Judicial Review and Life Imprisonment

International Journal of Multicultural and Multireligious Understanding, 2021

Fundamentally, all forms of punishment are deprivation of human rights. One of the most severe punishments in criminal justice system is death penalty which is specifically aimed at serious crime. Several mechanisms as a form of legal protection for death convicts are judicial review and clemency petitions. Problems arise due to the time difference in the waiting period, which is not limited and in some cases even reaching 20 (twenty) years. Meaning, death penalty convicts have experienced two sufferings at once (double suffering) which is certainly contrary to the principle of punishment in the context of modern criminal law. The research aim is to analyse the basis for the philosophy of legal protection for death penalty convicts who are not executed immediately after the verdict becoming legally binding. This research is a normative legal research with the approach of Law, History, Comparison, Philosophy and Cases. The legal materials used are primary, secondary and tertiary with...

Global Jurist, 2016

Life Imprisonment, unlike the death penalty, does not attract the attention of the doctrine. There are, however, significant developments in the European Court of Human Rights case law. In this paper, using a comparative methodology, we highlight the standard that, at international level, allows to consider Life Imprisonment compatible with human dignity-that is the right to a substantial judicial review. It is no longer acceptable that the ‘last word’ on the lifers’ early release is still entrusted to political power.

2008

I am a human being and nothing pertaining to human is alien to me, so said Karl Marx (www.sociologist.com)" At the dawn of the 21st century, the death penalty is considered by most civilized nations as a cruel and inhuman punishment. While international documents have restricted and in some cases even banned the death penalty, its application is still not against customary international law. Much debate continues as to whether the death penalty constitutes an appropriate punishment, at least to the most heinous crimes. In recent years, the debate has been further fueled by the use of new technologies which have shown that a large proportion of people sentenced to death are, indeed, innocent. This paper will look at the trend towards abolition of the death penalty as it has emerged over recent decades, alongside examining both the sides of the debate regarding death penalty which requires a presentation of the theories of punishment and finally to arrive at a conclusion as to whether in the times of the 21 st century the death penalty should still be an adhered to practice or not it will trace the development of capital punishment as a human rights issue in the international forum and examine recent challenges to the death penalty. The structure that this paper adopts is discussed in short herein, any paper on death penalty in the current times would be incomplete without mentioning the Saddam Hussein execution, hence the trial and execution of Saddam Hussein is examined only from the perspective of the validity or not of the sentence of death penalty awarded to Saddam in the first section. In the next section, the researcher traces the abolitionist movement in the world and presents statistically the current stand of the world on the issue of capital punishment. The next section presents the jurisprudential analysis of the death penalty and therefore examines the various theories propounded on this subject starting from the theories of punishment to the arguments for and against capital punishment. The researcher finally goes on to establish that the death penalty intersects with international law and is challenged by it and therefore defining the death penalty as a Human Rights issue is imperative. For the purpose of proving the above proposition, apart from employing relevant primary sources in the form of treaty provisions, secondary sources in the form of treatises and articles, are also used and these are enumerated in detail in the index of authorities.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND CONSTITUTIONAL STUDIES, 2022

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights laid out the right to life as well as the option to be liberated from brutality, fierce, and corrupt treatment. Thus, the death penalty is opposed because it violates these two fundamental rights. It is the intentional death of a prisoner for the purpose of punishment and as a deterrent-a goal that can easily be achieved through other means in many cases. Regardless of the seriousness of the offence for which the prisoner has been sentenced, such cruelty cannot be condoned. Furthermore, if we believe that Right to life is a fundamental right endorsed in the Constitution as a provision under Article 21 along with the freedom under Article 19, death sentence, an affront to our most basic human right. This research paper examines the death penalty from a human rights jurisprudence standpoint and provides a brief overview of the subject. In addition, the international context of the death penalty is discussed. The decisions which were proven to be arbitrary and unfair in the eyes of human rights law are highlighted to assert the analysis.

Pena perpetua senza prospettiva di rilascio: una comparazione dalla prospettiva dei diritti umani-Life imprisonment without prospect of release is a penalty experiencing remarkable success today, especially in Europe. However, certain human rights bodies have recently begun to assert that this penalty runs counter the so-called 'right to hope', derived by way of interpretation from the right not to be subject to inhuman or degrading treatment. The purpose of the present contribution is to shed light on the potential and the limits of such trend by analyzing the case-law of universal (such as the UN system) and regional (the European system, the Inter-American system; the African system) bodies.

Journal of Politics and Law, 2016

Punishing the criminals is one of the criminal justice mechanisms to compensation and reparation for victims and society. In this regards some of the punishments are determined by criminal justice systems in every society. Imprisonment is one of these penalties which specified in this regard and through this punishment the convicted persons are detained in prison. However, the guilty is sentenced to prison and restriction of his or her liberties, but she or he has fundamental rights and freedoms that must be protected even if in prison and has the right to how to be punished. All of these rights and freedoms are protected by the rule of law. This issue means that how to be punished is restricted under the definite principles which have to be exercised when the retribution and punishment is ongoing. This matter of criminal law and criminal justice is considered as right on how to be punished. The area of this right and authority of prison’s heads and its personnel is determined by la...

Academic Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies, 2013

The compulsory execution of judicial decisions like that of executive titles is one of the fundamental human rights and it serves to guarantee a regular procedure. Therefore, the decision of an independent and impartial court is meaningless in the case when no execution of a final judgment has taken place. The execution of the final judgment is an intrinsic element of the right for a regular legal process, in the framework of the article 42 of the Constitution and article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The European Court of Human Rights has reached to the conclusion that if any of the parties refuses to abide by a final judgment, then the process has not finished yet, because when a party has won a case, but the decision is not executed, then his/her right are infringed. Based on the Constitutional Court, it could be derived that the execution of the final judgment is the last phase of a judicial process. Only upon the execution of such judgment one could say that the individual has won the case. A fair trial does not consist only to the process of court's decision-taking, but to the concrete actions taken by the bodies in charge to execute the final judgment. The process of the execution of the final judgment lacks with regard to the compliance with legal procedures, which is an indicator that human rights are broken. Reason to the lack of such compliance could be found to the debtor's lack of cooperation, indifference of state institutions, lack of a complete procedural legislation, lack of knowledge of the law from those in charge of the judicial decision execution, lack of funds which is especially evident in the case of the execution of the Law for the Return and Compensation of Properties and in the inability to afford the penalties placed by the European Court of Human Rights.

Today, it is rightly considered that issues related to the selection and use of tools and methods with which the resocialization (treatment) is realized, has increasingly become the main issue of penology. The issuesthatoccur as most actual andtypicalwill be examinedhere inshortlines. Usually, when it comes to general principles the notion treatment, deals with all criminal sanctions, but it requires the application of tools and methods specific to every sanction separately, depending on its specific nature. Given the more frequent application of imprisonment, as the most used measure to fight criminality, today, without reason, the utmost attention is fixed on the treatment applied during the conduction of this sentence. Therefore, not coincidentally also this term (treatment) is exactly identified with this sentence. Regarding this definition the need for clear subject - substantial definition of the notion treatmentin general and its elaboration and processing related with specific way sofimplementationandexecution of certain penal sanctions is also emphasized. In this regard, fully entitled are those authors who claim that the treatment for thesentencesofinstitutional characterandthoseofnon-institutionalcharactercan not (and should not) be the same. Here it comes to qualitative substantial differences that require the applic

2012

Aiming to ensure the celerity of the Romanian criminal trial, the legislative changes of the present Code of Criminal Procedure through Law no. 202/2010 have impacted also the matter of appeals, leading to fewer degrees of jurisdiction in most criminal cases. The actual Romanian Code of Criminal Procedure governs, as a general rule, the triple level of jurisdiction in criminal matters, dedicating two ordinary means of attack: the appeal and the recourse; consequently to the legislative changes of the present Code of Criminal Procedure (through Law no.202/2010), only the cases that are first trialed in a court can still undergo both ordinary means of attack. Also, Law no.135/2010 regarding the new Code of Criminal Procedure brings changes with regard to ordinary means of attack, and, implicitly, with regard to the levels of jurisdiction. Thus, with the purpose of ensuring the celerity of the criminal trial and the acceleration of the settlement of the criminal cases, under the circum...

Studia canonica, 2023

The threefold power of governance proper to diocesan bishops and the pope: legislative, judicial, and administrative. Problems proposed and possible solutions. Common and distinctive elements of a just administrative and judicial procedure. Moral certitude as the prerequisite for every punitive decision. The right to a double degree of jurisdiction in cases concerning the common good. The impartiality of the deciding authority with respect to the parties and the authors of the challenged decisions. Equality between public and private parties. The right to know and to contradict the evidence. The “judicialization” of administrative power and the “administrativization” of judicial power. The complexity of the equitable use of the supreme power of the pope. From the right of a pontifical organ to call to itself a case in first instance (judicial or administrative) ad casum to the legislative centralization of such a competence in favor of the Roman dicasteries, such that the diocesan bishop and his tribunal are competent only when they receive such competence ad casum. The new college internal to the “Feria IV” of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.