Outrage as European judges rule life sentences DO breach murderers' human rights

[Kalipo]

Outrage as European judges rule life sentences DO breach murderers' human rights

THE European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has ruled that whole life jail terms without the possibility of review amount to a breach of human rights.


The court found that for a life sentence to remain compatible with the ECHR there had to be both a possibility of release and review.

However, it insisted this did not mean there was "any prospect of imminent release".

Murderer Jeremy Bamber and two other killers, Douglas Vinter and Peter Moore, today won an appeal in the court that their sentences were not compatible with their human rights.

Judges at ECHR had disagreed with the killers in January, but today sided with the men who argued their sentences were "inhuman and degrading."

However, the panel of 17 judges added: "In finding a violation in this case, however, the court did not intend to give the applicants any prospect of imminent release."

The appeal was brought before the Grand Chamber by Vinter, who stabbed his wife in February 2008, and also considered the cases of Bamber, who killed his parents, sister and her two young children in August 1985, and Peter Moore, who killed four gay men for his sexual gratification in 1995.

The significant move will ultimately determine whether it is lawful for the UK to have an unreviewable whole-life tariff - recently handed down to five-year-old April Jones' killer Mark Bridger.

Under current law, whole-life tariff prisoners will almost certainly never be released from prison as their offences are deemed to be so serious.

They can be freed only by the Justice Secretary, who can give discretion on compassionate grounds when the prisoner is terminally ill or seriously incapacitated.

Now, Britons have responded furiously to the decision, taking to Twitter to voice their outrage.

One user, Luke Hughes, said: "They gave up their human rights by killing someone!"

"People with whole life sentences are dangerous criminals,they shouldn't have the option of release!", Laura Maslin argued, while Bryony Burnham angrily wrote: "NO, NO AND NO. What about the rights of the victim? It is their families that are doing the life sentence."

Nick de Bois, the Conservative MP for Enfield North said: "UK courts should decide whole life sentences not ECHR."

[Meat-Head]

Nick de Bois, the Conservative MP for Enfield North said: "UK courts should decide whole life sentences not ECHR."

Would expected it to be a comination of DK users and if any the victims / their familys.

So what now, their in prison for the next 30 years, looking at 4 walls for 23 hours a day.

If they are given a laptop with internet access locked to ALL inferior sites only, they will soon change their mind, about doing crimes again.

[Kalipo]

Would expected it to be a comination of DK users and if any the victims / their familys.

So what now, their in prison for the next 30 years, looking at 4 walls for 23 hours a day.

If they are given a laptop with internet access locked to ALL inferior sites only, they will soon change their mind, about doing crimes again.

Ahh but what if dictator cameron and his EU cronies take over DK illegaly and make inmates mods and admins we're in trouble..

What if.. they fight to be admins.?? could john whos in for murdering joseph from buxton become an admin by bumming the next hardest man in the shower??

[Meat-Head]

Ahh but what if dictator cameron and his EU cronies take over DK illegaly and make inmates mods and admins we're in trouble..

??

Easy - just set the DK server to reject ANY request from that gaol.

[rds60h]

Outrage as European judges rule life sentences DO breach murderers' human rights

THE European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has ruled that whole life jail terms without the possibility of review amount to a breach of human rights.


The court found that for a life sentence to remain compatible with the ECHR there had to be both a possibility of release and review.

However, it insisted this did not mean there was "any prospect of imminent release".

I agree with the ECHR that the "Whole Life" jail sentences amount to a breach of the murderer's "Human Rights"
I believe they should all be given suspended sentences....................................Suspe nded by the f***ing neck !!!!!!
These b**tards aren't human so they done deserve human rights !!!

[GastonJ]

The significant move will ultimately determine whether it is lawful for the UK to have an unreviewable whole-life tariff - recently handed down to five-year-old April Jones' killer Mark Bridger.

Under current law, whole-life tariff prisoners will almost certainly never be released from prison as their offences are deemed to be so serious.

They can be freed only by the Justice Secretary, who can give discretion on compassionate grounds when the prisoner is terminally ill or seriously incapacitated.

So in one breath it's un-reviewable and in the next it can be reviewed? Even the article contradicts itself.

Now, Britons have responded furiously to the decision, taking to Twitter to voice their outrage.

and they quote 2.... why don't they quote statistics from Twitter which are available rather than quote "Britons have responded furiously....." bit like Dave saying "We know what the public want" when he doesn't have a f'king clue.

The judgement:

}]HUDOC Search Page

Found for them only under section 3, all others were thrown out - ***8220;No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.***8221;" on the grounds that they were given no "hope" of ever being released.

***8220;[N]ormally, such sentences are imposed for offences of the utmost severity, such as murder or manslaughter. In any legal system, such offences, if they do not attract a life sentence, will normally attract a substantial sentence of imprisonment, perhaps of several decades. Therefore, any defendant who is convicted of such an offence must expect to serve a significant number of years in prison before he can realistically have any hope of release, irrespective of whether he is given a life sentence or a determinate sentence. It follows, therefore, that, if a discretionary life sentence is imposed by a court after due consideration of all relevant mitigating and aggravating factors, an Article 3 issue cannot arise at the moment when it is imposed.***8221;

So the answer is in the ruling really and it is the governments guidance to judges that has landed them in court. I'd also suspend the ba**ards by the neck as well, once there was due diligence to ensure there were no mistakes... and there have been many.

[Miklo]

They're in there for a reason. Their human rights were relinquished when they committed the crime, simple innit.

[Meat-Head]

Yeah heard on radio fab or sonething about we dont hang folks, just give them life. Hate this iShit lost network afain

[super jumbe]

They're in there for a reason. Their human rights were relinquished when they committed the crime, simple innit.

The ECHR works similar to guantanamo bay if you ask me, the only people ever been charged over the last 40 years are the people from third world countryies and they do breach human rights (what some one calls them)

[Kalipo]

I never undertand sometimes.

Lets start with the Boston bombings.. They knew who done it! they shot 2 of the brothers... 1 fatally and the other was in serious condition..

Move along to the London terror attack where Lee Rigby was mutilated by them 2 Muslims.. 1 fatally shot, the other not to fatal.

Now instead of bringing back to life dickheads like the ones mentioned above.. spending the money of the public in hospitals .. to then take them to court and spend even more money of poor souls who have to work..

Now my proposition, we know they did it.. why not just get machine guns.. and shoot millions of bullets at them.. making their limbs fall off etc.. proper give them a good send off..

We could do this the instance they're initially shot! saves loads there..

[GastonJ]

Because if you apply it to one you have to apply it to all. So the following would also be dead

Barri White and Keith Hyatt
Donna Anthony
Sally Clark
Steven Miller, Yusef Abdullahi, and Tony Paris
Michelle and Lisa Taylor
Michael O'Brien, Darren Hall and Ellis Sherwood
Sean Hodgson
Peter Fell
The Bridgewater Four
Stefan Kiszko
The Guildford Four and Maguire Seven
The Birmingham Six

all found not guilty after being convicted and sentenced, need I go on? It's one of the main reasons the death sentence will not be reinstated - you cannot undo mistakes no matter how hard you try. However life should mean life. Give the judges guidance by all means - get convicted of murder and get 100 years, no tolerance at all. Then article 3 doesn't apply since they have hope of being released after 100 years.

*shrug*

[Meat-Head]

*CONFUSED*

that lee rigby bloke his second killer didnt see ANY posts abiut one been brown bread

gaston mate, you like editing your posts, can you edit you above post, that list of user names, what they dun, thanksss

[Snowy79]

I'm pretty sure that you could list a lot more people that have died at the hands of murderers that have gotten away killing people previously than those killed by mistake. I remember watching a program from the USA about 10 years ago, they were interviewing a Sherriff in a prison and giving him a hard time about the death penalty for murderers. He pointed out that no convicted murderer that he had administered a lethal injection to had ever committed another murder. He then rattled off how many people accused of committing murder had killed others when released in other States. It was scary how many had committed further murders. Even in the UK there has been plenty of people that have been done for manslaughter or even on bail that have carried out further murders or been involved in one way or another.

[Canker_Canison]

I don't see a problem with the ruling. It's just that nobody has read between the lines.

You give someone a whole of life sentence, but it has to be reviewed.
You sentence someone to 40years with no possibility of early parole.

I both cases the prisoner knows they have a chance of getting out. One during a review, the other if they live long enough.

But who says you have to release the person on a whole of life sentence? You only have to give them the illusion of a chance to get out. If they still pose a risk due to them still breathing...they don't get released.

[GastonJ]

*CONFUSED*

gaston mate, you like editing your posts, can you edit you above post, that list of user names, what they dun, thanksss

They were all convicted of murder and sentenced to life, all were later acquitted/found not guilty for whatever reason. My point is that death is the one sentence that once carried out cannot be undone. If you sentenced someone to death wrongly and they were not guilty would the judge, jury and executioner then also be guilty of killing someone so face the same penalty? That appears to be the tack that those calling for the death sentence seem to imply, a life for a life. If that's the case we would have issues getting people to be judges and jurors less willing to find anyone guilty just in case they suffered the same fate *shrug*

Give judges no choice, 200 years per murder, parole after 50% served - would save article 3 biting us 'cos they could have hope of doing 100 years and being released on parole after that time *shrug*

I make so many typos, that's why I edit my own posts so much