Alternatives to Life Sentences: Pros, Cons, and Effectiveness

Introduction

When a person is convicted of a crime and given a life sentence, they will spend the rest of their lives in jail. While proponents of life sentences point to the ability of life sentences to deter crime and protect the public, critics point out that they are expensive, can lead to false convictions, and create ethical dilemmas. This article argues that there are effective alternatives to life sentences that can lessen the risk posed by dangerous offenders while balancing the rights of offenders and victims and critically evaluating the usage of long-term imprisonment.

Life sentences are not the best strategy to decrease the harm dangerous offenders pose to society. They undermine the goals of rehabilitation and restorative justice, are fiscally and practically unjustifiable, and disproportionately affect minorities and lower socioeconomic groups.

Definitions of Key Terms

The terms life sentence and dangerousness will be used often to present the argument more precisely. A life sentence is imprisonment for the rest of one’s life and is often handed out for the most heinous crimes, such as murder (Smit and Appleton, 2019). Life sentence inmates typically must serve a minimum duration of incarceration before being eligible for parole consideration, though this varies by state. Dangerousness is the degree to which a criminal threatens the general population. A hazardous offender has either a history of violence, has committed a significant crime, or is thought to be at risk of committing other crimes.

Arguments for Life Sentences

Advocates for life sentences point to them as proof that they successfully discourage criminal behavior. A life sentence in prison sends a strong message to would-be criminals that they will pay a heavy price for their conduct (Dagan and Roberts, 2019; Vannier, 2020). As such, it acts as a deterrent and a warning to those who may otherwise consider the illegal activity. Others may be deterred from committing the same or similar crimes if they observe the severe repercussions that follow criminal behavior.

Another argument for life sentences is that they are society-protective. While public safety is a top priority for the criminal justice system, life sentences permanently remove dangerous criminals from society (Vannier, 2020). Sentences of life in prison are imposed on those who constitute a very high risk to society to discourage further criminal behavior and boost overall security. Society benefits from keeping dangerous criminals apart from the rest of the community.

The possibility of rehabilitation is not always present, which leads to the final reason in favor of a life sentence. While the UK criminal justice system must include opportunities for rehabilitating offenders, this is not always the case. Some criminals may be beyond redemption because of the severity of their acts (Plantz et al., 2023). For example, an offender who has committed several murders may be unable to rehabilitate and become a productive member of society. A life sentence is warranted in such instances to ensure that the criminal will never again be able to commit the same or similar acts. The protection of society’s members is furthered by a life sentence, which keeps the perpetrator behind bars indefinitely.

Case Study

It is generally agreed that life sentences are warranted in circumstances of murder and other especially heinous or serious offenses. This is because a life sentence guarantees the perpetrator will never again be a threat to society. Derek Chauvin, a former police officer in Minneapolis, is a good example of such a case with the offender accused of murdering Black man George Floyd (State of Minnesota v. Derek Michael Chauvin, 2021). The murder conviction and life sentence given to Chauvin prompted discussions about police brutality, racial inequality, and the American judicial system. Life in prison without the possibility of parole seems like the only just verdict in such circumstances, both to provide closure to the victim’s loved ones and to deter any potential for a recurrence.

Arguments Against Life Sentences

The arguments against life sentencing are based on several reasons, which courts must consider when making such judgments. Firstly, the goals of rehabilitation and restorative justice are undermined by life sentences. Life sentences treat offenders as irredeemable and unworthy of a second chance rather than allowing them to repent and learn from their mistakes (Robinson and Sarahne, 2020). Crewe, Hulley, and Wright (2020) state that such punishments are even more severe for young offenders. The judgments are wrong and counterproductive because they do not understand why people act criminally and keep violence and retaliation at bay.

Secondly, there is no fiscal or practical justification for mandatory life sentences. Keeping someone in prison for the rest of their lives is very expensive for the government and puts huge pressure on the UK criminal justice system (Smit and Appleton, 2019). Programs that encourage education, job training, and mental health services have been proven to reduce recidivism and assist criminals in reintegrating into society. Therefore, these funds would be better spent for benefits than for punishment.

Finally, minorities and people from lower socioeconomic backgrounds are disproportionately affected by the disproportionate use of life sentences. The reason for this is the prevalence of prejudice and bias in the criminal justice system, which leads to disproportionately harsh punishments for already marginalized and disadvantaged groups (Johnson, Spohn, and Kimchi, 2021). Overall, life sentences significantly deepen inequality and weaken public trust in the justice system by continually reiterating these wrongs.

Most of the arguments against life sentencing align with several ethical principles. Such principles include maleficence (no harm to others), autonomy (right to make decisions), and beneficence (do actions that benefit others) (Bifarin and Stonehouse, 2022). Long-term incarceration can potentially violate the principle of maleficence because of its negative effects on an inmate’s physical and mental health. Additionally, imprisonment violates the autonomy principle because it limits people’s freedom to make decisions for themselves. Furthermore, suppose long-term incarceration causes an individual’s physical and mental health to deteriorate. In that case, it may run counter to the concept of beneficence, which encourages persons to act in ways that improve the well-being of others.

Alternatives to Life Sentence

Mandatory life sentences have been debated for quite some time in criminal justice systems worldwide. Life sentences, its supporters say, give victims and their families closure and serve as an effective deterrence against particularly terrible crimes (Sehat, 2021). Critics, however, say that such punishments are frequently excessive and ignore the necessity of restorative justice and the possibility of rehabilitation (Crewe, Hulley, and Wright, 2020; van Zyl Smit and Morrison, 2020). Many alternatives to life sentences have been presented to address these issues. These options seek a middle ground between punishment and helping offenders become productive members of society while also protecting the public.

Community Sentence

Offenders sentenced to community service can do their time in the community rather than behind bars. This can include treatment programs, curfews, and jobs that benefit the community. Community sentences help offenders overcome the problems that prompted them to commit criminal acts in the first place and discourage them from returning to crime (Yukhnenko, Blackwood, and Fazel, 2020). Offender needs are considered while crafting a community sentence, which might include services like mental health counseling and vocational education. Community service sentences may save money compared to incarceration and correct many ethical issues from life sentencing.

Restorative Justice

Restorative justice is among the alternatives to life sentencing to restore relationships broken by criminal action. With the help of restorative justice, offenders are prompted to apologize to victims and the community for their wrongdoing (Leonard, 2022). This strategy seeks to heal and reconcile broken communities by getting to the bottom of criminal activity. It has been found to minimize recidivism rates and can give a more humanitarian and successful approach to criminal justice.

Tracking Devices

Lastly, courts can invest in the growing technology and monitor offenders through tracking devices. Offenders subjected to electronic surveillance have their whereabouts and activities tracked in real time using electronic devices (Laurie and Maglione, 2020). In some cases, this may involve using ankle tags or other constant monitoring (Laurie and Maglione, 2020). The purpose of electronic monitoring is to give a non-incarcerated means of keeping tabs on criminals while they are out in the community. Also, criminals’ adherence to sentencing restrictions, such as curfews or activity limitations, can be monitored electronically (Laurie and Maglione, 2020). Combining electronic monitoring with other sentencing alternatives like community service or restorative justice is possible and much more humane.

Pros and Cons of Alternatives

Community Sentencing and Restorative Justice

The benefits of community punishments and restorative justice include lower overall costs and a focus on the offender’s specific needs. In addition to being cheaper than incarceration, community punishments allow offenders to stay close to their families and friends as they serve their time (Yukhnenko, Blackwood, and Fazel, 2020). Offenders serving community sentences may be eligible for services like mental health counseling, job placement assistance, and other assistance tailored to the specific circumstances that led to their criminal activity.

Some community people or victims may not want to associate with or help offenders, especially those recovering from serious offenses. As such, the most prevalent drawback is a lack of support and acceptance in the communities, which may affect the offender psychologically and the rehabilitation’s success (Wilson, 2019). Furthermore, the offenders are likely to pose a risk to the communities by repeating their crimes. They require constant surveillance, which may be costly for the criminal justice system.

Tracking Devices

When compared to traditional monitoring methods, electronic monitoring has many benefits. Integrating electronic monitoring with other sentencing strategies like community service or restorative justice can further rehabilitation and public safety goals. Additionally, electronic monitoring may not prevent all forms of recidivism, especially in hardened criminals (Kaylor, 2022). The potential for technical failures or abuse and the cost and ramifications for privacy are further causes for concern with electronic monitoring. Criminals may escape if the devices are hacked, causing more danger to the community and the victims (Laurie and Maglione, 2020). The alternative also is not severe enough for offenders associated with serious crimes like murder and rape.

Examining Restorative Justice as an Alternative to Life Sentences

There is some evidence that restorative justice, when used as an alternative to life sentences, can help lower recidivism rates and increase the chances of rehabilitation for offenders. Offenders can apologize to the victim or the community as part of the therapeutic justice process. Restorative justice has been demonstrated to improve victim and offender satisfaction with the justice system and positively affect mental health (Leonard, 2022). Overall, restorative justice is an effective tool in changing the mindsets and behavior of offenders, providing an opportunity to write their wrongs and become better community members.

As an alternative to life sentences, restorative justice can improve outcomes, including rehabilitation, recidivism rates, and offender and victim reconciliation. Restorative justice facilitates accountability for wrongdoing and restitution to victims and communities by reuniting offenders with those harmed by their conduct (Leonard, 2022). This procedure can aid in resolving the underlying problems that prompted the offender’s criminal behavior and providing the offender with the resources he or she needs to avoid recidivism (Hobson et al., 2022). Restorative justice can lessen victims’ distress and increase their satisfaction with the court system.

However, restorative justice falls short regarding major and violent offenses. It may not be suitable when the victim is unwilling or unable to participate. It may not be appropriate in cases where the perpetrator poses a major risk to public safety (D’Souza and L’Hoiry, 2021; Willis, 2020). For example, murder and rape criminals and associated hardened offenders may escape and increase the threat to the community.

While restorative justice has gained traction as a viable alternative to more traditional forms of punishment, it faces substantial obstacles to widespread adoption. A major obstacle is ensuring the criminal, victim, and community are all eager to participate. Many victims may be unwilling to confront their abusers, and some offenders may be unwilling to accept responsibility for their acts, making this a challenging situation (Maglione, 2019). Furthermore, not all communities have access to the time, money, and trained facilitators necessary to implement restorative justice. Finally, there are fears that offenders may try to manipulate the process for their benefit, further traumatizing victims (Maglione, 2019). These difficulties underline the importance of deliberate preparation before initiating restorative justice procedures.

The Concept of Being on License

The phrase ‘on license’ usually refers to the sale or use of an item restricted by law, such as alcohol, guns, or certain medications. It indicates that a person or company has been granted permission to engage in a previously prohibited activity by the appropriate regulatory body (Parole Board, 2022). Regulations for being ‘on license’ can differ depending on the nature of the activity or substance in question and the issuing body. Losing their license or permission and facing other legal consequences like fines or jail time due to failure to follow the rules is possible (Prison Reform Trust, n.d.). Individuals on the license, therefore, need to be careful and abide by all the terms and conditions.

Pros of Being on License

Rather than locking up dangerous criminals forever, putting them on a license can help keep them under control in the community. To ensure that offenders abide by their license terms, they may be compelled to regularly check in with a probation or parole officer (Parole Board, 2022). This may involve restrictions on where the individual may go, who they associate with, or even what they eat or drink. These programs can help ex-offenders avoid reoffending by addressing the problems that led to their criminal behavior. In the long run, the individuals may change their ways and become constructive members of communities.

A life sentence may be more expensive than a license because it does not allow for the chance of rehabilitation and reintegration into society. The societal cost of crime can be reduced if offenders are subject to some supervision while on a license, and such supervision may also serve as a deterrent (Parole Board, 2022; Prison Reform Trust, n.d.). The efficiency of a person’s time spent on a license hinges on the quality of supervision and support they get and the individual’s motivation and capacity to adhere to the terms of their release.

Cons of Being on a License

Being placed on a license can be a shame for those who have committed crimes and their loved ones. This is because the offender’s ability to reintegrate into society may be hindered if the terms of their license are made public. For example, it might be challenging for an offender on a license to work, live, or engage in certain activities because of the restrictions imposed by their probation supervisor (Prison Reform Trust, n.d.). Offenders’ social isolation can become self-perpetuating, making rejoining society and resuming a regular life harder. People’s opinions and stigmatization of offenders might be exacerbated if the public considers a license a light penalty.

Additionally, depending on the license’s terms, being under a license may be too restrictive. Examples include mandating that an offender participate in treatment programs or submit to random drug testing regardless of whether or not these measures are warranted by the circumstances of the offender’s case (Prison Reform Trust, n.d.). Offenders who believe they are receiving an excessive response to their acts may find this frustrating. In addition, offenders may struggle to meet unduly stringent criteria, which may increase their sentence and lengthen the time they are under the supervision of the criminal justice system.

Conclusion

In conclusion, life sentencing is a harsh judgment on individuals when there are better alternatives. Community sentencing, restorative justice, and electronic monitoring are alternatives to life in prison. The relative merits of each option will vary based on the details of the issue at hand. It is possible that in cases of extremely serious and violent crime, restorative justice would not be the best approach. Putting criminals on licenses allows for better monitoring and control of their behavior, but it also risks being too harsh and stigmatizing.

Further research should include data collection in correctional facilities to compare the effectiveness of life sentencing with alternatives such as restorative justice and community sentences. Methods such as surveys and administering questionnaires can collect extensive data to make detailed conclusions regarding life sentencing. The ultimate goal is finding a middle ground between harsh punishment and rehabilitative measures that allow for successful offender reintegration. Ultimately, life sentencing is not the best approach for most crimes as alternatives can be used together to achieve better results in the UK criminal justice system.

Reference List

Bifarin, O. and Stonehouse, D. (2022) ‘Beneficence and non-maleficence: collaborative practice and harm mitigation’, British Journal of Healthcare Assistants, 16(2), pp. 70-74. Web.

Crewe, B., Hulley, S., and Wright, S. (2020) Life imprisonment from young adulthood. London: Palgrave Macmillan UK.

D’Souza, N., and L’Hoiry, X. (2021) ‘An area of untapped potential? The use of restorative justice in the fight against serious and organized crime: A perception study’, Criminology and Criminal Justice, 21(2), pp. 224-241. Web.

Dagan, N. and Roberts, J. V. (2019) ‘Retributivism, penal censure, and life imprisonment without parole’, Criminal Justice Ethics, 38(1), pp. 1-18. Web.

Hobson, J., Twyman-Ghoshal, A., Banwell-Moore, R., and Ash, D. P. (2022) ‘Restorative justice, youth violence, and policing: a review of the evidence’, Laws, 11(4), p. 62. Web.

Johnson, B. D., Spohn, C., and Kimchi, A. (2021) ‘Life lessons: Examining sources of racial and ethnic disparity in federal life without parole sentences’, Criminology, 59(4), pp. 704-737. Web.

Kaylor, L. E. (2022). ‘Electronic monitoring as an alternative to incarceration as part of criminal justice reform’, Handbook of Issues in Criminal Justice Reform in the United States, pp. 701-716. Web.

Laurie, E. and Maglione, G. (2020) ‘The electronic monitoring of offenders in context: From policy to political logics’, Critical Criminology, 28(4), pp. 685-702. Web.

Leonard, L. J. (2022) ‘Can restorative justice provide a better outcome for participants and society than the courts?’, Laws, 11(1), p. 14. Web.

Maglione, G. (2019) ‘The restorative justice apparatus: A critical analysis of the historical emergence of restorative justice’, Social and Legal Studies, 28(5), pp. 650-674. Web.

Parole Board. (2022) Licence Conditions and how the Parole Board use them. GOV.UK. Web.

Plantz, J. W., Neal, T. M., Clements, C. B., Perelman, A. M., and Miller, S. L. (2023) ‘Assessing motivations for punishment: The sentencing goals inventory’, Criminal Justice and Behavior, 50(1), pp. 139-162. Web.

Prison Reform Trust. (n.d.) Licence conditions and recall – indeterminate sentences. GOV.UK. Web.

Robinson, P. H. and Sarahne, M. (2020) ‘The opposite of punishment: Imaging a path to public redemption’, Rutgers University Law Review, 73, p. 1. Web.

Sehat, S. (2021) ‘Committing murder and punishment in US Criminal Law’, Turkish Journal of Computer and Mathematics Education (TURCOMAT), 12(13), pp. 7895-7906. Web.

Smit, D. V. Z., and Appleton, C. (2019) Life imprisonment: A global human rights analysis. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

‘State of Minnesota v. Derek Michael Chauvin (2021) Hennepin County District Court. (Criminal Case). Hennepin County District Court, 27-CR-20-12646′. Web.

van Zyl Smit, D. and Morrison, K. (2020) ‘The paradox of Scottish life imprisonment’, European Journal of Crime, Criminal Law and Criminal Justice, 28(1), pp. 76-102. Web.

Vannier, M. (2020) ‘The power of the pen: Prisoners’ letters to explore extreme imprisonment. Criminology and Criminal Justice, 20(3), pp. 249-267. Web.

Willis, R. (2020) ‘Let’s talk about it’: Why social class matters to restorative justice’, Criminology and Criminal Justice, 20(2), pp. 187-206. Web.

Wilson, S. (2019) ‘Failures of reintegration and the return to prison’, In Black Males and the Criminal Justice System, pp. 85-94. Web.

Yukhnenko, D., Blackwood, N., and Fazel, S. (2020) ‘Risk factors for recidivism in individuals receiving community sentences: a systematic review and meta-analysis’, CNS Spectrums, 25(2), pp. 252-263. Web.