significant changes in the convict’s life have occurred and whether any improvement towards rehabilitation has been achieved which would render the continuation of the imprisonment unjustifiable by any penal explanation. The aim of the paper is to refer to arguments both for and against legal regulation which favor retribution and discard the convicts’ rehabilitation despite empirical discoveries which indicate the counter-productiveness of such efforts. PB - Универзитет „Гоце Делчев“-Штип, Правен факултет Штип, Република С. Македонија Шеста меѓународна научна конференција Зборник на трудови C3 - 'Social Changes in the Global World“ T1 - Lifelong Segregation by Prison Sentence – Pros and Cons EP - 245 SP - 233 UR - https://hdl.handle.net/21.15107/rcub_rfasper_3206 ER -
@conference{ author = "Jovanić, Goran and Petrović, Vera", year = "2019", abstract = "Occasional occurrence of severe criminal offences of sexual abuse of children and the disabled where the victims suffered lethal consequences has spurred a campaign for Criminal law amendment which requires that the extreme forms of such crimes may demand life sentence without possibility of parole. National Assembly of the Republic of Serbia has approved the amendments and accepted persistence on retribution despite the efforts made by the expert community and practitioners to express their disapproval and emphasize arguments against such drastic legal regulation. The dispute also refers to such way of punishment being in contrast to our obligation to accept international conventions, such as The Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, The Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment and other certified international agreements, due to the fact that torture, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment are forbidden under all circumstances. Additional argumentation is provided by the practice of European Court of Human Rights regarding life imprisonment, according to which countries which have signed the Convections are obligated to ensure a legal procedure in their national legislation which makes life sentences, after maximum twenty five years from its beginning, subject to revision and inspection on whether any significant changes in the convict’s life have occurred and whether any improvement towards rehabilitation has been achieved which would render the continuation of the imprisonment unjustifiable by any penal explanation. The aim of the paper is to refer to arguments both for and against legal regulation which favor retribution and discard the convicts’ rehabilitation despite empirical discoveries which indicate the counter-productiveness of such efforts.", publisher = "Универзитет „Гоце Делчев“-Штип, Правен факултет Штип, Република С. Македонија Шеста меѓународна научна конференција Зборник на трудови", journal = "'Social Changes in the Global World“", title = "Lifelong Segregation by Prison Sentence – Pros and Cons", pages = "245-233", url = "https://hdl.handle.net/21.15107/rcub_rfasper_3206" }
Jovanić, G.,& Petrović, V.. (2019). Lifelong Segregation by Prison Sentence – Pros and Cons. in 'Social Changes in the Global World“ Универзитет „Гоце Делчев“-Штип, Правен факултет Штип, Република С. Македонија Шеста меѓународна научна конференција Зборник на трудови., 233-245. https://hdl.handle.net/21.15107/rcub_rfasper_3206
Jovanić G, Petrović V. Lifelong Segregation by Prison Sentence – Pros and Cons. in 'Social Changes in the Global World“. 2019;:233-245. https://hdl.handle.net/21.15107/rcub_rfasper_3206 .
Jovanić, Goran, Petrović, Vera, "Lifelong Segregation by Prison Sentence – Pros and Cons" in 'Social Changes in the Global World“ (2019):233-245, https://hdl.handle.net/21.15107/rcub_rfasper_3206 .