In several countries, life imprisonment has been effectively abolished. Many of the countries whose governments have abolished both life imprisonment and indefinite imprisonment have been culturally influenced or colonized by
Spain or
Portugal and have written such prohibitions into their current constitutional laws (including Portugal itself but not Spain).
Comparison map Comparison table Detailed analysis Europe A number of European countries have abolished all forms of indefinite imprisonment.
Croatia set maximum prison sentence at 40 years (50 years in exceptional circumstances). In the
Bosnia and Herzegovina the maximum prison sentence is set at 45 years on federal level, in
Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina and
Brčko Distrikt, while
Republika Srpska, which previously also set maximum prison term at 45 years, has reinstated a life sentence. Portugal abolished all forms of life imprisonment with the
prison reforms of Sampaio e Melo in 1884 and has a maximum sentence of 25 years. Life imprisonment in Spain was abolished in 1928, but reinstated in 2015 and upheld by the
Constitutional Court in 2021.
Serbia previously had a maximum prison sentence of 40 years; life imprisonment was instated in 2019 by amendments to the country's criminal code, alongside a
three-strikes law. In
Kosovo, life imprisonment was also reinstated in 2019.
Recent Reforms and Human Rights Perspectives In
Europe, there are many jurisdictions where the law expressly provides for life sentences without the possibility of parole. These are
England and Wales (within the
United Kingdom; see
Life imprisonment in England and Wales), the
Netherlands,
Moldova,
Bulgaria,
Italy (only for persons who refuse to cooperate with authorities and are sentenced for
mafia activities or
terrorism),
Ukraine,
Turkey and
Serbia. In Malta, prior to 2018, there was previously never any possibility of parole for any person sentenced to life imprisonment, and any form of release from a life sentence was only possible by clemency granted by the
President of Malta. In
France, while the law does not expressly provide for life imprisonment without any possibility of parole, a court can rule in exceptionally serious circumstances that convicts are ineligible for automatic parole consideration after 30 years if convicted of child murder involving rape or torture, premeditated murder of a state official or terrorism resulting in death. In
Moldova, there is never a possibility of parole for anyone sentenced to life imprisonment, as life imprisonment is defined as the "deprivation of liberty of the convict for the entire rest of his/her life". Where mercy is granted in relation to a person serving life imprisonment, imprisonment thereof must not be less than 30 years. In
Ukraine, life imprisonment means for the rest of one's life with the only possibilities for release being a terminal illness or a presidential pardon. In Albania, while no person sentenced to life imprisonment is eligible for standard parole, a conditional release is still possible if the prisoner is found not likely to re-offend and has displayed good behaviour, and has served at least 25 years. Before 2016 in the
Netherlands, there was never a possibility of parole for any person sentenced to life imprisonment, and any form of release for life convicted in the country was only possible when granted royal decree by the
King of the Netherlands, with the last granting of a pardon taking place in 1986 when a terminally ill convict was released. As of 1970, the Dutch monarch has pardoned a total of three convicts. Although there is no possibility of parole eligibility, since 2016 prisoners sentenced to life imprisonment in the Netherlands are eligible to have their cases reviewed after serving at least 25 years. This change in law was because the
European Court of Human Rights stated in 2013 that lifelong imprisonment without the chance of being released is inhumane. Even in other European countries that do provide for life without parole, courts continue to retain judicial discretion to decide whether a sentence of life should include parole or not. In
Albania, the decision of whether or not a life-convicted person is eligible for parole is up to the prison complex after 25 years have been served, and release eligibility depends on the prospect of
rehabilitation and how likely they are to re-offend. In Europe, only Ukraine and Moldova explicitly exclude parole or any form of sentence commutation for life sentences in all cases.
South America In South and Central America, Honduras, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, Venezuela, Colombia, Uruguay, Bolivia, Ecuador, and the Dominican Republic have all abolished life imprisonment. The maximum sentence is 60 years in Colombia, 50 years in Costa Rica and Panama, 40 years in Honduras and Brazil, 30 years in Nicaragua, Bolivia, Uruguay, Venezuela and the Dominican Republic, and 25 years in Paraguay and Ecuador. Countries in the region where life imprisonment is a legal sentence include Argentina, Guyana, Peru, and El Salvador, which introduced the maximum sentence of life amid
its gang crackdown.
Canada El Salvador On March 17, 2026, the
Legislative Assembly of El Salvador approved a constitutional amendment to allow life imprisonment for
murder,
rape, and
acts of terrorism. Specifically, the second paragraph of Article 27 of the Constitution of the Republic of
El Salvador was amended, stating that "life imprisonment shall only be imposed on murders, rapists and terrorists".
United States Legal Framework and Key Court Rulings In 2011, the
Supreme Court of the United States ruled that sentencing minors to life without parole, automatically (as the result of a statute) or as the result of a judicial decision, for crimes other than intentional homicide, violated the
Eighth Amendment's ban on "
Cruel and unusual punishments", in the case of
Graham v. Florida. , sentenced to life imprisonment for bank robbery, 1935
Graham v. Florida was a significant case in juvenile justice. In
Jacksonville, Florida, Terrence J. Graham tried to rob a restaurant along with three adolescent accomplices. During the robbery, one of Graham's accomplices had a metal bar that he used to hit the restaurant manager twice in the head. Once arrested, Graham was charged with attempted armed robbery and armed burglary with assault/battery. The maximum sentence he faced for these charges was life without the possibility of parole, and the prosecutor wanted to charge him as an adult. During the trial, Graham pleaded guilty to the charges, resulting in three years of probation, one year of which had to be served in jail. Since he had been awaiting trial in jail, he already served six months and, therefore, was released after six additional months. Within six months of his release, Graham was involved in another robbery. Since he violated the conditions of his probation, his probation officer reported to the trial court about his probation violations a few weeks before Graham turned 18 years old. It was a different judge presiding over his trial for the probation violations a year later. While Graham denied any involvement in the robbery, he did admit to fleeing from the police. The trial court found that Graham violated his probation by "committing a home invasion robbery, possessing a firearm, and associating with persons engaged in criminal activity", In 2016 the Supreme Court ruled in the case of
Montgomery v. Louisiana that the rulings imposed by
Miller v. Alabama were to apply retroactively, causing a substantial amount of appeals to decade-old sentences for then-juvenile offenders. In 2021, the Supreme Court ruled in
Jones v. Mississippi that sentencers are not required to make a separate finding of the defendant to be "permanently incorrigible" prior to sentencing a juvenile to life without parole.
Current Debates and Developmental Research In 2024, Massachusetts became the first U.S. state to ban life without parole sentences for people under 21. That reflects a growing recognition that young adults differ developmentally from fully mature adults (State Court Report, 2024). However, so many other states still allow that sentence. Despite these rulings, many individuals in the United States are still serving life without parole sentences for crimes committed as minors. Research from The Sentencing Project (Brown & Davis, 2025) shows that racial disparities persist. Black youth are sentenced to life without parole at far higher rates than white youth. Developmental studies (Hyde, 2024) show that exposure to violence, unstable environments, and instability can shape a young brain. It can shape brain responses to danger and emotions.
Vatican City Pope Francis called for the abolition of both
capital punishment and life imprisonment in a meeting with representatives of the
International Association of Penal Law. He also stated that life imprisonment, removed from the
Vatican City penal code in 2013, is just a variation of the death penalty.
Malaysia Originally in Malaysia, life imprisonment was construed as a jail term lasting the remainder of a convict's natural life, either with or without the possibility of parole. In April 2023, the Malaysian government officially abolished natural life imprisonment and instead redefined a life sentence as a jail term between 30 and 40 years. At the time of the reform, at least 117 prisoners were serving natural life imprisonment, consisting of 70 whose original death sentences were commuted to life (without parole) prior to the reform, and another 47 whose sentences of life were imposed by the courts, and all of these life convicts were allowed to have their jail terms reduced to between 30 and 40 years in jail. In November 2023, four drug traffickers - Zulkipli Arshad, Wan Yuriilhami Wan Yaacob, Ghazalee Kasim and Mohamad Junaidi Hussin - became the first group of people to have their natural life sentences reduced to 30 years’ imprisonment after a re-sentencing hearing by the
Federal Court of Malaysia, which was followed by many more such commutations in the months to come.
Singapore In
Singapore, before 20 August 1997, the law decreed that life imprisonment is a fixed sentence of 20 years with the possibility of one-third reduction of the sentence (13 years and 4 months) for good behaviour. It was an appeal by
Abdul Nasir bin Amer Hamsah on 20 August 1997 that led to the law in Singapore to change the definition of life imprisonment into a sentence that lasts the remainder of the prisoner's natural life, with the possibility of parole after at least 20 years. Abdul Nasir was a convicted robber and kidnapper who was, in two separate High Court trials, sentenced to 18 years' imprisonment and 18 strokes of the cane for robbery with hurt resulting in a female Japanese tourist's death at
Oriental Hotel in 1994 and a consecutive sentence of life imprisonment with 12 strokes of the cane for kidnapping two police officers for ransom in 1996, which totalled up to 38 years' imprisonment and 30 strokes of the cane. The amended definition is applied to future crimes committed after 20 August 1997. Since Abdul Nasir committed the crime of kidnapping and was sentenced before 20 August 1997, his life sentence remained as a prison term of 20 years and thus he still had to serve 38 years behind bars. The appeal of Abdul Nasir, titled Oriental Hotel murder|
Abdul Nasir bin Amer Hamsah v Public Prosecutor [1997] SGCA 38, was since regarded as a landmark in Singapore's legal history as it changed the definition of life imprisonment from "life" to "natural life" under the law. ==See also==