Vinter and Others v United Kingdom Research Essay

The Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights ruled in numerous cases, including Vinter and Others v. United Kingdom, that all criminals, particularly those who were given life sentences, were entitled to both a chance at release and an assessment of their individual sentences. A failure to provide both of these rights doomed the claimants to lose their standing under Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which states that people are entitled to be free from cruel, inhumane, or degrading treatment or even penalty. Two rules were created with the passage of this decision. The guidelines needed alterations in the implementation of whole life orders that preclude some convicts condemned to life imprisonments from being deliberated for freedom. The first guideline is inherent in the entitlement to a chance of freedom is an entitlement to a prospect to acclimatize oneself, and the second guideline is inherent in the right to an evaluation of the sustained implementation of a life sentence is an entitlement to an appraisal that is in agreement with the standards of due procedure.

Introduction

This essay will put emphasis on the sort of evaluation required to gratify these guidelines. It is important to point out that such reviews, including the Vinter appraisal, the Hutchinson review among other reviews, varies from the reviews carried out by the Parole Board that is presently needed in England and Wales once a criminal has served a minimum time as outlined by the condemning court, referred to as a post-tariff appraisal. The main dissimilarity is that in such reviews including the Vinter review, all the penological rationalizations for the original verdict, including the significance of the crime must be appraised to establish whether the equilibrium between them has varied and sustained imprisonment is vindicated. On the contrary, the post-tariff appraisal is restricted to an evaluation of the risk to the general community presented by the criminal, as incarceration for the minimum time is considered enough for reckoning as well as discouragement. Reviews such the Vinter appraisal and the post-tariff appraisal should be assumed at suitable periods in a life condemnation. Additionally, both sorts of appraisals must gratify the guidelines of due procedure outlined by Article 5(4) of the ECHR as well as the common law. Therefore, core improvements of the legal outline for the application of such verdicts is needed to completely gratify European advances.

Background

During 2008, the then Lord Chief Justice Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers asserted that there appeared to be a surge in Europe that is setting in contradiction of the imposition of extremely lengthy periods of incarceration that are intricate. In other words, a life imprisonment period from which a criminal had no chance of freedom may overstep Article 3 of the ECHR since it would be insensitive and demeaning. This slightly theoretical formulation seems to have been implemented by the majority vote of the Grand Chamber since they discovered that with regards to the Cypriot law as well as practice, particularly in the R v Bieber appeal did possess a chance of freedom and that the subject did not happen openly.

Many, like Lord Phillips have asserted that a life sentence supplemented by an entire life order, that is a judgement that did not properly outline a time after which the sentence had to be revisited, could still be executed. Hence, a probable violation according to Lord Phillips would only take place if there was no legal basis for further imprisonment of the individual condemned to a life sentence. Additionally, the authority of the Secretary of State to free a convict on sympathetic grounds was adequate provision for freeing a prisoner provided it could be applied in a manner that would guarantee Article 3 was by any means not overstepped.

Lord Phillips perspective regarding the standing of the ECHR on intricate life condemnations was a prolonged obiter dictum, given it was not essential in determining the appeal. This is what made him to express his standpoint in an effort to show the significance that he committed to safeguarding whole life condemnations. Working alongside his peer Court of Appeal judges, Lord Phillips supported Bieber’s petition against the whole life order that Bieber’s trial court had included to his life imprisonment and substituted it with a minimum time of 37 years that Bieber had to be imprisoned before a plea to his freedom could be considered. Evidently, this was according to this group of judges draconian given there is no single European nation that sets such a high minimum afore the spontaneous reassessment of all life decrees that most prisoners need.

Because of Lord Phillips, the European wave regarding life imprisonments was certainly turning. And, during 2012, in Vinter and Others v United Kingdom, the ECHR’s 4th chamber identified that there was a valid point that might have rose, especially in cases where extra imprisonment of an individual who have been condemned to whole life incarceration may no longer be acceptable on penological basis. This realization powerfully examined whether the restricted authority of sympathetic release of prisoners, barely construed by the Prison Service Orders to limit it to the fatally ill as well as to the physically disabled, was adequate to guarantee that an individual would not remain to be incarcerated, even though their incarceration period could no longer be vindicated.

The realization also questioned whether sympathetic release for either the critically ill or the physically disabled could actually be deliberated at all, even if it meant a prisoner succumbs at home or in a hospital as compared to being in prison. Nevertheless, ECHR’s Fourth Chamber was consequently in agreement with Lord Phillips view by outlining that an individual sentenced to a whole life order did not have the entitlement to request that, during their condemnation, a suitable mechanism to contemplate their freedom should already be up and running, to offer them assured hope in addition to ensuring them that they had an assured chance of freedom. On the other hand, a probable breach would only take place if, at some point, there existed a genuine basis for the extra imprisonment of the individual condemned to a life sentence and necessary stages were not taken to free the individual of concern. Hence, that standing had not been attained in the many cases including those of Vinter, Bamber, and even Moore among others.

The verdict of the ECHR’s Fourth Chamber was, however, tested in the presence of the Grand Chamber of the ECHR by the claimants. Soon afore the Grand Chamber hearing during November 2012, a specifically founded 5 judge Court of Appeal tried to shore up the English position on the issue. For instance, in R v Oakes and Others, the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Judge talking for a united law court, established that whole life orders were still allowed in both England and Wales . The Lord Judge found backing for this in the verdict of the Fourth Chamber in Vinter and Others v United Kingdom, Hutchinson v United Kingdom among a couple of other cases and in 2 extra verdicts of the similar Chamber handling the repatriation of people facing possible life sentences without parole in the United States of America and in local English jurisprudence. As such, Lord Judge decided that whole life orders, which is basically, ‘a creation of primary legislature’, was vindicated and suitable, if it were held in reserve just for the few exceptionally severe crimes in which after dazzling on all the characteristics of intensification and vindication, the judge was content that the component of just sentence as well as reckoning needed [its] imposition.

However, in July 2013, the Grand Chamber spun the wave on the issue. By a leading vote of 16 to 1, the Chamber’s verdict in Vinter and Others v United Kingdom denoted as Vinter [GC] drifted all the verdicts of Lord Phillip as well the Lord Judge. In other words, the Grand Chamber ruled just like the former verdict made by the Fourth Chamber, that the prevailing process for sympathetic release was insufficient for guaranteeing that convicts were freed where there stopped to be enough penological rationalization for their continual imprisonment. Additionally, the Grand Chamber asserted that sufficient mechanism must be put in place at the instance when the life sentence verdict is being imposed, particularly for offenders who required to have a real chance of being free. Basically, a mechanism of that sort should permit an appraisal to be carried out to establish whether there exists adequate penological rationalization for the sustained imprisonment of the individual who was imposed with a whole life order. Therefore, a Vinter review is basically an appraisal of a life sentence with a whole life order.

In Vinter and Others v United Kingdom, the authority of a condemning law court to inflict a whole life order as part and parcel of life sentences was not confronted, provided such judgements were subject to being appraised. Furthermore, the Grand Chamber properly outlined that if those convicts who had been sentenced to life incarceration with whole life orders, were in a way a threat to the general society, meaning that they could still be imprisoned until they die in prison. Nevertheless, in the absence of an actual chance of release, strengthened by the presence of a suitable contrivance for a Vinter review, convicts subject to whole life orders who still be deprived of any chance of being free, an act many said was inhumane and humiliating and therefore infringing Article 3 of the ECHR.

Prospective Release Mechanisms

In view of the matters of opinion raised by the verdict in Vinter [GC, supplementary contextual information is essential, specifically on the mechanisms for freeing convicts imposed with life imprisonment judgements in England and Wales, as well in many parts of Europe in general. The existing English release-appraisal structure progressed from a previous casual structure concerning the Secretary of State, the trial law court, the Lord Chief Justice as well as the Parole Board. According to this structure, the Secretary of State should pursue for guidance from the trial judge as well as the Lord Justice regarding the minimum term convicts condemned to life imprisonment should serve as their punishment, and then reset a minimum period after which release of the convicts could be deliberated. After convicts serves their minimum terms, the Secretary of State, after the guidance of the Parole Board, would then make a decision on whether such convicts who have already obliged the penalty element of their sentences should be set free or remain being imprisoned.

However, in occasional occurrences, the Secretary of State would conclude that the crime committed by some convict was extremely monstrous that no minimum term should be set for such an individual at all costs. On the other hand, the Secretary of State would frequently carry out an appraisal, and even decide on setting a minimum term, particularly where a convict had made progressive steps and excellent advancement, hence ordering their immediate release.

The existing structure regarding the Vinter review was as a result of two elements. These elements include verdicts by the ECHR that stipulating the minimum term for an individual condemned to a life sentence is a judicial task and that the verdict on setting a convict free must also be formulated by an autonomous and an unbiased body. Consequently, the ECHR verdicts ended up being capped in the ruling of the Grand Chamber, particularly in Stafford v United Kingdom. The law court observed in Stafford, in the case of mandatory life imprisonments for a homicide, continued incarceration after the termination of the minimum term relied exclusively on components of endangerment as well as risk.

Given the components of the Vinter review may vary over time, and the incarceration may no longer fail to be attuned with Article 5(1), then new matters of lawfulness may arise according to the Grand Chamber. More so, Article 5(4) of the ECHR needed that the sustained fairness of the incarceration had to be established by an autonomous and an unbiased committee, with the authority to order a release, subsequent to a process encompassing the essential judicial precautions, with the likelihood of an oral hearing. Consequent to the verdict of the ECHR in Stafford, it followed that the House of Lords acknowledged the prevailing command for commanding minimum terms on individuals with life sentences is unharmonious with the ECHR guidelines. This resulted unswervingly to the existing statutory command commanding condemnation to life sentences as well as a statement from it.

It is important to point out that the guidelines leading the condemning of life imprisonment convicts in England and Wales are encompassed in the 2003 Criminal Justice Act. These guidelines outline that in all cases where a convict has been imposed with a life imprisonment, the trial law court must clearly stipulate the tariff to be served by a convict before they consider their release according to the Vinter review. The tariff or rather minimum term to be served by an offender imposed with a life sentence is intended to mirror the time a convict should at least serve to encounter the requirements of reckoning as well as deterrence. Subsequently, the convict must be freed by the respective Parole Board, which serves the same function as a legitimate law court in such a case, and if the Parole Board is content that it is no longer essential to safeguard the community from the offender, then the offender will continue to be incarcerated. This kind of appraisal is known as a post-tariff review.

Also, the requirements of the 2003 Criminal Justice Act concerning life sentences encompasses a schedule known as ‘Schedule 21.’ This particular schedule offers judges suggestions of the ‘starting plugs’ that they should utilize when establishing the minimum terms for compulsory life imprisonments, especially those related to homicide cases. Therefore, for instance, the starting point for killing a law police constable or even a prison officer while on duty is a solid 30 years. On the contrary, murder falling on different categories except the ones mentioned might have a starting point of about 15 years.

However, the Schedule also outlines that if the law court contemplates that the weightiness of the crime or even the amalgamation of the crime and one or more crimes related with it is extremely high, and the convict is aged 21 years of age and past, then the suitable starting point for such a sentence is a whole life order. The Schedule proceeds to elaborate that cases that would generally fall in the criteria for a whole life order are killing two or more people, where each killing involves a considerable level of contemplation or scheduling, the kidnapping of the target, or even sexually harassing the victim. The other criteria for a whole life order as outlined by the Schedule is the killing of a child if the killing involves killing or sexually harassing the child, a killing carried out for the determination of progressing a political, spiritual, racial or philosophical cause, and finally a killing by a convict formerly sentenced of a homicide.

Therefore, a whole life order successfully eradicates the case from the jurisdiction of the selected Parole Board, since the convict is certainly not ‘post-tariff’. Similarly, the 2003 Act eradicated the overall authority of the Secretary of State to appraise a life imprisonment in addition to ordering a release. This resulted into whole life imprisonments not being subject to an overall appraisal at any phase today, with the restricted exclusion for release on sympathetic grounds-an authority that has never been implemented before.

It is vital to highlight that, whole life judgements comprise just a small percentage of the extremely enormous number of convicts serving unspecified punishments in England and Wales. Statistically, there has been just 51 cases out of the total 12, 963 convicts serving life imprisonments as well as other completely unspecified condemnations as of 30 September 2013 who are subject to whole life orders. Nevertheless, 1092 cases out of those convicts serving life imprisonments had tariffs exceeding 20years. This shows that there exists sturdy suggestions that the general period of tariffs has increased as of 2003, particularly when Schedule 21 to the Criminal Justice Act set extremely higher points of exit as compared to the Lord Chief Justice’s suggestion which included of extremely extended times of up to 40 years.

In most European authorities that embrace life sentences, the process for the release of individuals serving life imprisonments is dissimilar to that present in England and Wales. This is mainly because the probationary judge does not normally set personalized tariffs. Instead, the law explicitly sets the overall tariff, normally ranging between 12 to 25 years, whereby all individuals subject to life imprisonments are to be deliberated for release by a law court which may or may not possess other roles associating to the implementation of condemnations.

Dissimilar to England and Wales, the deliberation at this phase is usually open ended. In other words, the committee or law court accountable for release contemplates the significance of the original crime as an influence in its verdict on whether to release the convict but also encompasses in its contemplation the advancement towards rehabilitation that a convict might have made while under incarceration as well as the danger that the convict might still present to the general community. Therefore, these practical principles are similar to those currently needed for any Vinter review.

Human Pride and the Likelihood of Reintegration

The importance of the verdict in Vinter [GC] surpasses the routine restructuring needed in considering the rationalizations for the sustained imprisonment of a small set of convicts condemned to life sentences. In that sense, the Grand Chamber discovered boundaries to a nation’s authority to penalize to be characteristic in the exclusion on coldhearted or humiliating handling and sentence. At its core is the acknowledgement of the human pride of all convicts. Regardless of what a person has done, everyone deserves a chance to reorient themselves while being imprisoned for their crimes, with the likelihood of ultimately functioning as accountable members of the free community once more. Hence, the Grand Chamber in Vinter established that the comprehensive denial of this chance is characteristically humiliating and, hence forbidden.

However, according to the Grand Chamber, rehabilitation is not conceivable minus the chance of release. To elaborate, in instances where the verdict, on obligation, is intricate under domestic law, then rehabilitation will be unpredictable to hope for the convict to work towards realizing their individual rehabilitation without knowing the chances of a mechanism being instigated which would eventually permit them, on the foundation of that rehabilitation, to be deliberated for release. Therefore, as far as rehabilitation is concerned, it is just a disputed idea. Nevertheless, by associating the idea so diligently to offering convicts or offenders with chances for self-development and to contemplation of their imminent release, the Grand Chamber clearly outlines that it is emphasizing on the aspects of rehabilitation. This is meant to empower offenders in addition to enabling for their communal reintegration as compared to the narrower concept of forced management with which the idea of rehabilitation is occasionally associated.

Appraising the Validity of Sustained Detention under a Life Condemnation

After determining that an intricate life sentence is a defilement of Article 3, ab initio, the manner in which the Grand Chamber passed their verdict in Vinter turned into advice as to the kind of appraisal processes for life imprisonments related to whole life orders should employ. Terms outlined by the Grand Chamber stipulate that, an appraisal which permits the local powers to consider whether any alterations in a person serving a life sentence are so substantial, and such advancement towards rehabilitation has been adopted during their sentences, as to mean that sustained imprisonment can no longer be vindicated on genuine penological basis.

Therefore, the verdict on whether to free an individual subject to a whole life order encompasses a ruling regarding the person’s liberty, which is basically the greatest significance to the person concerned. In Vinter, the Grand Chamber founded past doubt that there does not exist a legal power of any kind for a country to remain detaining a prisoner under such a command, specifically for an individual whose imprisonment is no longer penologically vindicated. Someone would anticipate the decision-making mechanism to mirror the seriousness of the resolve to be made, that is the autonomy of the convict.

Any decision-making arrangement to be implemented can be trailed back to the principle of simple human pride. Conclusions in the Osborn v The Parole Board by the UK Supreme Court identified that human pride needs a process that admires the individual whose rights are substantially impacted by rulings. For instance, in the Osborn case, human pride needed that convicts serving unspecified condemnations be offered with a hearing before the elected Parole Board can be requested to advice on their prospective transfer to open circumstances.

Broader Reforms

The restructurings discussed so far may, therefore, be adequate to meet the practical worries associated directly to enduring release of offenders serving life imprisonments subject to whole life orders into the general society. There, however, exists numerous issues with the imposition and adoption of life sentences in England and Wales. To begin, most critics are still uncertain whether life incarceration for killing should be compulsory, given killing is a crime particularly defined in this dominion. More specifically, the law about the background of tariffs (minimum terms) is in need of reforms, since there exists an evident trend for these guidelines to become extended and hence to subsidize to the increasing populace of convicts serving life imprisonments among English penitentiaries, a figure solely inconsistent to the equivalent populaces in Europe. Because of this, below is a few reforms outlining that offenders serving life sentences should possess a right to prospects for rehabilitation, and consequently a genuine chance of release.

Extradition is one such reform. Extradition has raised numerous debates regarding whether convicts facing extradition from the UK to various jurisdictions, particularly those facing life sentences minus a genuine chance of release deserves a chance to be released. A greater percentage of judges and critics who were involved in the Wellington v Secretary for the Home Department during 2010 held that in such instances, the popularity of extradition is an influence to be factored in when ruling whether the penalty expected to be enforced in the acceptance state attained the degree of severity needed to amount to a defilement of Article 3.

Another broader reform is to consider an entitlement to rehabilitation in English lawmaking. Essential reforms should pursue to entrench the entitlement to rehabilitation straight into the English law. This will permit the law to function as an explanatory director for all rulings associating to the management and release of offenders facing life sentences. One such likelihood would be to embed such a right in the upcoming UK Bill of rights as a necessity, such that all rulings should be leaning towards rehabilitating convicts.

Lastly, solid decisions should be made on rehabilitation. For matters of illustration, the United Kingdom (UK) should identify just like the ECHR has done that all rulings concerning to release of offenders should be modelled. This advancement of a legal foundation works alongside the judicial procedure for appraising offenders’ rehabilitation. This is exclusively crucial where verdicts of significance to rehabilitation link to offenders’ external lawful standing, which mainly includes the different strategies whereby offenders recollect or recover their, freedom, whether completely or partly, provisionally or eternally.

This means that, release rulings as well as other verdicts regarding the manner in which offenders should be managed are closely associated. Presently, the Parole Board is involved in all kinds of rulings but in the case of relocating a convict to open circumstances, the Board only offers advice, whereas in the case of releasing a prisoner, especially those serving life sentences, the Board models the binding rulings.

Conclusion

To sum up, it is clear that in Vinter [GC] there existed uncontracted proof regarding the torment he and many other applicants suffered in addition to the decline of their personalities in a circumstance they had no chance of release. Therefore, it might be securely deduced that the effect of the total loss of expectation of a slight chance of rehabilitation is way immense as compared to the effect of annoyance at practical inadequacies in the release procedure of offenders sentenced to life in prison. This means that the accomplishment of the Grand Chamber in Vinter was basically to identify the issue, to note that a greater percentage of European nations had modelled a manner to manage it, and proceed to develop its own Article 3 jurisprudence with an aim of compelling a nation such as the United Kingdom, which was ignorant to address this issue, to appropriately react to it. This made the Grand Chamber to treat the ECHR as the live tool which trailed straight into the convention of the ground-breaking ruling in Tyler v United Kingdom, which specifically held that nation-imposed physical sentence is just humiliating, and hence the contravention of Article 3 of the ECHR.

Bibliography

Arnott, Creighton and. Prisoners Law and Practice. London: Legal Action Group, 2009.

Anthony E. Bottoms, The Philosophy and Politics of Punishment and Sentencing, in The Politics of Sentencing Reform Ch. 2 (Chris Clarkson & Rod Morgan eds., 1995)

Ashworth & Hough, supra note 7. Andrew Ashworth & Michael Hough, Sentencing and the Climate of Opinion, 1996 Crim. L. Rev. 776, 783.

Alan Travis, Fury as Howard Plays Jail Card, The Guardian (Manchester), Oct. 13, 1995, at 1.

Baker, Estella. “From ”making bad people worse” to ”prison works”: Sentencing policy in England and Wales in the 1990s.“ Criminal Law Forum, 1996: 639-671.

Andrew Ashworth, Principles of Criminal Law 86–89 (2d ed. 1995);

Barrett. ”European court ruling: authors of Human Rights treaty would be ”turning in their graves”.“ Daily Telegraph, 2013: 3-71.

Christopher D. Webster et al., The Violence Prediction Scheme: Assessing Dangerousness in High Risk Men (Univ. of Toronto Centre of Criminology, 1994).

Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Nov. 4, 1950, art. 7, Eur. T.S. 5, 213 U.N.T.S. 221 (entered into force Sept. 3, 1953).

David John Harris et al., Law of the European Convention on Human Rights 280–81 (1995).

Dirk van Zyl Smit., Weatherby, Pete., and Creighton, Simon., Pete Weatherby, and

Simon Creighton. ”Whole Life Sentences and the Tide of European Human Rights Jurisprudence: What Is to Be Done?“ Human Rights Law Review, 2014: 59-84.

Dunkel, Germany. ”Germany in Padfield, van Zyl Smit and Dunkel.“ Release from Prison: European Policy and Practice, 2010: 185-212.

Fitz-Gibbon. ”The Mandatory Life Sentence for Murder: An Argument for Judicial Discretion in England.“ Criminology and Criminal Justice, 2013: 506.

Henry J. Steadman et al., From Dangerousness to Risk Assessment: Implications for Appropriate Research Strategies, in Mental Disorder and Crime Ch. 3 (Sheilagh Hodgins ed., 1993)

Hattenstone, Simon and Allison, Eric., and Erick Allison. Are whole-life prison sentences an infringement of human rights? December 5, 2012.https://www.theguardian.com/law/2012/dec/05/whole-life-prison-sentence-human-rights (accessed December 28, 2017).

Home-Office. U.K.,Crime, Justice, and Protecting the Public. 1990.

Henry J. Steadman et al., From Dangerousness to Risk Assessment:

House of Lords, supra note 111 There was a relationship between tariff length and date of first review, of which the prisoner was informed, but it was not always exact. House of Lords, U.K., Select Committee on Murder and Life Imprisonment, H.L. Paper 78, at 38–40 (1988–89).

Implications for Appropriate Research Strategies, in Mental Disorder and Crime Ch. 3 (Sheilagh Hodgins ed., 1993). Henham, supra note 42,Back to the Future on Sentencing: The 1996 White Paper, 59 Mod. L. Rev. at 866

Hood & Shute, supra note 54.Protecting the Public: Automatic Life Sentences, Parole, and High Risk Offenders, 1996 Crim. L. Rev. 788, 795.

Home Office, supra note 2, U.K., Protecting the Public, 1996, Cm 3190, ¶ 9.6.

John Monahan & Henry J. Steadman, Violence and Mental Disorder (1994)

Liell, Attrill and, and Liell. ”Offenders’ Views on Risk Assessment.“ Understanding Recall , 2012: 191-201.

Maguire, Morgan abd Padfield. Justice Report, A New Parole System for England and Wales. London, 2009.

Lacey, supra note 25, Nicola Lacy, Government as Manager, Citezen as Consumer. The Case of the Criminal Justice Act 1991, 57 Mod. L. Rev. 534 (1994) at 550–53.

Morgan, Reiner and. The Oxford Handbook of Criminology. London: Oxford University Press, 2012.

Nellis, Mike. ”THE ELECTRONIC MONITORING OF OFFENDERS IN ENGLAND AND WALES: Recent Developments and Future Prospects.“ The British Journal of Criminology, 1991: 165-185.

Padfield. ”Amending the Parole Board Rules: A Sticking Plaster Response?’ .“ Public Law, 2008: 691.

Michael Hough, People Talking about Punishment, 35 Howard J. Crim. Just. 191 (1996).

Nicola Lacey, Government as Manager, Citizen as Consumer. The Case of the Criminal Justice Act 1991, 57 Mod. L. Rev. 534 (1994).

Rehabilitation of Offenders Act, 1974 (Eng. & Wales).

Roger Hood & Stephen Shute, Protecting the Public: Automatic Life Sentences, Parole, and High Risk Offenders, 1996 Crim. L. Rev. 788. 795.

Roberts, Ashworth and, and Roberts. The Struggle for Supremacy in Sentencing:Sentencing Guidelines: Exploring the English Model. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013.

Roberts, Mitchell and, and Roberts. Exploring the Mandatory Life Sentence for Murder.Oxford: Hart, 2012.

Roger Hood & Stephen Shute, Parole in Transition: Evaluating the Input and Effect of Changes in the Parole System (Oxford Univ. Centre for Criminological Research, 1994)

Ruck. Paterson on Prisons. Being the Collected Papers of Sir Alexander Paterson.London: Muller, 1951.

Peter Taylor, Judges and Sentencing, 1993 J. Law Soc’y Scot. 129, 130.

Shachar, Ayelet., Baubock, Rainer., Bloemraad, Irene., and Vink, Maarten., Rainer

Baubock, Irene Bloemraad, and Maarten Vink. The Oxford Handbook of CItizenship.London: Oxford University Press, 2014.

Stephen Sedley, The Sound of Silence: Constitutional Law without a Constitution, 110 Law Q. Rev. 270 (1994)

Snacken, Van Zyl Smit and, and Snacken. Principles of European Prison Law andPolicy: Penology and Human Rights. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009.

Travis, Alan. European judges uphold UK right to impose whole-life jail sentences.January 17, 2017. https://www.theguardian.com/law/2017/jan/17/european-judges-uphold-uk-right-to-impose-whole-life-jail-sentences (accessed December 28, 2017).

Waldron. ”How Law Protects Dignity.“ Cambridge Law Journal , 2012: 71.