–6–
Individualisation
76.
Meeting these general principles requires individualisation of sentence planning. The CPT
proceeds from the knowledge, based on its own ex-perience as well as that of many prison
administrations, that life-sentenced prisoners are not necessarily more dangerous than other
prisoners (see also paragraph 72); many of them have a long-term interest in a stable and conflictfree environment. Equally, those who start their sentence as dangerous may well become
significantly less so, not just with the passage of time during lengthy sentences but also with
targeted interventions and humane treatment. After the imposition of the life sentence,
individualisation should continue through the process of sentence planning based on an assessment
of the individual situation. This requires a lengthy preliminary assessment, preferably conducted in
a dedicated place with appropriate staff in the form of experienced and specially trained prison
officers, psychologists, educators and social workers. A psychiatrist should also be involved when
there are indications of possible mental health issues. The task of that team, working in co-operation
with the prisoner, is to develop as full an understanding as possible of the prisoner’s situation, both
inside a custodial environment and in the community, and the needs the prisoner has for particular
interventions to render the stay in prison as beneficial as possible in terms of resolving identified
needs and preparation for release. Use should be made of accredited risk and needs assessment
instruments, supplemented by professional judgment.7 The resulting analysis and plan, which
should be shared as far as possible with the prisoner, becomes a source document for all persons
working with the prisoner. It should be reviewed on a regular basis, with feedback given to the
prisoner.
Implementing the sentence plan
77.
The guiding principles in implementing the sentence plan are very much the same as for all
prisoners. Prisoners should not be subject to any restrictions which are not required for the
maintenance of good order, security and discipline within the prison. In particular, the level of
security applied to each individual should be proportionate to the risk presented by the person. The
nature of the offence is only one factor in assessing this. As a matter of principle, the imposition of
the detention regime of life-sentenced prisoners should lie with the prison authorities and always be
based on an individual assessment of the prisoner’s situation, and not be the automatic result of the
type of sentence imposed (i.e. the sentencing judge should not determine the regime).
78.
Equally, except in the assessment phase, life-sentenced prisoners should not routinely be
kept apart from other sentenced prisoners, although it would not be objectionable for long-term
prisoners to be kept apart from very short-term prisoners. The length of sentence does not
necessarily bear any relationship to the level of risk life-sentenced prisoners may represent inside a
prison, and the principle of normalisation requires that life-sentenced prisoners can at least associate
with other long-term prisoners who have a predetermined release date. The, albeit limited, turnover
this can create refreshes the experience of prison for those who are to be incarcerated for a very
long time.
Concentrating life-sentenced prisoners in a specialised prison also necessarily results in
many such prisoners being kept very far from their families and outside contacts. A life sentence
will in any event put a good deal of pressure on these relationships; compounding that by locating
the prisoner a significant distance away from home reduces the possibility of maintaining what is a
crucial element in promoting resocialisation. Further, no additional restrictions should be imposed
on life-sentenced prisoners as compared to other sentenced prisoners when it concerns the
7
See Recommendation CM/Rec (2014) 3 of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe to member
States concerning dangerous offenders.