- Joined
- Oct 28, 2007
- Messages
- 23,964
- Reaction score
- 16,595
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
[h=1]Killers' life terms 'breach their human rights'[/h]The European Court of Human Rights has ruled the whole-life tariffs given to murderer Jeremy Bamber and two other killers breached their human rights.
The judges ruled by 16 to 1 that there had to be a possibility of release and review of the sentence.
But they said this did not mean there was "any prospect of imminent release". Link.
The problem isn't EUCHR. If the UK dropped the Human Rights Act and all it entails, we'd still need a national replacement, ruled on by UK judges and it's worth remembering that some of these cases only go as far as the EUCHR because the UK courts rule against the government and the government appeals. Half the time I suspect the government know they'll still loose but find it politically advantageous to blame European courts rather than British ones.I'm in profound disagreement with the EUCHR on this and I don't care that the UK or someone from the UK drafted the original documents (that's to PeteEU).
There was a point in cutting off criminals heads and sticking them on spikes at city gates - that doesn't automatically mean we should keep doing it. To be honest, I think it's a rather petty argument to say some prisoners should never have any kind of review of their sentencing. Again, this strikes me as an entirely political position, presenting a "tough on crime" image without having to actually do anything about crime (plus getting to attack "Europe" regardless of the outcome).The whole point of a whole-life sentence is that someone has committed crimes so heinous that a judge and jury has agreed that the person will always be a threat to society or that the punishment for the crime is to as severe as possible.
Votes for (some) prisoners is a perfectly reasonable idea and Abu Qatada would have been (again) a problem regardless of the EUCHR. As I see it, the problem is on this side of the English Channel.First, votes for prisoners, then Abu Qatada (who we finally got rid off after some £8million in costs) and now this.
I'm in profound disagreement with the EUCHR on this and I don't care that the UK or someone from the UK drafted the original documents (that's to PeteEU). The whole point of a whole-life sentence is that someone has committed crimes so heinous that a judge and jury has agreed that the person will always be a threat to society or that the punishment for the crime is to as severe as possible.
First, votes for prisoners, then Abu Qatada (who we finally got rid off after some £8million in costs) and now this.
Thoughts?[/FONT][/COLOR][/FONT][/COLOR]
Considering that their actions are directly responsible for the ultimate abridgement of another's human rights, what the court is saying in a nutshell is that only some human rights matter.
In any society, there is always a balance between the rights of one individual and those of another, and this court has decided that the rights of the murderer are more important than the rights of their victims.
I'm in profound disagreement with the EUCHR on this and I don't care that the UK or someone from the UK drafted the original documents (that's to PeteEU). The whole point of a whole-life sentence is that someone has committed crimes so heinous that a judge and jury has agreed that the person will always be a threat to society or that the punishment for the crime is to as severe as possible.
First, votes for prisoners,
then Abu Qatada (who we finally got rid off after some £8million in costs)
Some points here.
The UK wrote the freaking treaty
Who cares. Only place that this would remotely matter would be in the US where there are such massive numbers behind bars or have been behind bars. Never understood why, just because you are convicted of a crime, that you suddenly loose your basic rights as citizens.. but /shrug.
Your own ****ing fault and you know it. Not only did you let him into the country... bad move, but this was a UK government (both labour and tory) cluster**** from start to finish. It has been a binding principle of UK policy since WW2 not to extradite people to countries where they are threatened by death or torture, but suddenly you want to throw all that away because you dislike this idiots Islamic bull****? Come on.. the UK is better than that. And in the end, you got what you wanted, and Jordan on the face of it, joined the civilized world where we dont torture people for confessions. So what if it cost you 8 million.. that is what you waste on chavs and London bankers every second or so.
I'm in profound disagreement with the EUCHR on this and I don't care that the UK or someone from the UK drafted the original documents (that's to PeteEU). The whole point of a whole-life sentence is that someone has committed crimes so heinous that a judge and jury has agreed that the person will always be a threat to society or that the punishment for the crime is to as severe as possible.
First, votes for prisoners, then Abu Qatada (who we finally got rid off after some £8million in costs) and now this.
Thoughts?[/FONT][/COLOR][/FONT][/COLOR]
Treaties are not set in stone and shouldn't be. What worked 60 years ago is plainly not working now. Just because a treaty or document is produced does not mean it cannot be changed or modified as culture and society changes.
A criminal, by definition is someone who has stepped outside the normal boundaries of human behaviour and acceptable rights - especially of others. To think you somehow keep those rights after you've denied or taken someone else's away is ludicrous.
Jordan gave assurances many years ago about how Qatada would be treated but this was never enough for the lawyers who could milk the public purse to defend a terrorist. Yes in the end, we paid £8 million to be rid of him but it should never have come to that.
No this is because you have some specific situations where you want to be able to break the basic human rights of people, because you really hate these people. --
Just to address this as I don't have time - there is no piece of human social legislation or law that stands unchangeable and unmodifiable. The Human Rights legislation might (yet again) have been written by the British but that was over 50 years ago and society and demands have changed since then. We dropped the Death Penalty in the interim (nothing to do with EU law) and there are other examples of change in penal law however we felt that some crimes were so awful that there was no way back to society.
At least that's the honest approach - better than raising the hopes of someone like Anders Brievik that the reviews every 10-20 years might offer a chance of parole when in reality he won't be freed. I personally believe a criminal has to know there are penalties to crimes and more importantly society has to know that there are clear penalties to crimes.
I know in reality even if we are forced to the EU guideline we still won't free the worst offenders- but we will pay lawyers, judges and parole personnel to sit through a charade every 15 years just to keep a facade going.
What's the point of that beyond wasting taxpayer's money?
I'm in profound disagreement with the EUCHR on this and I don't care that the UK or someone from the UK drafted the original documents (that's to PeteEU). The whole point of a whole-life sentence is that someone has committed crimes so heinous that a judge and jury has agreed that the person will always be a threat to society or that the punishment for the crime is to as severe as possible.
First, votes for prisoners, then Abu Qatada (who we finally got rid off after some £8million in costs) and now this.
Thoughts?[/FONT][/COLOR][/FONT][/COLOR]
The Article said:'No chance to atone'
The three men are among a group of 49 people in England and Wales who are serving whole-life tariffs.
This means they cannot be released other than at the discretion of the justice secretary on compassionate grounds - for example, if they are terminally ill or seriously incapacitated.
Cannot play media. You do not have the correct version of the flash player. Download the correct version
Justice Secretary Chris Grayling says the ruling makes the case for curtailing the powers of the European Court of Human Rights
Up until 2003, all terms could be reviewed, including whole-life tariffs after 25 years.
The men claimed that being denied any prospect of release was a violation of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights - which protects people from inhuman or degrading treatment.
The court found that for a life sentence to remain compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights there had to be both a possibility of release and a possibility of review.
The judges said: "Moreover, if such a prisoner is incarcerated without any prospect of release and without the possibility of having his life sentence reviewed, there is the risk that he can never atone for his offence: whatever the prisoner does in prison, however exceptional his progress towards rehabilitation, his punishment remains fixed and unreviewable.
"If anything, the punishment becomes greater with time: the longer the prisoner lives, the longer his sentence."
The judges said the current UK law concerning the justice secretary's power to release a whole-life prisoner was "unclear".
They said: "Given this lack of clarity and the absence of a dedicated review mechanism for whole-life orders, the Court was not persuaded that, at the present time, the applicants' life sentences were compatible with Article 3."
Bamber was jailed for the five murders in Essex in 1985.
Again. 4*30=120 max... even half of that would be 60 years in jail. Basically a life sentence. But it should be 60 years in jail with the possibility of parole, instead of life in prison.Moore killed four gay men for his sexual gratification in north Wales in 1995.
This was after killing another person before, being released in 2008. Repeat offender... 30 years in prison for him would be a correct punishment. Not life in prison.In 2008, Vinter, from Middlesbrough, admitted killing his wife Anne White.
It's not about life in prison, it's about life in prison without any chance to be free again.
And yes, that is against human rights. So is the capital punishment.
For murder and other heinous crimes, the top punishment should be 30 years(25,30, 35 years, around there). Of course, 30 years top/crime. So if you do 3 murders, 3x30= a maximum of 90 years in prison. Which is technically a life sentence but still. 1 murder, maximum 30 years.
But max sentences should be given only to people who are repeat offenders or show no sign of remorse for their crime.
Anyway, this is just in general.
On to the case in question.
The reason the EUCHR said that this is a violation of their human rights is because life in prison is considered an inhuman punishment. Much like solitary confinement is considered torture.
so the question is, do you consider life in prison to be inhumane? if so, they you must agree with the EUCHR. If not, then you don't. I consider life in prison to be inhumane.
HOWEVER, these 3 murderers are there for REPEATED crimes.
5*30 = 150 years in prison maximum. Even half of that means that this particular criminal should remain in prison for the remainder of his life. Whether he should be sentenced to "life in prison" as opposed to 75 years in prison WITH the possibility of parole... well, I think the latter.
Again. 4*30=120 max... even half of that would be 60 years in jail. Basically a life sentence. But it should be 60 years in jail with the possibility of parole, instead of life in prison.
This was after killing another person before, being released in 2008. Repeat offender... 30 years in prison for him would be a correct punishment. Not life in prison.
Murderers deserve death penalty. Forget life in prison.
1.causing a fire or explosion in a naval dockyard, ship, magazine or warehouse (until 1971);
2.espionage[12] (until 1981);
3.piracy with violence (until 1998);
4.treason (until 1998);
5.certain purely military offences under the jurisdiction of the armed forces, such as mutiny[13] (until 1998). Prior to its complete abolition in 1998, it was available for six offences:
1.serious misconduct in action;
2.assisting the enemy;
3.obstructing operations;
4.giving false air signals;
5.mutiny or incitement to mutiny; and
6.failure to suppress a mutiny with intent to assist the enemy.
I know it's not possible in Europe, but in many places in the US we have an alternate to Life Without Parole..... EXECUTION.
The whole idea that you would even consider allowing a murderer or other seriously violent criminal an opportunity to convince people that they should be allowed to walk among the population again is utter lunacy so far as I'm concerned. Then again, I do not claim to understand how the people or governments of Europe operate these days.
These individuals are not going to be released, and the only thing this ruling has thrown in to doubt is Britain's continued membership of the ECHR itself.
The same reasons we have any laws. In it's general principals, EU human rights law didn't introduce anything that existing UK law didn't already have (and certainly nothing that UK law wouldn't have were we to leave the convention). These issues are about specific interpretations, which happens with domestic law too and half the time isn't the European judges disagreeing with UK government but British ones (UK government is more than happy to appeal to the ECHR if they think they can win).Then I would ask... Why would Britian sign such a document in the first place? The whole idea is quite daft so far as I'm concerned, and leaves the citizens of any signitor state at considerable risk, at least in my mind. It makes people less safe so far as I can see. I just don't see why anyone would sign this thing in the first place.
I'm in profound disagreement with the EUCHR on this and I don't care that the UK or someone from the UK drafted the original documents (that's to PeteEU). The whole point of a whole-life sentence is that someone has committed crimes so heinous that a judge and jury has agreed that the person will always be a threat to society or that the punishment for the crime is to as severe as possible.
First, votes for prisoners, then Abu Qatada (who we finally got rid off after some £8million in costs) and now this.
Thoughts?[/FONT][/COLOR][/FONT][/COLOR]
The ECHR didn't make any judgement on the individual cases, they made a judgement of the general legal principle. You've acknowledged that it is possible, however unlikely, that in your opinion these individuals could be released yet you're supporting a judgement that denies that possibility outright.I think we certainly ought to be careful about how we hand out life sentences, and I don't know enough about the killers listed to tell whether they would meet my personal muster for revoking it (my guess, based on knowing the EU, is no).
Well given the ruling doesn't say anything of the sort, this is a rather pointless statement. Do you actually understand what the ruling was?A life sentence doesn't violate the "human rights" of a joy killer or a pedophile or a sociopathic rapist unless you believe their "human rights" include the right to hurt others with impunity. What about everyone else's rights?
The ECHR didn't make any judgement on the individual cases, they made a judgement of the general legal principle. You've acknowledged that it is possible, however unlikely, that in your opinion these individuals could be released yet you're supporting a judgement that denies that possibility outright.
Well given the ruling doesn't say anything of the sort, this is a rather pointless statement. Do you actually understand what the ruling was?
The same reasons we have any laws. In it's general principals, EU human rights law didn't introduce anything that existing UK law didn't already have (and certainly nothing that UK law wouldn't have were we to leave the convention). These issues are about specific interpretations, which happens with domestic law too and half the time isn't the European judges disagreeing with UK government but British ones (UK government is more than happy to appeal to the ECHR if they think they can win).
The point of these laws being Europe wide was to force those countries which didn't have our level of human rights (notably Eastern Europe) and, as with European law in general, try to ensure some consistency for people travelling or working across Europe. Nothing is perfect and there are always some unintended consequences but the idea that these are as common or as significant as to suggest we need to scrap the whole thing is entirely politically motivated rather than on the basis of any principals of rights or justice.
Nobody is saying that though.I am against the concept that a life sentence violates human rights in and of itself.
Your post is a tad misleading when you don't post why the panel ruled what they ruled.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?