The Penalty of Life Imprisonment

The Killer, His Crime and the Punishment

Edited by
Andrzej Rzepliński
Maria Ejchart-Dubois
Maria Niełaczna

WYDAWNICTWO C.H.BECK
WARSZAWA 2017

Wydawca/Publisher: Joanna Szypulska

Recenzent wydawniczy/Peer reviewer: prof. Teodor Szymanowski

Tłumaczenie/Translation: Robin Gill, Biuro Tłumaczeń Narrator
www.http://narrator.eu/pl/

Korekta/Proofreading: Magdalena Mularczyk

Publikacja sfinansowana ze środków Narodowego Centrum Nauki
przyznanych na podstawie decyzji numer DEC-2013/09/B/HS5/04518

This publication is published with funds from the National Science Centre
(decision No. DEC-2013/09/B/HS5/04518)

© Wydawnictwo C.H.Beck 2017

Wydawnictwo C.H.Beck Sp. z o.o.
ul. Bonifraterska 17, 00-203 Warszawa

www.ksiegarnia.beck.pl

Skład i łamanie: Wydawnictwo C.H.Beck
Przygotowanie wersji elektronicznej: Wydawnictwo C.H.Beck

ISBN: 978-83-255-1518-8

List of Abbreviations

1. Legal Acts

CC

Act of 6 June 1997 – The Criminal Code (consolidated text, Journal of Laws of 2016, item 1137, as amended) [Ustawa z 6.6.1997 r. – Kodeks karny (tekst jedn. Dz.U z 2016 r. poz. 1137, ze zm.)]

CCP

Act of 6 June 1997 – The Code of Criminal Procedure (consolidated text, Journal of Laws of 2017, item 1904, as amended) [Ustawa z 6.6.1997 r. – Kodeks postępowania karnego (tekst jedn. Dz.U. z 2017 r. poz. 1904 ze zm.)]

EPC

Act of 6 June 1997 – The Executive Penal Code (consolidated text, Journal of Laws of 2017, item 665, as amended) [Ustawa z 6.6.1997 r. – Kodeks karny wykonawczy (Dz.U. z 2017 r. poz. 665 ze zm.)]

The Convention

Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms drawn up in Rome on 4 November 1950 (Journal of Laws of 1993, No. 61, item 284, as amended).

2. Courts and Institutions

AC

The Court of Appeals [Sąd Apelacyjny]

CE

The Council of Europe

CPT

European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment

CT

The Constitutional Tribunal [Trybunał Konstytucyjny]

DC

The District Court [Sąd Okręgowy]

ECtHR

European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg

PC

The Province Court [Sąd Wojewódzki]

SC

The Supreme Court [Sąd Najwyższy]

3. Journals

AK |  | Archiwum Kryminologii
KZS |  | Krakowskie Zeszyty Sądowe
OSNKW |  | Orzecznictwo Sądu Najwyższego – Izba Karna
PiP |  | Państwo i Prawo
PPEiS |  | Przegląd Prawniczy, Ekonomiczny i Społeczny
Prok. i Pr. |  | Prokuratura i Prawo
RNS |  | Rocznik Nauk Społecznych
ZO SN IK |  | Zbiór Orzecznictwa Sądu Najwyższego Izba Karna

4. Other

p. |  | page
pp. |  | pages
No. |  | number
Cf. |  | compare
vol. |  | volume
ed. |  | editor
eds. |  | editors
Art. |  | Article
e.g. |  | for example
i.e. |  | that is
et. al. |  | and others
TA |  | temporary arrest
CER |  | conditional early release

Introduction

Since the restoration of the penalty of life imprisonment of 19 November 1995 to 31 December 2011 in Poland, 304 offenders have been legally sentenced, almost always the perpetrators of aggravated killings.

The penalty of lifelong deprivation of liberty was introduced by the amendment to the Penal Code of 20 July 1995 and for the first time it was pronounced on 23 February 1993, more than 24 years ago. It was imposed on a man who had been sentenced to 25 years’ imprisonment for murder and had committed two murders during a robbery during temporary leave from prison.

The catalogue of the killers we examined, their crimes, and the crimes preceding them committed during or after them, the people “associating” around the death and the catalogue of victims killed in various ways, for various motivations, leaving hundreds of relatives and thousands of days not spent with them, smaller and larger achievements, and finally the catalogue of almost invisible prison officers responsible for punishment, which is endless – is rich and has provided us with not just criminological knowledge, but also knowledge about human nature, its pride and, at the same time weakness, about taking life and giving hope for a life better than ever, though “behind bars”, of relationships, both those lost and those creating new identities and values; knowledge of the work of the prison service, whether behind the scenes, without the results of that work – because that depends on the will of the offender and other hostile or friendly people, but the diligent work according to the purpose of every prison sentence no matter how long it lasts – to isolate and exclude.

Since 2012, under the leadership of Prof. Andrzej Rzepliński, our research team has been looking at the murderers sentenced to this extreme punishment, from the first to the last ruling until 31 December 2011. When this investigation was started, there were 301 perpetrators, and as of the date of publication, there are 299. One was acquitted after serving 12 years of life imprisonment. In the case of another, the Supreme Court quashed the ruling of life imprisonment because the defender provided evidence that the sentenced person could not have committed the murder for which he was convicted and that the offender was another man, whose trial was held in May 2016 before the District Court in Suwałki.

Thus, in our research group, there were 299 sentenced by law. In June 2017 there were 407, and about 25 killers are sentenced every year to life imprisonment. Their number is stabilising. The average period of stay for someone sentenced to this punishment will be about 40 years – that is, until the day of his death or achieving conditional release from incarceration. In all – unless the legislature changes Art. 148 of the Penal Code and the Executive Penal Code regulations, which may have an impact on the length of the sentence served – this average time spent in prison for life will be between 30 and 35 years, taking into account the policy of penal courts. A longer term of isolation will affect those for which the court has raised the threshold for early dismissal pursuant to Art. 77 § 2 of the Penal Code. In our sample, this applies to every third offender.

At the time (as of 30 June 2017), the penalty was being served by 297 convicts, including 12 women1. In total, these 299 perpetrators killed 507 people. Most of them are people with a criminal history. In the criminal records, there are no stays in a juvenile offenders’ unit recorded. Such data could be obtained from psychological reviews. Unfortunately, new criminal records – after the removal of penalty – do not contain this information.

A relatively large number of cases are those in which the court imposed life imprisonment in connection with Art. 258 of the Penal Code, which were committed in organised criminal groups, which – despite the intense killing and sowing of terror – the court called a band. 21 convicts killed on commission, for money. 86 committed homicide as if they were serial killers, and 71 were multiple killers – in one place and time they killed at least two people (most often the homicides were gang-related or family-related). 12 of those sentenced to life imprisonment are brothers. As with complicity, we have different arrangements for agreement and participation in the crime. We surveyed 7 foreigners – all from the former USSR – sentenced to life imprisonment and 5 Polish killers sentenced to that punishment by foreign courts for a murder committed in another country (England, Belgium, Germany).

In our research sample, there were at least 7 perpetrators sentenced to life imprisonment in two separate cases – and there is no verdict on the total sentence – therefore the prison system shows that the end of their punishment is 31 December 3000.

The variety of data and nuances concerning the research group and of all those “serving” them could be studied for another quarter of a century.

By organising the data and referring to the research methodology, our research team has attempted to answer the question of whether and what the nature of killers is – life prisoners – and what creates it? Who were they prior to the killings, usually aggravated (committed with premeditation, particular cruelty, or in combination with armed robbery, rape, armed kidnapping or explosives), were dependent on them or not necessarily because of poor social conditions, pathology in the family home, emotional or self-control disorders, or the harm the world or family or society dealt them when they were children?

Another aspect of the research was the language and content of judicial statements of convictions for the most severe punishment in Poland. We have looked at the legal issues involved in adjudicating the highest punishments, the role of court experts and the function of the penalty of lifelong deprivation of liberty from the perspective of the judges and, therefore, the justification of that penalty.

The following research questions were asked:

1. What, from the judge’s point of view, is of interest in the case of aggravated killings? Is it the trial itself, the parties involved, the media interest, the crime, the guilt, the punishment? What is the specific nature of these cases, in particular, to what extent is this trial specific in terms of the judge’s preparation?

2. What do the judges look for in these cases when deciding about crime, guilt and punishment? How do they see cases where the trial is based on circumstantial evidence (e.g. evidence could not be secured at the scene of the incident)?

3. What is the impact of the trial parties on the judges? (Our findings show that very rarely do prosecutors appeal and demand an increase in the conditional release threshold, while lawyers in more than half of the cases demand acquittal.)

4. How do judges assess the role of experts – both forensic physicians and psychiatrists and psychologists? Are experts important to the judges and why?

5. When does the judge come to the idea of “life imprisonment” and do the judges see a gulf between the penalty of 25 years of imprisonment and life imprisonment?

6. Do the judges think about the fact that they have sentenced someone to spending their whole life in prison? In what terms do the judges describe the sentence of life imprisonment and what are the justifications for it?

7. Do the judges treat the justification of life imprisonment as a signal sent to the administration executing the sentence regarding the particular treatment of the convicted person? For example, does the fact that those sentenced to life imprisonment with the passage of time also gain a “right” to advance in a subgroup, passes, and conditional release, influence their understanding of life imprisonment when it is decided?

In the end, our research curiosity was aimed at the particular, interesting process of serving out the punishment. What do those sentenced to life imprisonment take into prison? What brings them, their families, prisoners and society the prospect of the length of the sentence and the process of its execution? Around this same topic, we posed the following research questions: Is the process of execution of this indefinite punishment characterised by something special? What is its course? What are the “critical” moments that affect this course? On what factors does it depend and who influences them? What are the differences between the execution of this penalty and the remaining prisoners, including long-term ones?

In conclusion, the overall purpose of our research was:

• a criminological analysis of aggravated killings and their perpetrators,

• analysis of the judgeship of life imprisonment, and

• analysis of the execution of this penalty at various time phases from the perspective of those involved (prisoner, prison staff, families of perpetrators and victims, representatives of the judicial system and society).

The specific objectives were:

1. An analysis and criminological synthesis of aggravated killings and their perpetrators. The Penal Code of 1997 distinguishes 8 types of aggravated killing. Previous studies have shown that homicides are committed in different circumstances, from different impulses and motives, by one or more groups of perpetrators, using different tools or weapons, by perpetrators who differ in personality disorders and social equipage. The analysis of all these elements provided not only a detailed description of the killings committed over several decades, but also the ability to look at the relationships between them, the changes and the characteristics of the killings committed in the changing social, economic and political conditions. The synthesis of the research material enabled the categorization and description of the perpetrators’ profiles and the identification of the correctness between the mentioned factors.

2. Examining trends or changes in the ruling of life imprisonment over almost 20 years of its validity and verifying the validity of arguments “for” the imposition by the courts of sentences of life imprisonment.

3. Providing empirical evidence that perpetrators/prisoners are an internally differentiated group, both as to the offences and aggravating circumstances that determined the severity of their punishment, and their conduct in the course of the punishment and its effects upon them.

4. Describing and synthesising the contents and the course of life imprisonment. In pursuing this goal we sought answers to the following questions: What does the course of serving/execution of life imprisonment look like? What elements contribute to the content of life imprisonment during its execution? Who has an influence on this?

5. To investigate whether Polish prisons and their staff are prepared to deal in a nuanced fashion with the extreme group of life prisoners, to prevent the negative side effects of long-term isolation, to manage their time and risk properly and whether in the policy and manner of its execution, the prison service is attempting to reduce the social costs of life imprisonment.

By assuming the research hypotheses, we assumed that:

1. Firstly, the perpetrators of the aggravated killings sentenced to life imprisonment had as a rule been punished and had killed at least two people. In addition, they are older than average prisoners, worse educated, and as a rule come from broken families, operate outside the labour market, and have a disturbed personality.

2. Secondly, in the approach and handling of life imprisonment in their punishment, the standard approach is the same as for the other prisoners, although they are expected to spend the rest of their lives there, which is approximately 40 years. This routine is due to opportunism and the lack of professional preparation of officers, even if individualisation were required by the humane and rational execution of this punishment.

3. Thirdly, the Polish state does not have a predetermined practice of applying a general plan in dealing with this special category of prisoners, their families, and the families of their victims. Rational execution of life imprisonment depends on a given case, knowledge, the sacrifice and preferences of a specific officer, sometimes another person having access to a prisoner. When the punishment is to last to the end or nearly the end of the life of the sentenced killer, no one is responsible for the effects of penitentiary isolation for at least for a quarter of a century.

4. Fourthly, the life prisoners themselves see the need to diversify dealings with them. They want to be treated differently than the rest of the prison population, because they cannot ignore the unmarked end of their sentence – the high probability that they will spend the rest of their lives in jail. To ensure a minimum of autonomy, they are more receptive to communicating with prison staff. Life prisoners, unlike the rest – because of this “lifeness” – more often plan their lives in prison and make efforts to make their plan real. The internal diversity of this group of prisoners, due to the time they have already lived in isolation, in some cases longer than 15 years, and in some cases just beginning, will enable this hypothesis to be verified.

Our research material, which allowed us to realise our goals and verify the hypotheses (verdicts with justification, appeals and cassation of defenders, the opinions of court experts, often all case files with photographic documentation) and prison files (several hundred volumes), interviews with judges, prisoners, forensic experts gathered during our thematic seminars, hundreds of international or national court rulings on life imprisonment and prisoners, several hundred media releases in the press and other public media, qualitative interviews with 26 life prisoners, 142 correspondence surveys with these prisoners, materials from the Office of the Ombudsman, to which 165 respondents turned (more than half of the respondents, and many of them repeatedly) and their correspondence with NGOs and universities (Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights, Association for Legal Intervention, The Art. 42 of the Executive Penal Code Clinic acting at the Department of Criminology and Criminal Policy of the University of Warsaw).

From the angle of the group surveyed we have analysed Polish and international law, the rules and criteria for imposing this extreme penalty, formulated or applied by the courts of other countries and constitutional and international courts2.

As a methodology we used the quantitative and qualitative analysis of the research material (judgments, opinions, prison records, official documents), analysis of content (justifications for judgments and media information, mainly press), free interviews with a representative group of prisoners and prisoners, judges, advocates and group interviews, correspondence surveys, and analysis of source texts.

***

This is the first volume of monographs on aggravated killers, life prisoners, their loved ones, immersed in crime or punishment, prisoners who confront the everyday effects of this profound punishment and about the victims of crime. There is the least information about these in this volume. We focused on the criminological aspects of aggravated killing and its perpetrators, consequently sentenced to life imprisonment.

This does not mean that we did not see people being torn from their lives at the best of times – the fate of the victims of the murders we surveyed or the indirect victims of the injustices, i.e. their loved ones. We did not have enough time to look at their profiles and fates in this first period of the survey. Their harms and the life before them will be handled in the next stage of research and the next volume of our publication.

1 One subject died naturally due to age and illness, and one as a result of the provisions of the Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) – for a kidney donation to his mother – earned a break in the penalty and did not attend at its end date of 2014. We think this is a wonderful example of an 11-year game with the court (in this period he attempted a break in the penalty), when he convinced the prosecutor to support his request for a break. Analysis of the documents indicates that the mother could not be subjected to the treatment described by the convict because she was ill with cancer, and kidneys are not transplanted in such cases. The doctors forgot to inform the DC in Elbląg, that kidney transplant was not an option. This offender was subject to life imprisonment for the murder of 2 people, including a pregnant woman whom he knew was pregnant. These were gangster fights in Warsaw.

2 In examining this aspect of the execution of life imprisonment, we verified whether this execution in Polish prisons is consistent with the standards of the Council of Europe (Council of Europe Recommendation (23) on the exercise of the prison administration of life imprisonment and other long-term custodial sentences, 9 October 2003; the European Prison rules of 11 January 2006; Council of Europe Recommendation No. (82) 16 on the award of passes of 24 September 1982; the Council of Europe Recommendation (22) on the conditional release of 24 September 2003; and the judgments of the Constitutional Court and European Court of Human Rights.

The Penalty of Life Imprisonment in the Light of European Penitentiary Statistics

Beata Gruszczyńska1

Introduction

This article provides basic statistical data on prison populations in European countries. Attention was paid primarily to comparisons of prisoners sentenced to life imprisonment.

European penitentiary statistics have been collected and developed in the Council of Europe since the early 1980s2. To this day the basic idea of the project is being continued, its tools are improved, but technical and substantive problems in data collection and unification are still present.

Penetrating into the history of penitentiary statistics on a European scale, it is worth recalling that statistics were initially published in the Prison Information Bulletin, later in the Penological Information Bulletin, and contained only data on prison populations. Since 1992 the format of the publication has been extended, the publication has been issued under the common title SPACE (acronym of a French title – Statistiques Pénales Annuelles du Conseil de l'Europe) and also included information on non-custodial penalties.

At the end of the 1990s, statistical data on isolating and non-isolating punishments were collected on the basis of separate statistical questionnaires and published in two reports SPACE I – for isolating punishments and SPACE II – for non-isolating penalties.

In the methodological assumption of the SPACE I, project penitentiary statistics are collected on a yearly basis, based on a specially developed questionnaire sent to the Prison administrations of individual member states of the Council of Europe. In addition to the figures, it is also important to convey the so-called metadata, i.e. any explanatory information concerning, inter alia, the differences in definitions, categories of statistical units, and other characteristics related to the specific nature of prison reporting in a given country. Council of Europe Annual Penalties Statistics SPACE I (Prison Population) reports are sometimes published even with a two-year delay resulting from inaccurate or incomplete transmission of national data3.

This paper uses data on prison populations published in SPACE I Yearbooks, primarily for 2015, and in some cases also for 2014 data. For a comparison of the dynamics of total imprisonment and lifetime imprisonment for the last 10 years, SPACE I data is also provided from the 2006 statistical survey4.

It should be emphasized that in the context of qualitative research on sentenced to life imprisonment, statistical data on prison populations may seem too abstract. However, their knowledge and proper use may be of relevance in the comparative analysis of criminal and prison policy – especially in their characteristics and evaluation – both historically and internationally.

At the same time, it is worth mentioning that international comparisons of both crime data and prison data have significant limitations resulting inter alia from differences in penal systems and policies, the method of defining statistical units, reporting principles, and reliability in the development of data and explanations sent to (in general terms) the SPACE project.

I. Prison map of Europe – basic statistical data

The basic SPACE I statistical information shows that in 2015 – as of 1 September – the number of prisoners (sentenced and temporarily detained together) was over 1.4 million, i.e. about 7% less than in 20145. In half of the countries taken into account the coefficients were less than 115, while the largest – almost 440 – was in Russia.

In general it can be said that the prison map of Europe has been very varied for years. This is due to a number of reasons that cannot be presented briefly, but it is worth noting that their nature also lies in criminal policy, including in the structure of the types of penalties for each type of crime and the dimensions of the absolute penalty of deprivation of liberty. In Poland, for example, theft is most often the reason for the penalty of deprivation of liberty with conditional suspension of its execution, while in most states, especially Western Europe, it is fines or community service6. In Poland detention sentences with conditional suspension are activated in about 40% of cases, resulting in a significant increase in the prison population7.

Taking into account the number of people imprisoned in relation to population in 2015, as in previous years, in most Central and Eastern European countries and in Eastern Europe the coefficients per 100 thousand are decidedly higher than in Western Europe. Of the EU Member States the highest coefficients were recorded in Lithuania (278), Latvia (223) and Estonia (210). In Poland the coefficient was 192 (in 2014 – 203). Among the countries with the highest ratios are Albania (207), Moldova (219), Turkey (220), Azerbaijan (250), Georgia (275), Ukraine (204 in 2014) and Russia (with a coefficient of 440).

In most Western European countries, the imprisonment coefficients did not exceed 150, and many of them were below 100 (Netherlands, Finland, Denmark, Sweden; even less than 60 – Switzerland, Norway, Germany, Italy, Greece, France). Low coefficients were also reported in Slovenia (68) and Croatia (80). Data on absolute numbers and coefficients per 100 thousand inhabitants in 2014 and 2015 are shown in Table 1.

Table 1. Populations imprisoned in Europe in 2014 and 2015 (source: SPACE I – Survey 2014, 20158)

State

Absolute numbers

Coefficients
per 100 thousand

2014

2015

2014

2015

Albania

5 440

5 981

187,8

207,2

Andorra

53

52

68,9

66,7

Armenia

3 979

3 888

131,9

129,7

Austria

8 857

9 037

104,1

103,9

Azerbaijan

22 579

24 197

238,2

249,3

Bosnia and Herzegovina (Serbian)

940

877

66,1

61,9

Belgium

13 212

12 841

117,9

113,7

Bulgaria

7 870

7 583

108,6

106

Croatia

3 763

3 341

88,6

79,7

Cyprus

681

654

79,4

77,1

Montenegro

1 058

1 100

170,2

176,8

Czech Republic

18 658

20 866

177,5

197,7

Denmark

3 583

3 203

63,7

56,1

Estonia

2 962

2 768

225,1

210,3

Finland

3 097

3 007

56,8

54,8

France9

77 739

65 544

101,0

98,3

FYR Macedonia

3 116

3 498

150,8

168,9

Greece

12 006

9 646

110,1

89,4

Georgia

10 233

10 242

227,9

274,6

Spain

65 931

64 017

141,7

137,9

Netherlands

9 857

9 002

58,6

53,0

Ireland

3 829

3 746

83,1

80,4

Iceland

154

 no data

47,3

 no data

Liechtenstein

8

8

21,5

21,3

Lithuania

8 977

8 022

305,0

277,7

Luxembourg

656

667

119,3

115,7

Latvia

4 809

4 399

240,3

223,4

Malta

1 369

 no data

134,2

 no data

Moldova

7 166

7813

201,3

219,9

Monaco

28

 no data

74,1

 no data

Germany

65 710

63 328

81,4

77,4

Norway

3 718

3 664

72,8

70,3

Poland**

77 371

73 062

203,5

192,2

Portugal

14 003

14 222

134,3

137,5

Russia

671 027

642 470

467,1

439,2

Romania

31 637

28 642

158,6

144,9

San Marino

4

2

12,3

6,1

Serbia

10 288

10 064

144,0

142,2

Slovakia

10 179

10 087

187,9

185,9

Slovenia

1 522

1 399

73,8

67,8

Switzerland

6 923

6 884

85,1

82,7

Sweden

5 861

5 770

60,8

58,6

Turkey

151 451

173 522

197,5

220,4

Ukraine

92 290

 no data

204,0

 no data

Hungary

18 270

17 773

185,0

180,8

Italy

54 252

52 389

89,3

86,4

UK England and Wales

85 509

86 193

149,7

148,3

UK Northern Ireland

1 860

1 690

101,3

91,5

UK Scotland

7 879

7 746

147,6

144,6

II. Women among those imprisoned in European countries

Among the total prisoners, women account for between one and just over ten percent, and in 2015 the median was about 5%, as in previous years. The absolute numbers of women and the corresponding proportion of prison population in total in 2014 and 2015 are shown in Table 2.

Table 2. Women among prisoners in 2014 and 2015 (own elaboration)10

State

Absolute numbers

Share in the participation of prisoners in %

2014

2015

2014

2015

Albania

88

121

1.6

2.0

Andorra

10

11

18.9

21.2

Armenia

191

171

4.8

4.4

Austria

536

535

6.1

5.9

Azerbaijan

639

694

2.8

2.9

Bosnia and Herzegovina (Serbian)

17

14

1.8

1.6

Belgium

609

641

4.6

5.0

Bulgaria

259

240

3.3

3.2

Croatia

190

164

5.0

4.9

Cyprus

42

40

6.2

6.1

Montenegro

19

37

1.8

3.4

Czech Republic

1 170

1 433

6.3

6.9

Denmark

145

118

4.0

3.7

Estonia

157

145

5.3

5.2

Finland

248

228

8.0

7.6

France

2 838

2 098

3.7

3.2

FYRO Macedonia

102

112

3.3

3.2

Greece

578

518

4.8

5.4

Georgia

253

320

2.5

3.1

Spain

4 987

4 926

7.6

7.7

Netherlands

522

482

5.3

5.4

Ireland

146

127

3.8

3.4

Lithuania

385

320

4.3

4.0

Luxembourg

26

39

4.0

5.8

Latvia

337

340

7.0

7.7

Malta

35

 no data

2.6

no data

Moldova

442

405

6.2

5.2

Germany

3 734

3 753

5.7

5.9

Norway

190

186

5.1

5.1

Poland*

2 527

2 554

3.3

3.5

Portugal

841

862

6.0

6.1

Russia

55 071

52 142

8.2

8.1

Romania

1 568

1 484

5.0

5.2

Serbia

332

366

3.2

3.6

Slovakia

678

649

6.7

6.4

Slovenia

89

81

5.8

5.8

Switzerland

328

375

4.7

5.4

Sweden

333

331

5.7

5.7

Turkey

5 476

6 289

3.6

3.6

Ukraine

4 964

 no data

5.4

no data

Hungary

1 411

1 310

7.7

7.4

Italy

2 308

2 131

4.3

4.1

UK England and Wales

3 929

3 904

4.6

4.5

UK Northern Ireland

61

53

3.3

3.1

UK Scotland

425

408

5.4

5.3

Relatively high proportions of women are in prison in Finland, Latvia, Hungary, Spain and Russia, the lowest in Albania, Azerbaijan and Republika Srpska. At the same time it is worth pointing out that among the countries with large differences in population and thus imprisoned communities, the comparability of all measures is very limited.

Comparison of the map of imprisonment (per 100 000) with a map of crime intensification in European countries indicates a lack of co-occurrence (interdependence) of these measures. In many Central and Eastern European countries the crime rates are relatively low and the incarceration rates high (Poland, Lithuania, Estonia, the Czech Republic more than 200). In the Western European countries crime rates are high and imprisonment is low – around 100. In comparative analyses the size of the prison population on the basis of detailed data points to elements such as the structure of crime, but primarily as mentioned above, the structure of the types of punishments, and in particular the lengths of the penalty of deprivation of liberty for various crimes11. Cultural factors play an important role, inter alia the tendency to report offences to law enforcement agencies, as well as the criminal law tradition of adjudicating and applying non-custodial sentences, community service12.

III. Those sentenced to life imprisonment in European prisons

What does the number of prisoners sentenced to life imprisonment look like? In 2014 there were nearly 1,700,000 prisoners in European prisons (1,678,295), of which about 27,000, i.e. more than 1.5% of convicts, were sentenced to life imprisonment (SPACE I data). A year later, among over 1.4 million imprisoned, also about 27 thousand were sentenced to life imprisonment.

The vast majority of convicts were sentenced to life imprisonment in England and Wales and Turkey. The highest proportion of this group of prisoners – in comparison to the entire prison population – was in Scotland (almost 13), then in England and Wales, Northern Ireland, Greece and Ireland (over 8).

In turn, by referring the number of prisoners sentenced to life imprisonment up to the population, the highest coefficients per 100 thousand were recorded in Scotland (19), England and Wales (over 13) and in Greece, Turkey and Northern Ireland (about 8).

On the basis of the data from 2015, it is known that in comparison to 2014, in most European countries the number of persons sentenced to life imprisonment slightly decreased (on average by 3%), but increased in 16 countries – in Turkey (by 414 persons), in Russia (by 44), in Poland (by 21), in Scotland (by 19), and in Hungary (by 18) – see Table 3.

The vast majority of convicts were sentenced to life imprisonment in England and Wales and in Turkey – in total they constituted almost half (over 46%) of the life sentenced prisoners in Europe. The next countries with the largest number of prisoners with such a sentence are Germany and Russia (over 1,800), followed by Italy and Ukraine (cf. Graph 1).

Graph 1. Offenders sentenced to life imprisonment in 2015 (source: SPACE I 2015 data; * Data as of 2014)

Taking into account the population of individual countries, the highest coefficients per 100 thousand inhabitants occur in Scotland – almost 19, England and Wales, Greece, Turkey, Northern Ireland and Ireland (7.4). Among Central and Eastern European countries, Lithuania, Ukraine and Estonia represent the highest values (ca. 4).

The smallest number of convicts (in relation to the population) are sentenced to life imprisonment in the Netherlands, Denmark, the Czech Republic, Switzerland, France, Slovakia, Romania and Poland (below 1).

What has changed in the total of prison populations in the last decade? A comparison of statistics from 2006 and 2015 is presented in Table 3. 2015 data are incomplete, because France, Malta, Poland and Ukraine did not provide SPACE I with information on the number of persons sentenced for life imprisonment (data referring to Poland was taken from the Central Board of the Prison Service [in Polish: Centralny Zarząd Służby Więziennej] Annual Information). The table also includes 2014 data, allowing the comparison of yearly changes.

In the decade (2006–2015), the total number of prisoners serving life imprisonment increased significantly from less than 20,000 in 2006 and about one third more – 27,000 in 2015.

Table 3. Offenders sentenced to life imprisonment in the years: 2006, 2014 and 2015 (source: SPACE I – Survey 2014, 201513)

State

2006

2014

2015

Index of dynamics
in 2006–2015

Albania

108

155

155

143,5

Armenia

74

102

101

136,5

Austria

151

114

110

72,8

Azerbaijan

231

266

272

117,7

Belgium

237

211

214

90,3

Bulgaria

125

173

173

138,4

Cyprus

13

24

23

176,9

Czech Republic

32

48

48

150,0

Denmark

16

21

21

131,3

Estonia

33

40

41

124,2

Finland

128

209

203

158,6

France

557

466

no data

85,314

FYRO Macedonia

15

34

37

246,7

Greece

703

1017

958

136,3

Georgia

47

81

77

163,8

Hungary

230

297

315

137,0

Italy

1 235

1 599

1 611

130,4

Netherlands

17

32

32

188,2

Ireland

234

342

345

147,4

Lithuania

96

118

121

126,0

Luxembourg

17

12

12

70,6

Latvia

39

54

55

141,0

Malta

9

12

no data

133,314

Moldova

82

104

106

129,3

Germany

1 919

1 953

1 883

98,1

Poland

185

342

363

196,2

Russia

1 381

1 760

1 804

130,6

Romania

133

158

164

123,3

Slovakia

25

41

41

164,0

Switzerland

no data

38

36

no data

Sweden

152

144

142

93,4

Turkey

1 915

6 687

7 101

370,8

Ukraine

1 338

1 753

no data

131,014

UK England and Wales

7 278

7 468

7 439

102,2

UK Northern Ireland

144

160

164

113,9

UK Scotland

666

1 010

1 029

154,5

In the years 2006–2015, the number of offenders serving life imprisonment increased in most European countries. The highest increase, over three and a half times, took place in Turkey, over two and a half times in Macedonia, nearly twice in Poland and the Netherlands. The number of life prisoners increased about one and a half times in Latvia, Ireland, the Czech Republic, Scotland, and Finland. It decreased only in 5 countries: in Luxembourg and Austria (almost one third), and in Belgium, France and Sweden. In presenting the size and dynamics of the prison population of life prisoners, it should be emphasized that in nine European countries, i.e.: Andorra, Spain, Norway, Portugal, Slovenia and the former Yugoslav states: Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Montenegro and Serbia penal codes do not provide a penalty of life imprisonment. The highest custodial sentences in the abovementioned countries are as follows: 20 years – Slovenia; 21 years – Norway; 25 years – Andorra, Portugal; 30 years – Spain, Montenegro; 40 years – Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia. It should be added that in Iceland no one has been sentenced to life imprisonment since 1940, and it has never been imposed in Liechtenstein15.

Conclusions

In summary, it can be said that the above data on prisoners sentenced to life imprisonment against general prisoners represent only general numerical comparative characteristics, which are subject to a large number of criminological issues concerning the crime rate, and penal and criminal policies, that require in-depth comparative research.

It should be emphasized at the same time that, in the era of intensive development of information systems (especially the growing presence of big data), “better” statistics, both at national and international level, can be expected. Statistical research shows that in many European countries, including Poland, the quality of reporting, although involving many people and technical means, still leaves a lot of confusion and there is no precision in the description of the phenomenon or data to help this.

1 Beata Gruszczyńska – Warsaw University Professor, Department of Criminology and Criminal Policy, University of Warsaw.

2 The listing and reporting of prison data was set up by a group of experts at the Council of Europe and was initiated by Pierre V. Tournier (now Director of CNRS), who led the project until 2001. Since 2002, the project has been led by Marcelo F. Aebi.

3 European penitentiary data are available (independently of the publication of Yearbooks) at http://wp.unil.ch/space/.

4 No statistical information was provided from France, Malta, Iceland, Ukraine and Poland. Data on Bosnia and Herzegovina and Spain are incomplete. Data concerning Poland were taken from the Statistical Information of the Central Board of the Prison Service (Centralny Zarząd Służby Więziennej), and data on France – from the preliminary report as of 1 January 2015.

5 SPACE I covers all member states of the Council of Europe and is transmitted by 52 prison administrations, including the United Kingdom (separately for England and Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland), Bosnia and Herzegovina ( covering both the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Republika Srpska), Spain (issued by the State Administration and Catalonia).

6 Cf. M.F. Aebi at al., European Sourcebook of Crime and Criminal Justice Statistics 2014, HEUNI, 2014.

7 Cf. B. Gruszczyńska, Geografia prizonizacji w Europie. Polska na tle krajów Unii Europejskiej [in:] T. Bulenda, A. Rzepliński (ed.), Modernizowanie więziennictwa. V Kongres penitencjarny, Warsaw 2015, pp. 535–551.

8 According to the SPACE I methodological approach, the basic data on prison populations should reflect the situation as of 1 September of a given year. Not all countries provide data according to the set deadline, e.g. Germany as of 31 March 31; France, Latvia, Sweden as of 1 October; England and Wales as of 30June; Lithuania as of 1 July; Georgia as of 31 August 31; Czech Republic, Croatia, Poland and Portugal as of 31December. This last date is particularly incorrect due to the significantly reduced number of imprisoned with even the average of the remaining months. In Poland, for example, the prison population at the end of December 2015 was 70,836 and was by far the smallest in comparison to other months.

9 France: in 2015 the state as of 1 January; Poland: as of 31 August 2015 (based on Central Board of the Prison Service Information).

10 The table does not include Liechtenstein, Monaco, San Marino due to too small values.

11 B. Gruszczyńska, M. Gruszczyński, Prison Population and Crime rates – How Poland Differs from Other EU Countries, [in:] A. Kuhn at al. (ed.), Criminology, Criminal Policy and Criminal Law in an International Perspective, Switzerland 2013, pp. 563–571.

12 M.F. Aebi, C. Burkhardt, J. Chopin, M.M. Tiago, International Comparisons of Prison Statistics: Key Facts and Figures of the SPACE 2014 Report and Trends from 2005 to 2014, [in:] D. Kolarić (ed.), International Scientific Conference “Archibald Reiss Days” 2016 (pp. 319–329). Belgrade 2016.

13M.F. Aebi, N. Delgrande, Council of Europe Annual Penal Statistics – SPACE I – 2006, PC-CP (2007) 9 rev2; M.F. Aebi, M. Tiago, C. Burkhardt, Council of Europe Annual Penal Statistics SPACE I – Prison Populations, Survey 2014PCOCP (2015)7; idem, Council of Europe Annual Penal Statistics SPACE I – Prison Populations, Survey 2015 PC-CP (2016) 6.

14 In France, Malta and Ukraine the index is for 2006–2014 due to the lack of data from 2015.

15 CPT (2008) 26, Short Overview On Life Sentences, Council of Europe 2008.