1) Yes it sometimes is.
2) Yes, you sometimes do (though it is very rare).
Killers' life terms 'breached their human rights'
- Thread starter TrixiBuG
- Start date
1) Yes it sometimes is.
2) Yes, you sometimes do (though it is very rare).
Of couse what they did is barbaric, and they do not belong on civil society. This is why his killers are in prison serving very long sentences.
The ECHR ruling will not change that, at all. All that has changed is lifers now have the right to apply for parole, that does not mean they will get it.
I disagree, or rather I don't think there's not a particularly clear distinction. Many crimes against the state have a hugely punitive element, which I think equates to 'revenge' as it isn't possible to have a personal element.
Soldato
- Joined
- 29 Aug 2006
- Posts
- 3,779
- Location
- Wales
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 37,798
- Location
- block 16, cell 12
I can understand rehabilitation for lesser crimes but for things like murder, rape that even if the guilty party requests rehabilitation it should not detract from their sentence. Any bad behaviour should increase the sentence and the sentences for these types of crimes should be stiffer.
Retribution, which is what I think you are talking about, is not the same as Revenge.
so if someone rapes and kills a guys daughter.
The guy finds the guy and kills him.
There's no need to address what caused it in the first place and he's no danger to the law abiding citizens.
This doesn't mean no one will ever serve their entire lives in prison or that dangerous criminals will be released no questions asked.
I actually find myself agreeing with this, people who truly deserve to be in prison till the day they die will remain there, those who are capable of changing will be given a small chance of that change being meaningful.
I actually find myself agreeing with this, people who truly deserve to be in prison till the day they die will remain there, those who are capable of changing will be given a small chance of that change being meaningful.
Last edited:
Completely agree
No it never is. The only form of evidence which is certain are particular types of physical fit (the edges need to be complex). And I've never heard of a serious case being decided on physical fits. All other evidence falls under the scale of "very likely" to "very unlikely". Even DNA, with it's long odds, falls foul of the same problems, primarily context. Witnesses are neither accurate nor unimpeachable. This is real forensic science, not CSI.
And for the same reasons, there is no undeniable evidence. Don't confuse what is reported in the news with what is presented in court, never mind what evidence is gathered which never gets to court (most of it).
Define law abiding? What if prisoner serves his full sentence and is released? Is he innocent now? The law says that he is. What if this clown decides to kill the (ex-)perp now? What if he decides that what is needed is more vigilante justice? How does he make sure he gets the right person?
Associate
- Joined
- 14 Jun 2013
- Posts
- 558
Yes you can, but I see you already have,
I will in turn point out that executing criminals isn't the same as executing innocent people, but I appreciate that your wording is clumsy so I'll answer the spirit of your question.
If we believe our justice system to be as fair and just as possible, executing innocent people shouldn't happen. I think most people would agree that execution, or indeed any sort of punishment, should happen only in cases of proven guilt.
I think this is incorrect. The ECHR ruling is very significant in that it has defined that there is no crime that can be committed where the appropriate punishment is deprivation of liberty for the rest of someone's natural life.
The general point of parole is to see whether someone is ready to be released - until now we have had a few prisoners who are not eligible for parole as the determination whether they are ready to be released is not relevant; their punishment is the permanent removal of freedom.
I think they have overreached themselves setting this principle.
Soldato
- Joined
- 5 Dec 2010
- Posts
- 3,397
I dont get what the fuss is all about.
Nothing will change.
Yeah so some twisted serial killers get to apply for parole. As said above doesn't mean they will ever get out. Just because you get to be reviewed does not mean that you get out. Some people will never be allowed back into society no matter how much they protest.
Besides the ECHR making descisions that the public think are mental is no bad thing. It allows us the opportunity to review our position as an EU member state and review the terms of our membership. Bad press for the ECHR and the EU Parliament aren't bad if we get to cut some of the more bull**** ties we have with the continent.
UK Bill of Rights > ECHR
Nothing will change.
Yeah so some twisted serial killers get to apply for parole. As said above doesn't mean they will ever get out. Just because you get to be reviewed does not mean that you get out. Some people will never be allowed back into society no matter how much they protest.
Besides the ECHR making descisions that the public think are mental is no bad thing. It allows us the opportunity to review our position as an EU member state and review the terms of our membership. Bad press for the ECHR and the EU Parliament aren't bad if we get to cut some of the more bull**** ties we have with the continent.
UK Bill of Rights > ECHR
'As fair and just as possible' is the pertinent wording there....which is exactly why we shouldn't have the death penalty, because even if it was as fair and just as possible (which it probably isn't) it still wouldn't be 100%.
Mistakes have and will happen, people confess to crimes they didn't do, police fabricate evidence, there are multitudes of reasons why 'certain' convictions are later found to be unreliable. But once you have executed that person there is no going back.
Yea, I feel that proving people are guilty before punishing them is quite an important part of the justice system....lol....
Associate
- Joined
- 14 Jun 2013
- Posts
- 558
Yea, I feel that proving people are guilty before punishing them is quite an important part of the justice system....lol....
Hmm, that was a sarcastic response to the previous poster who hilariously misconstrued that I advocated executing innocent people.
Maybe I should follow your example and append all of my posts with "lol".
Disagree, I don't know those people in the OP nor do I know your cousin's killer/s so I don't feel the need for revenge on them.
What I do want is for them to be punished. Someone who kills their family or kills someone for being open about their sexuality should be punished as harshly as possible and in our country life without parole is just that. So that is what I think they should get.