Justification of Life imprisonment in Serbian Criminal Law

In Serbia, disputes have been going on for years (which are also the subject of many congresses) about the regulation of the most severe types of punishment. The criminal policy of the country shows a tendency to toughen penalties. By attracting a lot of media attention and putting pressure on state institutions concerning certain tragic events caused by the murder and rape of minors, including children, some members of the public hysterically demand that the state respond with the strictest penalties, even if they no longer exist (the death penalty).

In December 1, 2019 The Law on Amendments and Additions to the Criminal Code, which, among other things, prescribes life imprisonment, entered into force. It is assumed that the fact that there is a life sentence for particularly serious crimes, such as murder or crimes against sexual freedom in particularly serious forms, may make criminals think twice before committing them. In addition, proponents of the introduction of such a punishment argue that the fear of life imprisonment can act as a corrective and preventive measure, thereby reducing the proportion of these criminal offenses.

The paper provides a critical analysis of this justification for the return of life imprisonment to the criminal law. The arguments against this include: 1) statistics confirm that life imprisonment for possible criminals who have committed particularly serious criminal offenses is not a factor of prevention; 2) general prevention is undermined; 3) the previously existing maximum prison term was not an obstacle, that is, it was not a factor of prevention; 3) innovations would not change the decisions of criminals, although they were in their sound mind at the time of committing criminal offenses, realizing the illegality of these actions; 4) it becomes impossible to carry out the correction and re-socialization of the sentenced person, who knows that he will remain closed outside the social and family environment for the rest of his life; 5) it is also necessary to keep in mind that it is the state that financially maintains such criminals.

1. Batalevic D, Antonovic R. Pozhiznennoe zaklyuchenie dlya sovershivshikh osobo tyazhkie ugolovnye prestupleniya [Life imprisonment for those who have committed particularly serious criminal offenses]. Otvetstvennost i sanktsiya v ugolovnom prave [Responsibility and sanction in criminal law]. Tara: Congress, 2019.

2. Bobot K. Chem vyshe nakazanie, tem menshe rol suda [The higher the penalty, the less the role of the court]. Advokat. Vestnik advokatskoy palaty Serbii [Advocate. Bulletin of the Serbian Chamber of Advocates]. 2020;4. (In Serb.)

3. Ignjatovic Dj. Pravo ispolneniya ugolovnykh sanktsiy [The right to enforce criminal sanctions]. Belgrade: Crimen; 2018. (In Serb.)

4. Milovic M. Ugolovno-pravovaya zashchita detey v oblasti seksualnykh otnosheniy: dis. ... d-ra yurid. nauk [Criminal and legal protection of children in the field of sexual relations. Doctoral Dissertation]. Belgrade; 2015. (In Serb.)

5. Stojanovic Z. Ugolovnoe pravo v poru krizisa [Criminal law in the time of crisis]. Branic; 2011(1-2). (In Serb.)

6. Stojanovic Z. Ugolovnyy kodeks [Criminal Code]. Sluzhebnyy vestnik [Official Bulletin]. 2019;16. (In Serb.)

7. The 7th Session of the International Forum on Crime and Criminal Law in the Global Era. Paper Collection. Beijing; 2015.