VI. Conclusion

Life without parole is effectively a death sentence; to consider it as anything less severe is a mistake. Even though one's death may not occur for a few decades or more does not mean that the government has not decided how and where the individual will die. When looked at from this view, LWOP is not so different from the death penalty. Moreover, in both an execution and a life sentence without the possibility of parole, there is no hope for redemption or reform, despite the reality that many people turn away from their criminal pasts and go on to lead law-abiding lives where they could contribute in a positive way to society. Neither of these two sentences allow for this possibility, however. Both the death penalty and LWOP are terminal sentences and guarantee that the prisoner will die in prison.

Death penalty abolitionists are in a difficult position. Victories in eliminating the sentence have only been successful in recent years despite efforts that span the last several decades. Advocates to eliminate LWOP can sympathize with the challenges inherent in this effort and know that most abolitionists privately consider LWOP to be an excessive punishment as well. Yet everyone agrees that if forced to choose between a death sentence and LWOP, life without parole is the preferred sentence.

Ultimately, however, neither sentence is appropriate in a corrections system that has the ability to reform lives as ours does. Our society demands fair and just sentences that keep the public safe, apply a reasonable amount of punishment, and attempt to reform the offender so that he or she can be safely returned to the community. Neither the death penalty nor LWOP accomplish these goals.

. Ashley Nellis is a Senior Research Analyst at The Sentencing Project in Washington, D.C., a national nonprofit organization working toward a fair and effective US criminal justice system by promoting reforms in sentencing policy, addressing unjust racial disparities, and advocating for alternatives to incarceration.