‘Ban automatic life terms for murders’

nor life sentences. Others use them more sparingly.

“People who defend the system say we reflect the seriousness of the offence in a life sentence and the minimum period lifers have to serve before they are eligible for release.”

Mr Van Zyl Smit said the reasons for Scotland’s high rate of life imprisonment were complex and multiple.

His said: “You need to look at mandatory life sentences for murder – not all murderers are equally dangerous – and at what sort of minimum period is being set. After that minimum period are you releasing people? And more and more people are being recalled to prison.”

The professor, who is at the law department of Nottingham University, was speaking ahead of a speech to the Howard League for Penal Reform in Scotland.

The charity said: “This lecture questions whether life sentences from which offenders may never be released are human rights compliant. It also asks what can be done to reduce the number of persons serving life imprisonment by considering what the alternatives could be to life-long imprisonment.”

A spokesman for the Scottish Conservatives said: “This analysis does not consider victims of crime, a group who are sick and tired of being overlooked by government and experts.”

A Government spokeswoman did not address the proposals for legislative reform, but said: “Sentencing decisions in each individual case are determined by the courts.”

Former Scottish justice secretary Kenny Macaskill said there was “no quick fix” to the issue. He added: “We have become a more retributive society and with some heinous crime there’s been an understandable clamour for increased sentences. It seems to me the Sentencing Commission should be asked to consider the situation as to disparities with elsewhere.

“However, it’s likely to have to be a wider consideration by us as a society as to how we see not just punishment but rehabilitation.”