Now that the ECHR has decided that life imprisonment is 'inhumane', where does it leave the judiciary of the member states? A multiple murderer will no longer face such a sentence. Has the ECHR overstepped the mark this time?
Quite!
Listen one and all. We all have opinions, we are entitled to those opinions. They may not be the same, indeed may be quite radically different. What we share is SFN membership, many of us because we live in France.
Where the 'controversy' arose is not in the EHCR's decision which is a judicial opinion using international standards as the yardstick on which their opinion was based. It arose as an issue that is attracting far more attention than it is due because a number of people who are wishing/needing to draw attention to themselves, they being MPs who need to make hay with emotive and populist issues in order to keep their seats in two years time. What all of us, irrespective of our personal positions, must appreciate is that this comes at the same time as the Court of Appeal has upheld the High Court's finding that Barry George is "not innocent enough to be compensated" as decided by the Justice Secretary after he spent eight years in prison after falsely being convicted of the murder of Jill Dando. He is the flip side of the coin and no politician is standing up and saying that the man was proven innocent not 'a little bit guilty' and yet they dare say that of him.
Whilst such flaws exist in a legal system there need to be checks and balances to allow for its imperfections. The present system whereby convicted people have an appeal system and also a means of applying for an early release on licence partially addresses that. Of people convicted to multiple life sentences irrespective of concurrent or successive, very few are likely ever to be released. If a judgement has been delivered in the form of a verdict which allows for leniency in any form it is not for us to be part of that process, we may have our opinion though.
As Catharine is saying, like dinner party discussions, views diverge but we must let them remain just that.
Maybe time for desert and more wine??
Yes Glen but... like all good 'dinner party' discussions, things diverge :)
Because of the lack of courses (anger management etc.), many IPP prisoners in England and Wales were held longer than necessary and therefor the ECHR statement is not a discussion but a demand for reevaluation. That's all. There is nothing to excuse with a lack of courses. So it is not the fault of prisoners who could not complete courses that were not available. If there would be a discussion, then about this matter.
Glen, why picking on the ECHR? What you want to archive with this? UK people not even have a voting right in their homeland when they are living abroad and you are picking on the EU institution. Thats laughable because it is always the same: if something unpleasant appears on the media agenda (illegal spying on private data of entire populations inside the EU by GCHQ) the politically "responsible" are driving just the next pig through the village so the folks can chant. Now these are the killers who are perfectly right behind bars for the rest of their days. How about including such penalty straight to people like this Jimmy Sattle and the other BBC folks that have been molesting young girls and boys for years on end without facing any charges! Whether it is called "honor killings" of Sisters of followers of a particular creed, or "affect" killings, nothing excuses such an act - even if it is committed in revenge through court order, means the state. Killing is killing! And none of these killer will be ever released.
I think this is again the typical Torry blah-blah so these guys can monitor opinions on the Internet in blogs and once again fabricate a new rule with no real effect. Stupid crowd-sourcing! This is all smoke and mirrors policy. Instead, these political "responsible" should finally explain why they illegally fishing very private data. This is much more annoying than always trying to sell something old as new. Such a populistic reactions by politicians was commonly known during Goebbels time as propaganda. They better deal with the mountains of depts they are creating.
I think that anyone who murders other human beings loses the right to "Human Rights" !
Wouldn't you think that the combined intelligence of the learned people sitting on the ECHR would include the rights of the victims of these murderers in their deliberations? After all, they are dead; there is no review possible for them or their relatives whose needs, in my view, are paramount. The families of the victims want to see justice done, as does society in general. Aren't such sentences intended as a deterrent to others too?
Hang on the Court of human rights have only said that they have the right to a review not that they have to have parole or be granted release. It seems that the UK is once again making a mountain out of a molehill
The problem has been caused with the way the sentences are handed down. If someone is convicted of several murders they will get a life sentence for each. The judge can make those sentences run concurrently (all at the same time) or consecutively (One after the other). The answer is simple, in extreme cases the judge orders the sentences to run consecutively. That way the sentences can be reviewed and reduced to 10 or 15 years each, and these dangers to the public will still stay where they pose none of us any danger.
As has already been said on the BBC, there is no guarantee that a multiple murderer receiving such a review would be allowed to leave prison.
In fact, the public outcry would be tremendous.
I totally agree that this is more anti European sentiment than well thought out opinion.
I agree with Brian, fundamentally nothing has changed other than the sentence has to be reviewed, In parts of the UK this is the case anyway so in effect the ruling is making all of the UK the same.
I am 100% with Brian on this - the court talks about life 'without review'... Another excuse for the anti-europe tories to make a lot of noise. BBC news took it to some extremes by inviting a rape victim of a multiple murderer who got life to voice her 'opinion'...
Am I alone in thinking that with a parliament stuffed to the gills with lawyers, that they were unable to pass a bill that met the terms of the HRA, or is it not a case of incompetence more a case of self interest for those with or returning to an HRA Practice?
Not at all, it only means the right to review remains. People like Harold Shipman with his 15 life sentences would have retained the right to have each one reviewed individually had he not taken his own life. Had he had one reduced to say eight years, he would still have had 14 to go and would never have been released. Basically nothing has changed and very few people who are predestined for a whole life because of the gravity of their crime(s) will see little change. Do not take Tory sabre rattling because it is another excuse for them to tell us how much the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (EHCR) is impinging on the 'British way of life'. Take a look through the convention before the UK newspaper version tells everybody what undemocratic whatevers all Europeans are. It has, by the way, nothing directly to do with the EU.