TRC is primarily funded by ad revenue. If you like the content you find here, don't block the ads check them out instead. Thank you.
Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 82

Thread: Killers' life terms 'breach their human rights'

  1. #16
    Should Get Out More Airtank's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Newcastle upon tyne
    Posts
    8,140
    Like
    330
    Liked 13 in 12 posts

    Default Re: Killers' life terms 'breach their human rights'


    TRC is primarily funded by ad revenue. If you like
    the content you find here, don't block the ads check
    them out instead. Thank you.
    Quote Originally Posted by moth View Post
    At the risk of sounding like Tanky on one of his fantasy trips, the UK should free itself from the ECHR ASAP.

    We're a nation state with criminal law that goes back further than Magna Carta. What gives a bunch of fucking career Eurocrats the right to piss all over it?
    Suicide by sock is the only way out for them innit

  2. #17
    Really Bored
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    sunny London
    Posts
    2,598
    Like
    17
    Liked 4 in 3 posts

    Default Re: Killers' life terms 'breach their human rights'

    I think those putting this idea forward should have someone close bummed and murdered or death by bumming and ask them how they feel about life sentences

  3. #18
    Should Get Out More Tomcat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Where I want to be.
    Posts
    33,984
    Like
    1,673
    Liked 2,325 in 1,192 posts

    Default Re: Killers' life terms 'breach their human rights'

    Do people actually realise what the ECHR is? That it's not an organ of the evil EU empire and exists to provide recourse to people who feel their rights are being violated in terms agreed by the European Convention on Human Rights in 1950. We are talking about things like freedom from torture, imprisonment without trial or slavery. Once again I have to ask, do people here really want to do away with human rights just because of a few xenophobic kneejerk tabloid headlines?

    In this case, similar to the hysteria about prisoners being given votes, if people are prepared to read it rather than scream about the sky falling down, it's perfectly reasonable. If whole life terms without possibility of parole breach human rights nothing stops the courts from setting a minimum term, say 25 years, that can be reviewed. If the prisoner does not get parole upon review they stay inside until next review, or until they die.

    Likewise the votes for prisoners fuss was a storm in a teacup. You can't impose a blanket ban on voting, no problems, all you need to do is draw a line - those due to be released in less than 12 months can vote or whatever.

    People seem to hear "Europe" and remove their brains....

  4. #19
    Should Get Out More
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    9,754
    Like
    50
    Liked 155 in 87 posts

    Default Re: Killers' life terms 'breach their human rights'

    Scanning through the actual judgement rather than the headlines, it seems that the ECHR has basically found gaping holes in the law as it was written. So rather than blame the ECHR, why not blame the politicians and the legal profession here for making 'bad law'?

    If the law hadn't been changed, their sentences would have been reviewed at 25 years by the Home Secretary. That would have been fine by the ECHR, even if the outcome was to keep them locked up.

    "the Court would emphasise that no Article 3 issue could arise if, for instance, a life prisoner had the right under domestic law to be considered for release but was refused on the ground that he or she continued to pose a danger to society. This is because States have a duty under the Convention to take measures for the protection of the public from violent crime and the Convention does not prohibit States from subjecting a person convicted of a serious crime to an indeterminate sentence allowing for the offender’s continued detention where necessary for the protection of the public"

    As it stands now, and given that it was probably written that way to sate the thirst of the baying mobs, the government came up with a 'throw away the key' sentence.

    }]HUDOC Search Page

  5. #20
    Should Get Out More KorkyKat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Anarchia
    Posts
    17,198
    Like
    0
    Liked 2,448 in 1,511 posts

    Default Re: Killers' life terms 'breach their human rights'

    Quote Originally Posted by Tomcat View Post
    If whole life terms without possibility of parole breach human rights nothing stops the courts from setting a minimum term, say 25 years, that can be reviewed. If the prisoner does not get parole upon review they stay inside until next review, or until they die
    No reviews necessary if a prisoner has been given a full life tariff. It makes a mockery like Brady last week. A board convening to determine whether or not he is insane. I don't think I need a team of highly paid lawyers and psychiatrists to confirm what I know: A sane man does not torture and kill five children.

    Those with a full life tariff should have no form of redress or reviews whatsoever. If they argue that they have been subjected to a miscarriage of justice let them use the appropriate, existing procedures.

  6. #21
    Should Get Out More chillitt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Gloucestercestershire
    Posts
    13,008
    Like
    3,060
    Liked 4,842 in 2,349 posts

    Default Re: Killers' life terms 'breach their human rights'

    Quote Originally Posted by Dingbat View Post
    Scanning through the actual judgement rather than the headlines, it seems that the ECHR has basically found gaping holes in the law as it was written. So rather than blame the ECHR, why not blame the politicians and the legal profession here for making 'bad law'?

    If the law hadn't been changed, their sentences would have been reviewed at 25 years by the Home Secretary. That would have been fine by the ECHR, even if the outcome was to keep them locked up.

    "the Court would emphasise that no Article 3 issue could arise if, for instance, a life prisoner had the right under domestic law to be considered for release but was refused on the ground that he or she continued to pose a danger to society. This is because States have a duty under the Convention to take measures for the protection of the public from violent crime and the Convention does not prohibit States from subjecting a person convicted of a serious crime to an indeterminate sentence allowing for the offender’s continued detention where necessary for the protection of the public"

    As it stands now, and given that it was probably written that way to sate the thirst of the baying mobs, the government came up with a 'throw away the key' sentence.

    }]HUDOC Search Page
    Should said home secretary refuse to release said prisoner at his review would said prisoner have the right to go back to the court to claim they are no longer a threat and should be released?

  7. #22
    Should Get Out More Tomcat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Where I want to be.
    Posts
    33,984
    Like
    1,673
    Liked 2,325 in 1,192 posts

    Default Re: Killers' life terms 'breach their human rights'

    Quote Originally Posted by KorkyKat View Post
    No reviews necessary if a prisoner has been given a full life tariff. It makes a mockery like Brady last week. A board convening to determine whether or not he is insane. I don't think I need a team of highly paid lawyers and psychiatrists to confirm what I know: A sane man does not torture and kill five children.

    Those with a full life tariff should have no form of redress or reviews whatsoever. If they argue that they have been subjected to a miscarriage of justice let them use the appropriate, existing procedures.
    Sorry, I must have missed your psychiatric qualifications, or do they fall under the heading of "as any fule no"?

    Brady's case FWIW was not about whether he should be released but whether he should be sent to prison where the rules on force feeding are different and he may be able to starve himself to death.

  8. #23
    Should Get Out More Tomcat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Where I want to be.
    Posts
    33,984
    Like
    1,673
    Liked 2,325 in 1,192 posts

    Default Re: Killers' life terms 'breach their human rights'

    Quote Originally Posted by chillitt View Post
    Should said home secretary refuse to release said prisoner at his review would said prisoner have the right to go back to the court to claim they are no longer a threat and should be released?
    We're all legal experts here, I'm sure we have the answer to that. My answer would be that the review itself was the answer to the question.

  9. #24
    Should Get Out More Taipan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Boerthal's hill
    Posts
    48,158
    Like
    16,427
    Liked 10,296 in 5,369 posts

    Default Re: Killers' life terms 'breach their human rights'

    Quote Originally Posted by Tomcat View Post
    Do people actually realise what the ECHR is? That it's not an organ of the evil EU empire and exists to provide recourse to people who feel their rights are being violated in terms agreed by the European Convention on Human Rights in 1950. We are talking about things like freedom from torture, imprisonment without trial or slavery. Once again I have to ask, do people here really want to do away with human rights just because of a few xenophobic kneejerk tabloid headlines?

    In this case, similar to the hysteria about prisoners being given votes, if people are prepared to read it rather than scream about the sky falling down, it's perfectly reasonable. If whole life terms without possibility of parole breach human rights nothing stops the courts from setting a minimum term, say 25 years, that can be reviewed. If the prisoner does not get parole upon review they stay inside until next review, or until they die.

    Likewise the votes for prisoners fuss was a storm in a teacup. You can't impose a blanket ban on voting, no problems, all you need to do is draw a line - those due to be released in less than 12 months can vote or whatever.

    People seem to hear "Europe" and remove their brains....
    I dont think that's fair. What we need is simply a UKCHR.

  10. #25
    Should Get Out More Tomcat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Where I want to be.
    Posts
    33,984
    Like
    1,673
    Liked 2,325 in 1,192 posts

    Default Re: Killers' life terms 'breach their human rights'

    Quote Originally Posted by Taipan View Post
    I dont think that's fair. What we need is simply a UKCHR.
    As long as it actually protected human rights that'd be fine, trouble is the objective seems to be selective removal of them for political or kneejerk reasons, which isn't fine.

  11. #26
    Should Get Out More KorkyKat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Anarchia
    Posts
    17,198
    Like
    0
    Liked 2,448 in 1,511 posts

    Default Re: Killers' life terms 'breach their human rights'

    Quote Originally Posted by Tomcat View Post
    Sorry, I must have missed your psychiatric qualifications, or do they fall under the heading of "as any fule no"?

    Brady's case FWIW was not about whether he should be released but whether he should be sent to prison where the rules on force feeding are different and he may be able to starve himself to death.
    You don't do smart arse very well TC - never have.

    I am talking specifically about wasting taxpayer's money on ridiculous appeals and hearings. Brady's board considered whether he was mentally fit to be returned to a normal prison. My argument thus stands. Your jibe about psychiatric qualifications is meaningless unless of course you can make a humanist argument that a torturer and murderer is actually sane. Maybe you would like to get rid of the jury system and only have appointed experts? I just know that Mr and Ms. Average who sit on a jury actually know evil when they see or hear of it. You seemingly don't. Maybe you would like to benefit us with your wisdom.

    As I have indicated, if there has been a miscarriage of justice there are the appropriate legal avenues to explore. If not, then they should be compelled to serve their sentence until they die in prison or mental prison hospital.

    I would rather my taxes go towards positive things such as support and education for short term prisoners rather than indulging murderers.

  12. #27
    Should Get Out More
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    9,754
    Like
    50
    Liked 155 in 87 posts

    Default Re: Killers' life terms 'breach their human rights'

    Quote Originally Posted by chillitt View Post
    Should said home secretary refuse to release said prisoner at his review would said prisoner have the right to go back to the court to claim they are no longer a threat and should be released?
    As I read the ECHR verdict, in particular the bit I quoted, it would not have even got as far as a court had they been given the type of life sentence which has a 25-year review.

    "no Article 3 issue could arise if, for instance, a life prisoner had the right under domestic law to be considered for release but was refused on the ground that he or she continued to pose a danger to society."

  13. #28
    Should Get Out More Airtank's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Newcastle upon tyne
    Posts
    8,140
    Like
    330
    Liked 13 in 12 posts

    Default Re: Killers' life terms 'breach their human rights'

    It would be a lot easier to change the law so you loose your human status when you commit certain crimes

    I am sure we agree that most of these murderers are monsters which makes them fair game for retribution

  14. #29
    Should Get Out More chillitt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Gloucestercestershire
    Posts
    13,008
    Like
    3,060
    Liked 4,842 in 2,349 posts

    Default Re: Killers' life terms 'breach their human rights'

    That's the thing though. If a home secretary had a report on a child killer that wasn't completely black and white about the chances of them re-offending, and he or she knew it would be political suicide to release them 'this close to an election' say, then the killers legal types would be off to the European court before you could say say Bonjour. This doesn't really help the cause of justice and the perception thereof.

  15. #30
    Should Get Out More Yambo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Looking at the Med . . .
    Posts
    17,010
    Like
    1,244
    Liked 4,161 in 2,052 posts
    Blog Entries
    23

    Default Re: Killers' life terms 'breach their human rights'

    Quote Originally Posted by chillitt View Post
    This doesn't really help the cause of justice and the perception thereof.

    The courts are not interested in and have very little to do with justice. They are simply interested in law.

Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Go Back to Forum My Forum

TRC Affiliates - Help TRC make a small amount of commission