Killers' life terms 'breached their human rights'

[dirtychinchilla]

Thats the sort of ridiculous nit picking that gets us to these sort of stupid decisions. Everyones human therefore everyone should enjoy human rights no matter what their actions. So what about freedom of movement for prisoners? Liberty?

At some point you have to say that if someone places themselves out of the construct of society - and it is a construct not an inalienable human right as you can see in places like Syria currently - then why should they continue to enjoy those benefits that people who conform to the rules and limits do? Saying 'well theyre human too!' is a cop out. If i just believe in a religion that watches other humans burn you cant stop me because its against my human rights - my right to bear arms, my right of freedom of religious beliefs yadda yadda.

It's not nitpicking. There is a definition of human, and if you are what is defined, then you are human, whether you have humanity or not.

I think you make a good point about living, or not living, within the construct that is society. However, I believe that we have a moral position that we must uphold if we desire to separate ourselves from the rest of the animals on this planet. That involves every single one of us having the same basic rights, whether we have committed an, apparently, inhuman act (impossible as any act done by a human is a human act).

This is not a religious position. It is a position that we, as part of our societal construct, have elected to take. Although, that doesn't mean we can't disagree with it.

 

[MrMoonX]

Humna rights are taking the **** now.

well I'd hate to think what the government would do to everyday Joe without them, just look at Prism, GCHQ etc, without the ECHR we would have no redress, other than the high court which the government can just legislate to overturn decisions.

People also need to realise that the Human Rights Act, 1998 is UK legislation, not an EU anything

 

[fez]

It's just not. Your human rights exist as long as you are human, which all humans will forever be.

Ahh, so when someone is murdered, they are no longer alive so their rights are forfeit. This is always the stumbling block for me. If you take someones life, no amount of jail time will compensate that person.

Why do you deserve to ever see the light of day again when you have taken a life and ruined so many other peoples futures. What rights does the murdered party get in all this. None. They are dead. The murderer is alive and should be made to pay for that till the day they die.

If even a single "rehabilitated" murderer is released and kills again, the whole system is a mess. You have once again placed the rights of a criminal above the protection of the people.

 

[Gackt]

The principle of allowing the possibility of release is a sound one.

While rehabilitation isn't possible for everyone, there are those who can be. And who can contribute back to society.

It doesn't mean that suddenly all the bad guys get released into the streets, those who are deemed a danger will remain to rot behind bars, but it allows for those who have changed to a point where they can return to society the chance.

 

[Bobcat]

They threw away their human rights when they intentionally took another persons life in my opinion.

I agree with this sentence 100%, life imprisoned should mean just that, for life.

Removing the Life Sentence could spark a whole new wave of anything taking place, adapting an attitude of "what they gonna do, bang me up for life, hahahahah" is just not fair, not for the public, but more so for victims and the family's, as it looks like there is minimal to no justice being done, where is the deterrent if you take away the punishment.

But it seems like this is the way things are unfortunately going, it appears that a judge handing out a sentence these days may as well be waving a cheese counter ticket in the air with a random number on it, as very rarely does the full sentence get carried out, early release, tag, overcrowding, etc, gives a very wrong and worrying impression of the system that we call justice.

 

[Meridian]

Executing criminals makes sense simply because we won't have them around to worry about. Or pay for.

Can I just point out that at least one of the three concerned (Bamber) claims to be innocent. If that turns out to be true (very unlikely) then how exactly would execution help?


As for the original question, it's threads like this that demonstrate why justice should never be left to the general public. Judges may get it wrong occasionally, but nowhere near as often as people on BBS. And the judges here have pointed out that this verdict in no way overrides local release protocols, or even suggests release. it just says that you can't imprison someone without the occasional review of that imprisonment. Well, review it. If they're still dangerous, keep them locked up. This changes pretty much nothing.

 

[SpeedFreak]

Sensible ruling in my opinion.

 

[Emjay86]

Honestly?

Its all ********.

If it were up to me id have capital punishment back in. With the technology we have available these days its a lot easier to be sure of certain facts.

Id have to say though that for capital punishment to truely apply you should have undeniable evidence. Like CCTV footage or something.

Once you know for definate 100% that the person you have is guilty then send them to the chopping block. Why the hell should we have to pay to home and rehabilitate these losers?

An easy life without worries of work or commitment is hardly a punishment.

Their cells should be a dismal little **** hole with a bed and a bog and thats it. They should be in fields digging pointless holes for them to only be refilled at night so they can start again the next day.

Dont like it?

As the saying goes 'If you can't do the time, don't do the crime'... Or something to that affect...

Too many bloody goody two shoes these days. You give a scumbag an inch and theyll take a mile.

 

[glenimp617]

Do all murderers deserve life sentances? No, of course not

Assisted Suicide...No

Extreme Self Defence (ie a heavy drug user off his head is attempting to kill you with a knife....No

First Aider/Nurse/Surgeon getting it wrong...No

Every case needs looking at on its own merit.

 

[Destination]

We the taxpayer, should not have wasted money fighting this case, we were going to lose before we started, this had been tried in similar circumstances before, and we are paying for both sides of the case.

Simply give them a review every five years that says no, not yet son, you keep your murdering ways behind bars.

Cheaper for the taxpayer.

Eithre that or write our own human rights bill, and remove our name from the european one, keeps the moeny in our own supreme court, but eaise to side step this gubbins and just review cases.

I am fed up with waste of money and the riches going to an elite class of human rights barrister in european court, and in supreme court, of which Tony Blairs wife is one, or certainly was.

She took a case to get a stuck off doctor back in, as they gmp souncil who struck him off decided he should be struck off immediately, instead of retiring to chmabers and coming back to say immediate instead of deciding at the same time as his striking off.
Cost a million quid that case.
Of which no doubt she pocketed a serious amount.

 

[Tunney]

Eithre that or write our own human rights bill, and remove our name from the european one, keeps the moeny in our own supreme court, but eaise to side step this gubbins and just review cases.

I am fed up with waste of money and the riches going to an elite class of human rights barrister in european court, and in supreme court, of which Tony Blairs wife is one, or certainly was.

It's worth noting that very few cases make it as far as the ECHR. There were 19 in total for the whole of 2011. Only 8 of these cases were lost by the government.

 

[kibblerok]

Can't see what the fuss is with this - Just because it can be reviewed it doesn't mean they'll be successful.

Again, like with Abu Qatada the Government is making things up as they go along and playing the victim when caught. It's rather annoying the Government flagrantly breaks the law, costing the taxpayer millions in the process just to make a political point.

 

[Rainagul]

Why the hell should anyone who has committed such an act such as in the headline be given a chance of rehabilitation or a chance at life.

They threw all of that away the second they committed the act. I have no sympathy for people like this.

I would be intrigued to see the people defending these idiots to have someone close to them become a victim of people like this and then talk about defending their human rights or "need" for rehab.

This country is too soft.

 

[Woden]

Why the hell should anyone who has committed such an act such as in the headline be given a chance of rehabilitation or a chance at life.

They threw all of that away the second they committed the act. I have no sympathy for people like this.

I would be intrigued to see the people defending these idiots to have someone close to them become a victim of people like this and then talk about defending their human rights or "need" for rehab.

This country is too soft.

My cousin was murdered. Dragged out of his home and beaten to death for having the audacity to be openly gay.

And I agree with the ECHR's ruling. Life without even the chance of parole is no more than barbaric. That's not justice, it's revenge, and it has no place in a civilised society.

This isn't releasing dangerous people. It's giving the reformed a fair chance.

 

[Strife212]

What if someone committed a murder and instantly felt insane remorse and that they would never murder again. Does that mean they are instantly reformed and can go on their way immediately?

 

[PooBrain]

My cousin was murdered. Dragged out of his home and beaten to death for having the audacity to be openly gay.

And I agree with the ECHR's ruling. Life without even the chance of parole is no more than barbaric. That's not justice, it's revenge, and it has no place in a civilised society.

This isn't releasing dangerous people. It's giving the reformed a fair chance.

We all start life with a fair chance in regards to sticking to the rule book.

 

[bam0]

What if someone committed a murder and instantly felt insane remorse and that they would never murder again. Does that mean they are instantly reformed and can go on their way immediately?

No, why would you think that? Remorse wouldn't mean you were rehabilitated, it's not addressing what caused you to murder someone in the first place. And even then it doesn't preclude the need for a component of punishment to the sentence.

 

[Rainagul]

My cousin was murdered. Dragged out of his home and beaten to death for having the audacity to be openly gay.

And I agree with the ECHR's ruling. Life without even the chance of parole is no more than barbaric. That's not justice, it's revenge, and it has no place in a civilised society.

This isn't releasing dangerous people. It's giving the reformed a fair chance.

Sorry to hear.

And dragging someone out of their home to beat them to death isn't barbaric and has no place in civil society?

I could understand giving people with more minor offences a fair chance. But to a person who is a murderer/rapist is just to much.

 

[Meridian]

Honestly?

Its all ********.

With the technology we have available these days its a lot easier to be sure of certain facts.

Id have to say though that for capital punishment to truely apply you should have undeniable evidence. Like CCTV footage or something.

1) No it isn't.
2) You never do.


And these two little holes in your theory are likely to be forever. If you support the death Penalty you must accept that occasionally you will get it wrong. Denying this is weaseling.

 

[Robosapien]

Do any of you guys know how high the prison population figures are for the UK and US in comparison with the rest of Europe? They are astronomical. And why? Because according to Michael Howard - "prison works".

Politicians need to appear like they are tough on crime because - guess what - you're more likely to vote for them if that's the case! It's all a political game.

Look at the penal system in Norway. Look at the rates of re-offending in Norway. Prison does not 'work', rehabilitation works - the facts speak clearly for themselves. (Too lazy to dig them out for you myself though).


Nevermind the fact that prison system in the US is a racket, an industry - it is cheaper for the country to imprison someone rather than pay them a minimum wage because money can then be extorted from their families for things like 'phone calls'. People get life over there for stealing CD's.