Life sentences under review: Can Bangladesh balance justice, mercy and public safety?

Bangladesh is contemplating a reduction in the effective 30-year jail term for prisoners serving life sentences, alongside the potential release of elderly convicts. For women, the term might be reduced to 20 years, while it could be slightly longer for men. 

This proposal aims to address longstanding issues within the penal system, including severe overcrowding and humanitarian concerns for ageing inmates. 

While the initiative deserves more scrutiny on public safety and rehabilitation, it aligns with global trends where lengthy incarcerations are increasingly scrutinised for their efficacy and human cost.

Life imprisonment in Bangladesh traditionally equates to a 30-year term, unless specified as "imprisonment until death" for particularly heinous crimes. This practice stands in contrast to many other jurisdictions worldwide, where life sentences vary significantly in length and eligibility for release. 

Current legal standing on life imprisonment in Bangladesh

In 2020, the Appellate Division of Bangladesh's Supreme Court ruled that a life sentence means 30 years in prison, unless the verdict explicitly states "imprisonment until natural death". This judgment clarified previous legal confusion on the matter, affirming that convicts receiving a standard life sentence will serve 30 years and are eligible for remissions and other legal benefits. 

However, if a court specifically uses the phrase "imprisonment until natural death", the convict will remain incarcerated for the remainder of their life with no possibility of remission. This clarification stemmed from a review petition filed by convict Ataur Mridha, whose earlier life sentence had created uncertainty regarding its duration. 

The ruling confirmed a dual approach to sentencing for life imprisonment, providing a standard 30-year term while allowing for a more severe, until-death sentence if explicitly specified by the court.

Prominent human rights activist Barrister Jyotirmoy Barua, citing this ruling, said, "According to Section 111 of our constitution, any decision by the Supreme Court becomes law and it is binding upon all." 

According to the Constitution, the "law declared by the Appellate Division shall be binding on the High Court Division and the law declared by either division of the Supreme Court shall be binding on all courts subordinate to it." 

This means that the Supreme Court's judgments set binding precedents for all lower courts, but they do not function in the same way as laws passed by the Parliament.

Global practices 

In the US, for instance, homicide convictions often result in average sentences of 40.6 years, far exceeding global norms, with many states imposing life without parole for serious offences. 

Australia follows closely with an average of 34.2 years for similar crimes, while European nations tend towards shorter effective terms. 

In Germany and the Netherlands, the majority of prison sentences are under one year, even for violent offences, with life sentences typically including parole eligibility after 15 to 25 years. The United Kingdom employs a 'whole life order' for the most egregious cases, but most life sentences carry a minimum tariff of 15-30 years before parole consideration. 

In contrast, countries like Norway cap maximum sentences at 21 years, emphasising rehabilitation over prolonged punishment. 

Bangladesh's 30-year benchmark thus sits in the middle ground, longer than some Scandinavian models but shorter than the punitive approaches in the US or certain Asian nations like Singapore, where a life sentence can mean indefinite detention.

Overcrowded prisons in Bangladesh 

Proponents of reform argue that such changes are essential given the dire state of Bangladesh's prisons. Official figures paint a grim picture: the country's 68 prisons have a combined capacity of 42,887 inmates but currently house over 53,831, resulting in an occupancy rate of approximately 126% as of recent data. 

However, historical overcrowding has been far worse, with rates exceeding 200% in previous years, leading to inhumane conditions including inadequate sanitation, limited access to healthcare, and heightened risks of disease outbreaks. 

A 2024 report highlighted that prisons were operating at over three times their intended capacity in some instances, exacerbating tensions and hindering rehabilitation efforts. 

Releasing elderly lifers — those who have served substantial portions of their sentences and pose lower risks due to age — could alleviate this burden, freeing up resources for younger offenders and improving overall prison management. 

Muhammad Nurul Huda, who served as the 17th Inspector General of Police during 2000–2001, said, "The prisons are overcrowded and the cost of maintaining the prisoners has gone up in recent years. Hence, the government can consider this decision. There can be the option to appeal towards the judges. Then, his [prisoner's] crimes and mental state can be examined, and then he can be considered for a reduced sentence." 

He added that such measures are not meant to undermine justice but to balance it with humanitarian considerations and the state's financial capacity. Similar practices, he pointed out, exist in many countries where parole or remission systems are used to manage prison populations more effectively.

Moreover, advocates point to past initiatives, such as the phased release of 56 life-term prisoners earlier this year who had served over 20 years, as evidence that targeted clemency can work without compromising security.

On the humanitarian front, the proposal resonates with calls for compassion towards elderly convicts, many of whom suffer from chronic illnesses and diminished physical capabilities. Ageing in prison often means isolation from family, limited medical care, and a life devoid of dignity. 

International human rights bodies, including the UN, have urged nations to consider alternatives for older inmates, arguing that prolonged detention for the frail serves little punitive or deterrent purpose. 

In Bangladesh, where mental health services in prisons are scant — with occupancy rates contributing to psychological strain — releasing rehabilitated elderly prisoners could affirm a commitment to restorative justice. 

Supporters contend that this not only upholds human rights but also reduces taxpayer burden associated with long-term incarceration.

Concerns regarding recidivism 

Yet, the discussion cannot ignore global statistics on recidivism among those released from life or long-term sentences, particularly violent offenders. 

Worldwide, recidivism rates vary, but a systematic review of data from multiple countries indicates an average reoffending rate of around 40-50% within five years for released prisoners, though this drops for those serving life terms due to longer sentences and older release ages. 

Notably, violent offenders, especially those convicted of homicide, exhibit lower recidivism rates for the same type of crime compared to property or drug offenders — often below 20% for repeat violence. 

This is attributed to the nature of their crimes, which are frequently situational rather than habitual, and the ageing process — offenders released in their 50s or 60s have recidivism rates as low as 15-20%, regardless of original offence, as criminal tendencies wane with age.

However, this does not equate to zero risk. Released violent criminals may be re-arrested for new violent acts, but more commonly for non-violent offences like theft or public disorder, with overall re-arrest rates hovering around 30-40% in studies from the US and Europe. 

In Scandinavian countries, where rehabilitation-focused systems prevail, recidivism is markedly lower — around 20-30% — compared to the US's 67% within three years. These disparities underscore that sentence length alone does not deter reoffending; robust support systems, including education, therapy, and community reintegration, play crucial roles. 

The Home Adviser himself said recently, "If someone commits a crime at 18 and is released after 20 years at age 38, they might re-offend." So, this is a concern as well. 

For Bangladesh, adopting non-custodial measures for low-risk elderly lifers could mirror successful models elsewhere, potentially lowering recidivism through supervised release programmes.

As Bangladesh deliberates this reform, the balance between mercy, safety, and practicality remains delicate. The robust risk assessments and post-release monitoring will be vital to ensure that compassion does not come at the expense of justice.