مقاله انگلیسی رایگان در مورد نقض حقوق بشر با حکم حبس ابد – IEEE

Abstract

     Globally life imprisonment has been considered as the terminal and conclusive penalty, in most of the countries for the extreme violations and serious crimes. Thus since the last few decades this long-term conviction has been increasing throughout the world, it has attracted much of the attention towards a principal debate from human rights point of view that whether as an ultimate penalty is life imprisonment acceptable or is merely an act of violation towards human rights. In this article, the aim is to evaluate the life imprisonment complexity against the human rights standards and how it has been considered as a substitute for death penalty. Apart from this it also talks about Article 3 (universal Declaration of Human Rights) and if life imprisonment without possibility of parole violates convention or not. Further analyzing human rights perspective, the article revisits the debate to conclude if life imprisonment is justifiableretribution by severely examining it under Internationalcriminal law.

Introduction

     Life imprisonment as the only deterrent for violent offences has been a long-standing tradition which dates back to 1970s and 1980s when harsh and long-term penalties were seen as an appropriate retributive solution to rising crime rates in the US [1]. Eventually within a few years this toughon-crime movement spread across the Anglo-Saxon world, finally finding hold in Europe. In criminological research and national crime figures, there is little agreement about what constitutes a long-term jail sentence [2]; meanings vary from five years to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole, the latter clearly indicating circumstances where inmates are held in prison until they die. While offences and punishments were originally regarded as inherently state prerogatives, implying that it was up to states to decide what were the worst crimes and how to prosecute their criminals, constituting the essence of their “right to punish”; International human rights law (IHRL) saw that as an unacceptable statement that needed to be revised, and it stood up to determine that states are not able to prosecute criminals in whatever manner they see fit, and that there would be certain restrictions. The current contribution builds on this foundation by addressing the punishment of life imprisonment, with a particular emphasis on forms of life imprisonment in which the possibility of parole is missing or, if available, is not materially open to inmates, again describing this as a sentence without the hope of any escape, even fairly – let alone completely [3].

Conclusion

     Providing life a prisoner with a possibility of parole is not only fair, but also compatible with their intrinsic humanity, which is unaffected even by the most egregious offences. The suggested theoretical framework to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole under International human rights legislation provides for the recognition of certain similar characteristics and discrepancies within the major International instruments aimed at the defence of human rights. The aforementioned arguments for life sentences under International humanitarian law seem to be critical for International criminal tribunals and courts to take a more oriented and careful human rights policy. This is because, aside from the tradition of infuriating and mitigating circumstances, these courts and tribunals have rendered no heed to the human rights-based arguments for life imprisonment. Recent judicial precedent suggests that the present state of affairs jeopardizes human-rights negotiations, and that the lack of annual evaluations results in unnecessarily lengthy sentences. Also, there has been a lengthy discussion on whether life imprisonment without the possibility of parole is the most serious kind of punishment that can be enforced on anyone under the age of 18. The sole solution to this debate is that the punishment should be equal to the severity of the offence and the risk that the criminal poses. Aside from that it has been concluded that life imprisonment can breach Article 3 if it possesses certain attributes or ignores certain vital legal authority conducts. However, since the European Court of Human Rights has not established any official uniform standards, the specifications for specified follow can be difficult. It is clear that a concrete and formal life sentence with no chance of parole is deemed a violation of Article 3. As a result, the only criterion for incarceration is that it does not violate Article 3 which prohibits cruel or degrading treatment. Overall, it is past time for us to reconsider our attitudes about long-term incarceration. This is critical, since long-term prisoners make up a vast and increasing percentage of prisons around the world, and protecting their basic human rights with a correctional facility that offers them a chance to be released is paramount.