‘An Obligation of Means, Not One of Result’: A Historical Overview and Theoretical Assessment of the Whole Life Order Sentencing Regime in England and Wales

Atticus Blick
{"title":"‘An Obligation of Means, Not One of Result’: A Historical Overview and Theoretical Assessment of the Whole Life Order Sentencing Regime in England and Wales","authors":"Atticus Blick","doi":"10.1177/00220183231216169","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In England and Wales, a ‘whole life order’ (WLO) is a life sentence with no prospect of parole. At present, the WLO sentencing regime provides insufficient clarity about the assessment criteria for the release of prisoners, rendering these sentences unreviewable. Indeed, no WLO prisoner has ever been released. This article submits that it is the means by which the executive and courts preclude scrutiny of the WLO review mechanism, and so devalue the systemic health of our legal order by undermining rule of law principles of accountability and transparency, which form the most disquieting aspects of the regime. I set out my argument in two parts. Part One provides a historical assessment of the development of the WLO sentencing regime and its impact on wider human rights discourse. A critical evaluation of this history reveals that WLOs today are irreducible and underscored by the long-term accumulation of unaccountable executive power. Part Two considers WLOs from the position of the philosopher John Rawls’ theory of ‘political liberalism’ as applied to understandings of European human rights constitutionalism. Adapting Rawls’ emphasis on the importance of reciprocal deliberation between diverse citizens and institutions in maintaining a just and stable society, this article presents the deficiencies of the WLO regime as deriving from an inter-institutional failure to engage in meaningful deliberation about whether the WLO regime complies with the UK's human rights obligations. I propose reforms to the reviewability of WLO sentences to give prisoners the ‘means’ if not necessarily the ‘result’ of release. Rather, there remain outstanding questions about how many of the worst of the worst prisoners possess the capacity for rehabilitation, even if provided with the opportunities to do so. As such, these reforms can be justified, less on grounds of ensuring the actual release of prisoners, but more as part of restoring a broader functional human rights and rule of law framework.","PeriodicalId":501562,"journal":{"name":"The Journal of Criminal Law","volume":"357 1","pages":"355 - 385"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Journal of Criminal Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00220183231216169","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In England and Wales, a ‘whole life order’ (WLO) is a life sentence with no prospect of parole. At present, the WLO sentencing regime provides insufficient clarity about the assessment criteria for the release of prisoners, rendering these sentences unreviewable. Indeed, no WLO prisoner has ever been released. This article submits that it is the means by which the executive and courts preclude scrutiny of the WLO review mechanism, and so devalue the systemic health of our legal order by undermining rule of law principles of accountability and transparency, which form the most disquieting aspects of the regime. I set out my argument in two parts. Part One provides a historical assessment of the development of the WLO sentencing regime and its impact on wider human rights discourse. A critical evaluation of this history reveals that WLOs today are irreducible and underscored by the long-term accumulation of unaccountable executive power. Part Two considers WLOs from the position of the philosopher John Rawls’ theory of ‘political liberalism’ as applied to understandings of European human rights constitutionalism. Adapting Rawls’ emphasis on the importance of reciprocal deliberation between diverse citizens and institutions in maintaining a just and stable society, this article presents the deficiencies of the WLO regime as deriving from an inter-institutional failure to engage in meaningful deliberation about whether the WLO regime complies with the UK's human rights obligations. I propose reforms to the reviewability of WLO sentences to give prisoners the ‘means’ if not necessarily the ‘result’ of release. Rather, there remain outstanding questions about how many of the worst of the worst prisoners possess the capacity for rehabilitation, even if provided with the opportunities to do so. As such, these reforms can be justified, less on grounds of ensuring the actual release of prisoners, but more as part of restoring a broader functional human rights and rule of law framework.
手段义务,而非结果义务":英格兰和威尔士终身监禁判决制度的历史概述和理论评估
在英格兰和威尔士,"终身监禁令"(WLO)是一种无假释前景的终身监禁判决。目前,终身监禁判决制度对释放囚犯的评估标准不够明确,导致这些判决无法复审。事实上,从未有 WLO 囚犯被释放过。本文认为,正是行政部门和法院排除了对 WLO 复审机制的审查,从而破坏了问责制和透明度的法治原则,从而贬低了我们法律秩序的系统健康性,这才是该制度最令人不安的方面。我分两部分阐述我的论点。第一部分对世界劳组织量刑制度的发展及其对更广泛的人权讨论的影响进行了历史性评估。对这一历史的批判性评估表明,今天的WLO是不可减损的,并且由于不负责任的行政权力的长期积累而更加突出。第二部分从哲学家约翰-罗尔斯(John Rawls)的 "政治自由主义 "理论的立场出发,对WLOs进行了研究,并将其应用于对欧洲人权宪政的理解。罗尔斯强调不同公民和机构之间的互惠商议对于维持一个公正稳定的社会的重要性,本文根据罗尔斯的这一论点,将世界秩序组织制度的缺陷归结为机构间未能就世界秩序组织制度是否符合英国的人权义务进行有意义的商议。我建议改革 WLO 判决的可审查性,为囚犯提供释放的 "手段",但不一定是 "结果"。相反,有多少最恶劣的囚犯即使有机会改过自新,但他们是否有能力改过自新,这仍然是一个悬而未决的问题。因此,与其说这些改革是为了确保实际释放囚犯,不如说是为了恢复更广泛的人权和法治框架。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信