Irreducible Life Sentences: What Difference have the European Convention on Human Rights and the United Kingdom Human Rights Act Made?

Discerning Penal Values and Judicial Decision Making: The Case of Whole Life Sentencing in Europe and the United States of America

“…The most striking example of the Court's approach to whole life sentencing is the eye‐catching decision of Vinter v. United Kingdom ((2013) nos 66069/09, 130/10, and 3896/10, ECHR, 9 July 2013) (see, further, Ashworth ; Dyer ; Van Zyl Smit, Weatherby and Creighton ). The decision in Vinter displayed very strong resistance to the driving ideas behind whole life sentencing.…”

“…While it is true that the ideas about the capacity for change and rehabilitation put forward by the courts examined here are powerful, it is only in how those concepts are applied that any real inroads into the amount and nature of punishment will occur. In addition, judicially‐imposed self‐restraint in terms of the application of the margin of appreciation, the self‐imposed restraints of the senior judicial tradition as identified by Annison, challenges in litigating penal policy issues (David ; Hill ; Johal ; Kerr ; Parkes ; Schlanger and Shay ), and general deference to the prison authorities, are potent ways to restrict the influence of the courts (Dyer ).…”