Let me just be clear again - what I oppose is changing the whole life sentence judgement that the EU has asked /ordered us to change. This does not affect anyone with a life sentence who can currently get parole - people already get life sentences where they may serve as little as 8 years / 15 years etc and that is much like anywhere else. The EU decision does however affect the category where a judge has ordered a whole life sentence.
Currently, this accounts for only 50 prisoners in the UK.
Not just England, but the whole of the UK. Why we have to now pander to the most dangerous category of prisoners (I know the courts have not asked for release) by organising and paying for the charade of having parole hearings for people like Dale Cregan / Ian Brady / Peter Sutcliffe etc is beyond me.
Ian Brady has had a parole hearing a couple of times. What makes him any different than one of these guys? His crimes are considered by many as the worst in UK history.
Dale Cregan's sentence was clearly against your own Supreme Courts ruling and clearly a vengeance sentence by the judicial system because he gunned down 2 cops. It is not the fault of the ECHR that your judges dont read the UK Supreme Court rulings and have a nasty side when it comes to cop killers.
As for Peter Sutcliffe he actually was originally sentenced correctly. He was sentenced to life term with a minimum of 30 years. The issue here is that in 2010, a year before he could be released, then that ruling was changed to life without the possibility of release... and that might be illegal, unless he is deemed a danger to society. He is an old man after all so any 15+ year extended sentence is life.
No one is saying to release these guys, and holding a 10 minutes hearing every 10 or 15 years does not cost much, and keeps the judicial system in check.
I'm not arguing about fairness or setting prisoners free, besides - fairness is something many of these people denied their victims so that holds short shrift for me.
No you are arguing the lowest of the lowest... revenge and vengeance. I have zero sympathy for these men and if guilty, then they deserve their sentence, but we are suppose to be all equal to the law, and UK law is seriously lacking in this area. First having a politician set the term is beyond idiotic, and then not giving the possibility of a hearing on the possibility of parole for these very few criminals, all in sensationalist cases is frankly disgusting. People are suppose to be equal under the law, hence a man who murders and gets life with a minimum of 25 years and gets his hearing should be no different than Dale Cregan, but there is a difference.
Someone argued that the judgement does not do away with life sentences - but in effect it does. How many times do we read of a
lower category life sentence where the judgment adds "sentenced to life, must serve a minimum of 10 years?"
Does that not take away the meaning of "life sentence" in itself?
No it does not do away with life sentences, meaning or otherwise. Do you really think that Anders Brevik is going to get out after he served his minimum sentence? Of course not, he will be declared a menace to society and be locked up for another 5-10 years till the next hearing, who will declare him a menace again. Ian Brady, who got life, who got the right to get a hearing... he aint never leaving prison is he?