Quizzes & Puzzles11 mins ago
Should 'life' Mean Life?
43 Answers
Do you agree that whole-lifers should be entitled to a review of their sentence 25 years into their term at the very latest?
Well it seems that the European Court of Human Rights does.
http://
Well it seems that the European Court of Human Rights does.
http://
Answers
“Even the worst of us is capable of change…” Too much emphasis is placed on the criminal’s change of behaviour and/or circumstance
14:43 Tue 18th Feb 2014
If the sentence would have been death then the whole of life - without any parole is the only sentence that is acceptable. This is how it was sold.
Now we get the hand wringing liberals and their mates in the ECHR wanting to let them out to murder again, just in case the poor darlings might have changed.
Tough, they didnt think of their victim so I personally dont care about them. If it is such a problem to prison warders bring back the death penalty no water down their punishment.
And no I dont read any paper nor need any paper to tell me this.
Now we get the hand wringing liberals and their mates in the ECHR wanting to let them out to murder again, just in case the poor darlings might have changed.
Tough, they didnt think of their victim so I personally dont care about them. If it is such a problem to prison warders bring back the death penalty no water down their punishment.
And no I dont read any paper nor need any paper to tell me this.
The Court of Appeal have upheld the right of UK judges to pass "whole life" tariffs, insisting they are completely in accord with the ECHR. Will be interesting to read their summary.
For myself, I have no problem with life prisoners having a review after 20-25 years time served; A review does not automatically mean release.
For myself, I have no problem with life prisoners having a review after 20-25 years time served; A review does not automatically mean release.
-- answer removed --
“Even the worst of us is capable of change…”
Too much emphasis is placed on the criminal’s change of behaviour and/or circumstances. One of the principle elements of sentencing for very serious offences is that of punishment and whether the offender has changed or not is irrelevant. Further, these “whole life” tariffs are reserved for the most serious offenders and very often they are people who have committed murder on more than one occasion. So how many goes at rehabilitation (i.e. how many people do we allow them to kill) do we permit such offenders to have?
“We had a referendum on the death penalty quite a fews years ago…”
No we did not, Brendan. Sydney Silverman, MP, introduced a Private Members’ Bill to temporarily suspend executions for murder for a trial period of five years in 1965 and this was passed in the Commons (on a free vote) by 200 to 98. A subsequent bill in 1969 made the change permanent. During each parliament until 1997 a vote was held to restore hanging for murder but was always defeated. Hanging for some other crimes remained on the books (but was never used). Finally in 1998 the House of Commons voted to ratify the 6th Protocol of the European Convention on Human Rights prohibiting capital punishment except "in time of war or imminent threat of war." So the public has never had a direct say on abolition of capital punishment.
“…as happened with Terry Venables.”
I don’t think the erstwhile Tottenham and England football manager has ever been sentenced to Life, Jim, I think it was his brother, Jon J. :-)
However, that aside, I must disagree with your contention that the ECHR is acting with “common sense and humanity” ( I don’t think it can ever have been accused of that). What they said was that such sentences breached a person’s human rights because they were seen to be incompatible with Article 3 which prevents inhuman or degrading treatment. They expanded by saying that judges should not have the power to prevent the Parole Board or future Home Secretary from ever reviewing a case. Parliament has decreed otherwise and judges, in imposing whole life tariffs, were implementing the will of Parliament. In sentencing to (entire) life behind bars a trial judge had heard all the facts and sentenced accordingly. That is what judges do.
I find it strange that the ECHR should be keen to seek the intervention of politicians or non-judicial institutions (the Home Secretary or the Parole Board) when, in the main, they insist that only courts can impose and modify sentences. A few years ago now, the right of prison governors to reduce “time off for good behaviour” - a principle long since abolished - for misdemeanours in their prisons was ruled illegal because they (the governors) were not a “properly constituted judicial tribunal”. But now it seems such non-judicial bodies can have a say in how much time the most serious offenders spend inside.
I’m glad the Court of Appeal has made its ruling. It may cause a rift between the UK and the ECHR but if so, so be it. The UK Parliament should provide legislation on sentencing and UK judges should enact that legislation. No outside body should have any say in the matter.
Too much emphasis is placed on the criminal’s change of behaviour and/or circumstances. One of the principle elements of sentencing for very serious offences is that of punishment and whether the offender has changed or not is irrelevant. Further, these “whole life” tariffs are reserved for the most serious offenders and very often they are people who have committed murder on more than one occasion. So how many goes at rehabilitation (i.e. how many people do we allow them to kill) do we permit such offenders to have?
“We had a referendum on the death penalty quite a fews years ago…”
No we did not, Brendan. Sydney Silverman, MP, introduced a Private Members’ Bill to temporarily suspend executions for murder for a trial period of five years in 1965 and this was passed in the Commons (on a free vote) by 200 to 98. A subsequent bill in 1969 made the change permanent. During each parliament until 1997 a vote was held to restore hanging for murder but was always defeated. Hanging for some other crimes remained on the books (but was never used). Finally in 1998 the House of Commons voted to ratify the 6th Protocol of the European Convention on Human Rights prohibiting capital punishment except "in time of war or imminent threat of war." So the public has never had a direct say on abolition of capital punishment.
“…as happened with Terry Venables.”
I don’t think the erstwhile Tottenham and England football manager has ever been sentenced to Life, Jim, I think it was his brother, Jon J. :-)
However, that aside, I must disagree with your contention that the ECHR is acting with “common sense and humanity” ( I don’t think it can ever have been accused of that). What they said was that such sentences breached a person’s human rights because they were seen to be incompatible with Article 3 which prevents inhuman or degrading treatment. They expanded by saying that judges should not have the power to prevent the Parole Board or future Home Secretary from ever reviewing a case. Parliament has decreed otherwise and judges, in imposing whole life tariffs, were implementing the will of Parliament. In sentencing to (entire) life behind bars a trial judge had heard all the facts and sentenced accordingly. That is what judges do.
I find it strange that the ECHR should be keen to seek the intervention of politicians or non-judicial institutions (the Home Secretary or the Parole Board) when, in the main, they insist that only courts can impose and modify sentences. A few years ago now, the right of prison governors to reduce “time off for good behaviour” - a principle long since abolished - for misdemeanours in their prisons was ruled illegal because they (the governors) were not a “properly constituted judicial tribunal”. But now it seems such non-judicial bodies can have a say in how much time the most serious offenders spend inside.
I’m glad the Court of Appeal has made its ruling. It may cause a rift between the UK and the ECHR but if so, so be it. The UK Parliament should provide legislation on sentencing and UK judges should enact that legislation. No outside body should have any say in the matter.
If prison is seen as a place to reform then that says to me, even the worst criminals will be encouraged to reform during their sentence, not just simply be punished.
If prison was purely for punishment with little or no emphasis on trying to change the person, then yes, we could send them away and throw away the key!
Big issue this, as where does the state of somebodys mental health come into it, who judges this and who confirms that they are re-abilitated? Who decides that a criminal is "pure evil" and incapable of remorse and reform?
If prison was purely for punishment with little or no emphasis on trying to change the person, then yes, we could send them away and throw away the key!
Big issue this, as where does the state of somebodys mental health come into it, who judges this and who confirms that they are re-abilitated? Who decides that a criminal is "pure evil" and incapable of remorse and reform?
"I must disagree with your contention that the ECHR is acting with “common sense and humanity” ( I don’t think it can ever have been accused of that)"
Really.
The articles upon which the ECHR is based seem to be in the best interests of common sense and humanity to me. You are letting your bias against a supra-national organisation override your rhetoric there, it seems to me.
http://
Really.
The articles upon which the ECHR is based seem to be in the best interests of common sense and humanity to me. You are letting your bias against a supra-national organisation override your rhetoric there, it seems to me.
http://
Their "pet" ruling? Are you thinking about the man and his cat?
Go on then - pick out which ECHR article that comment of yours "'a criminal's right to a family life'?" refers to.
And whilst we are at it - do you equate someone banged up over non-payment of a fine or something like that with ABH/GBH/Thievery? Should all prisoners be equally denied a right to a family life?
Go on then - pick out which ECHR article that comment of yours "'a criminal's right to a family life'?" refers to.
And whilst we are at it - do you equate someone banged up over non-payment of a fine or something like that with ABH/GBH/Thievery? Should all prisoners be equally denied a right to a family life?
We're diversifying a bit, LG. This matter has nothing to do with Article 8 (a right to family life) and all to do with Article 3 (inhuman or degrading treatment).
The Articles of the Convention may well be based on common sense and humanity. After all, who in their right mind would suggest that torture is in order, or that people should not be entitled to a family life? The problem comes with the interpretation of those (deliberately) loosely worded articles by the Court and the lack of weight given to the general rights of the majority of the population. With this particular issue the trouble comes with the interpretation of “inhuman treatment” by the court.
Since you raise it, it is no secret that I am opposed to supra-national bodies dictating to the UK government or overriding the decisions of UK courts. I firmly believe that the UK Parliament should legislate for matters affecting solely people in the UK and that UK courts should oversee that legislation. So long as the UK is signatory to the ECHR issues such as the one under debate here will continue to be in jeopardy from foreign judges and the legislation outside the control of the Westminster parliament. Among these issues are prisoner sentencing (as discussed here), the rights of prisoners to vote and, of course, most importantly, who should and should not be allowed to enter and remain in the UK. If you’re happy to see these issues determined by judges from such paragons of liberty as Azerbaijan and the Ukraine then all well and good. Personally I’m not and would prefer that the UK withdraws from the ECHR forthwith.
The Articles of the Convention may well be based on common sense and humanity. After all, who in their right mind would suggest that torture is in order, or that people should not be entitled to a family life? The problem comes with the interpretation of those (deliberately) loosely worded articles by the Court and the lack of weight given to the general rights of the majority of the population. With this particular issue the trouble comes with the interpretation of “inhuman treatment” by the court.
Since you raise it, it is no secret that I am opposed to supra-national bodies dictating to the UK government or overriding the decisions of UK courts. I firmly believe that the UK Parliament should legislate for matters affecting solely people in the UK and that UK courts should oversee that legislation. So long as the UK is signatory to the ECHR issues such as the one under debate here will continue to be in jeopardy from foreign judges and the legislation outside the control of the Westminster parliament. Among these issues are prisoner sentencing (as discussed here), the rights of prisoners to vote and, of course, most importantly, who should and should not be allowed to enter and remain in the UK. If you’re happy to see these issues determined by judges from such paragons of liberty as Azerbaijan and the Ukraine then all well and good. Personally I’m not and would prefer that the UK withdraws from the ECHR forthwith.
AOG, if , by "pet ruling" you mean the twisting of a story; that a tribunal held that a man had a right to remain just because he had a pet cat, I think you may find that the decision was on other grounds ! All that happened was that, as obiter dicta,a by the way, the tribunal observed that the man had a cat. Feline presence or absence; if he had not had a cat. the decision would not have gone against him; was immaterial.
Should life mean life? Look, it was never the law of England that the prisoner serve for the rest of his natural life, without any hope of being released at all.
Recent history has given us a change in this, that's all. The ECHR prefers matters how they were.
But what difference, apart from annoying the 'hang 'em high' section of the public, does it make ? Say a 40 year-old gets 40 or 50 years minimum, before parole review?
Recent history has given us a change in this, that's all. The ECHR prefers matters how they were.
But what difference, apart from annoying the 'hang 'em high' section of the public, does it make ? Say a 40 year-old gets 40 or 50 years minimum, before parole review?
I am surprised they didnt appeal to the CJEU ( Court of Justice of the E U ) where these rules are mandatory - they are called FHR Fundamental Human RIghts and are part of the law of England
different court - slightly different rules.
ho hum - yes of course we should monitor them and react to changes
different court - slightly different rules.
ho hum - yes of course we should monitor them and react to changes
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles19 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles30 mins ago
Sport229 mins ago
Crosswords250 mins ago