No abstract

This chapter focuses on American exceptionalism in parole release and supervision. It first establishes a clear understanding of what is meant by granting parole and parole supervision in the United States and Europe within the respective sentencing schemes and then gives a comparative statistical picture. The chapter then considers the history of parole on both sides of the Atlantic, before examining and comparing current policies in the United States and Europe in more detail. The principal finding is that European parole, unlike its American counterparts, is dominated by a discourse that stresses and highlights human dignity and procedural justice rather than public safety. In the American discourse, by contrast, there is less emphasis on the rights of parolees. Parole decision-making and supervision are mainly shaped by risk aversion. To conclude, this chapter reflects on whether European ideals for parole may take root in the United States.

In Vinter and Others v United Kingdom, 1 the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights ruled that all offenders sentenced to life imprisonment had a right to both a prospect of release and a review of their sentence. Failure to provide for these twin rights meant that the applicants had been deprived of their right under Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) to be free from inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Two principles established in this judgment require changes in the enforcement of whole life orders that prevent some prisoners sentenced to life terms from being considered for release. (1) Implicit in the right to a prospect of release is a right to an opportunity to rehabilitate oneself. (2) Implicit in the right to review of the continued enforcement of a life sentence is a right to a review that meets standards of due process. This article focuses on the type of review now required to satisfy these principles. Such a review, a Vinter review, differs from the review by the Parole Board currently required in England and Wales after an offender has served a minimum period set by the sentencing court, a post-tariff review. The key difference is that in a Vinter review all the penological justifications for the original sentence-including the seriousness of the offence-must be reviewed to determine whether the balance between them has changed and continued detention is justified. In contrast, the post-tariff review is limited to a review of the risk to society posed by the offender, as detention for the minimum period is deemed sufficient for retribution and deterrence. Both the Vinter review and the post-tariff review should be undertaken

No abstract

No abstract