Whole Life Sentences "Violate Human Rights"

[Sylar]

The European Court of Human Rights has declared that "whole life sentences" given out to the worst criminals in society (where there is no possibility of parole or being released unless by the Justice Secretary in special situations such as Al-Megrahi) violate their human rights.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23230419

I'm aware the punishment of such criminals is an emotive subject at the best of times, with many people advocating they should be put to death - whilst I'm not an advocate or supporter of the death penalty, I do believe for some prisoners that there should be absolutely no possibility of release and can't help but think the ECHR have made a huge mistake with this ruling.

I'm aware it doesn't mean these criminals are going to be released to walk the streets again etc but merely be given the right to appeal/review. IMO, if they're convicted of crimes as heinous as those which currently have 49 people incarcerated with such sentences, they shouldn't have even the slightest chance of release.

[--------]

The European Court of Human Rights has declared that "whole life sentences" given out to the worst criminals in society (where there is no possibility of parole or being released unless by the Justice Secretary in special situations such as Al-Megrahi) violate their human rights.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23230419

I'm aware the punishment of such criminals is an emotive subject at the best of times, with many people advocating they should be put to death - whilst I'm not an advocate or supporter of the death penalty, I do believe for some prisoners that there should be absolutely no possibility of release and can't help but think the ECHR have made a huge mistake with this ruling.

I'm aware it doesn't mean these criminals are going to be released to walk the streets again etc but merely be given the right to appeal/review. IMO, if they're convicted of crimes as heinous as those which currently have 49 people incarcerated with such sentences, they shouldn't have even the slightest chance of release.

I would agree. there are some situations where the seriousness of the crime demands a life-term custodial sentence simply for the protection of other memebrs of society. I don't support the death penalty, but that's because the courts have the right to send someone to jail for the rest of their natural life.

Ted Bundy was executed in the US - should he have had the right to review and possible release on the recommendation of a parole board?

BTK's serving a life sentence - he's never going to get out - and that seems to me to be the very least that justice demands for what he did.

Suppose Harold Shipman was still alive - should he have the 'right' to review and possible release? Rose West? Ian Huntley?

There's every reason to consider that in all of those cases the death sentence would have been both safe and appropriate. My opposition to the death penalty is twofold - one, we can't trust the police and judiciary to make very effort to avoid miscarriages of justice, and if you kill someone you can't put things even partly right afterwards, and two, there's evidence that the people who have to carry out executions either suffer extreme stress (which doesn't do them any good at all) or they themselves are corrupted by the process.

Bamber claims he's innocent - maybe he is, but his conviction seems safe enough right now. Moore killed four women for his sexual gratification - he should have the right to possible release? Aye, right. And Vinter killed once, was released on licence and then killed again. He should get another chance? In his dreams.

[lord bunberry]

I hate it when mass murderers try and use human rights to laws to get out of jail, imo people who commit these crimes give up their human rights when they commit the crime.

[jonty]

I would agree. there are some situations where the seriousness of the crime demands a life-term custodial sentence simply for the protection of other memebrs of society. I don't support the death penalty, but that's because the courts have the right to send someone to jail for the rest of their natural life.

Ted Bundy was executed in the US - should he have had the right to review and possible release on the recommendation of a parole board?

BTK's serving a life sentence - he's never going to get out - and that seems to me to be the very least that justice demands for what he did.

Suppose Harold Shipman was still alive - should he have the 'right' to review and possible release? Rose West? Ian Huntley?

There's every reason to consider that in all of those cases the death sentence would have been both safe and appropriate. My opposition to the death penalty is twofold - one, we can't trust the police and judiciary to make very effort to avoid miscarriages of justice, and if you kill someone you can't put things even partly right afterwards, and two, there's evidence that the people who have to carry out executions either suffer extreme stress (which doesn't do them any good at all) or they themselves are corrupted by the process.

Bamber claims he's innocent - maybe he is, but his conviction seems safe enough right now. Moore killed four women for his sexual gratification - he should have the right to possible release? Aye, right. And Vinter killed once, was released on licence and then killed again. He should get another chance? In his dreams.

Spot on.

[Holmesdale Hibs]

The only way they should get a shorter life sentence is to prove their innocence or die sooner. It certainly shouldn't be from a European court overruling a British court.

[steakbake]

The only way they should get a shorter life sentence is to prove their innocence or die sooner. It certainly shouldn't be from a European court overruling a British court.

Britain is a European country. The UK founded the ECHR. Now we want out for some reason, keeping dubious company with Belarus (appalling human rights record, dictator president) as the only country out of all Europe not to be signatories.

On this issue: it's being spun to the govs agenda to sound like ECHR want the prisons emptied. All it's saying is the judicial process must include release/parole to be examined at some point during the sentence. It doesn't dictate what the outcome of that process should be. Noone is being released here but it does remove the "lock 'em up and throw away the key" kind of sentence.

[Sir David Gray]

Really angered when I heard that announcement earlier.

This is a slap in the face to every single person who has fallen victim to such people and also their families who have gone through the worst experience you can ever contemplate.

We're not talking here about petty criminals. We're talking about individuals who have committed some of the most depraved acts imaginable.

Below is a list of some of the people in the UK who are currently serving whole-life tariffs;

Ian Brady
Dennis Nilsen
Robert Black
Rosemary West
Levi Bellfield
Peter Tobin
Peter Sutcliffe
Mark Bridger
Dale Cregan

Considering the gravity of the offences that these people were convicted of, I cannot imagine that anything other than genuine life imprisonment would be appropriate.

I get so annoyed whenever I hear the human rights argument made in defence of these people. For anyone to try and argue that their sentences are somehow inhuman or degrading is just a complete insult to the victims. As far as I'm concerned, you give up your rights the moment you commit those heinous acts.

They have the right to be fed, watered and sheltered in prison. For me, that's as far as their human rights should extend.

I totally agree with what Chris Grayling had to say on the matter. The human rights convention was never set up for things like this and the people who created it really must be turning in their graves.

Absolutely sick hearing about Britain being dictated to by a court in a foreign country and that referendum can't come soon enough as far as I'm concerned.

[steakbake]

ECHR are not demanding that your list of villains are released, only that there is a mechanism in sentencing where a possibility of parole can be considered.

I'd suggest none of these are suddenly going to be let out because of this ruling specifically. As we saw with Brady recently, just because you get leave to appeal or have reconsidered the nature and terms of your sentence, does not mean that it'll happen.

If any one of these are considered eligible for release, which I doubt, it will be because of the opinion of the UK's judicial system supporting it and not because of some "foreign" judge trying to meddle in our affairs.

Also, FH: glad you're looking forward to the referendum but the ECHR is not an EU institution. It's separate to it. We were signatories to that treaty long before we joined the EU.

[RyeSloan]

Considering the outcry at this I'm amazed there hasn't been a vociferous campaign to change the sentencing rules in Scotland...only England and Wales is covered by this judgement as Scotland (as well as most other Euro countries) does not have a whole of life with no review sentencing option.

[hibby rae]

http://m.guardian.co.uk/law/2012/apr/19/european-court-of-human-rights-human-rights
Thought I'd share this article on the court that I read a while back.

[steakbake]

http://m.guardian.co.uk/law/2012/apr/19/european-court-of-human-rights-human-rights
Thought I'd share this article on the court that I read a while back.

This one sums up what I've been putting across:

http://m.guardian.co.uk/law/2013/jul/09/whole-life-jail-sentences-government-options

[Phil D. Rolls]

I hate it when mass murderers try and use human rights to laws to get out of jail, imo people who commit these crimes give up their human rights when they commit the crime.

That's my feeling. The purpose of the sentence is to make sure they don't get out. It's not to reform them, or punish them. It's to protect the society whose human rights have been violated.

I don't support the death penalty. I have a nagging concern that opting out of the Human Rights legislation might be a move towards bringing capital punishment back.

[hibby rae]

This one sums up what I've been putting across:

http://m.guardian.co.uk/law/2013/jul/09/whole-life-jail-sentences-government-options

Yeah, quite a good article.

[--------]

That's my feeling. The purpose of the sentence is to make sure they don't get out. It's not to reform them, or punish them. It's to protect the society whose human rights have been violated.

I don't support the death penalty. I have a nagging concern that opting out of the Human Rights legislation might be a move towards bringing capital punishment back.

I'm not quite sure I get the last paragraph - "Murderers serving life tariffs are in prison because the prospect of serving an extremely long prison sentence has failed to deter them from multiple killings. A rational person is hardly going to be persuaded that the faint hope of eventual release makes several decades in prison a price worth paying."

I'm not sure about the "rational person" bit - just how rational are the killers we're talking about when they're committing their crimes? As I understand it, there's a massive question about the deterrent value of a life sentence - or even of a death sentence. For some killers the prospect of being caught and sent to prison seems to be part of the thrill of the killing. Many of them are known to have deliberately taken risks to heighten the excitement of the kill.

IIRC Dennis Rader (aka BTK - Bind-Torture-Kill) was angry and outraged with the police who finally tracked him down and arrested him. They identified him by way of a computer floppy disk that he had sent to them after they had falsely assured him that no, they couldn't possibly trace him by means of such a disk. Actually they could, and they did. Was that a breach of his human rights?

The way the police finally caught Rader was because he started a correspondence with them, boasting about his exploits and taunting them with not having caught him over a period of many years. He showed no remorse at either his arrest or in court and there's every reason to assume he would kill again if released.

Rader was a sexual sadist who killed ten people, including a nine-year-old boy and an eleven-year-old girl, between 1974 and 1991. He was active in a local church congregation which meant he had ready access to children and vulnerable adults. his position as Church president meant that those who knew him would probably have been pre-disposed to trust him and allow him into their homes. He was sentenced to life without possibility of parole and I cannot for the life of me see why he, or anyone like him, should be allowed the possibility of one day being released to resume life in society. None of his victims have that luxury to look forward to, and the risk that multiple killer might take more innocent lives after release is surely too great to be entertained.

[Phil D. Rolls]

I'm not quite sure I get the last paragraph - "Murderers serving life tariffs are in prison because the prospect of serving an extremely long prison sentence has failed to deter them from multiple killings. A rational person is hardly going to be persuaded that the faint hope of eventual release makes several decades in prison a price worth paying."

I'm not sure about the "rational person" bit - just how rational are the killers we're talking about when they're committing their crimes? As I understand it, there's a massive question about the deterrent value of a life sentence - or even of a death sentence. For some killers the prospect of being caught and sent to prison seems to be part of the thrill of the killing. Many of them are known to have deliberately taken risks to heighten the excitement of the kill.

IIRC Dennis Rader (aka BTK - Bind-Torture-Kill) was angry and outraged with the police who finally tracked him down and arrested him. They identified him by way of a computer floppy disk that he had sent to them after they had falsely assured him that no, they couldn't possibly trace him by means of such a disk. Actually they could, and they did. Was that a breach of his human rights?

The way the police finally caught Rader was because he started a correspondence with them, boasting about his exploits and taunting them with not having caught him over a period of many years. He showed no remorse at either his arrest or in court and there's every reason to assume he would kill again if released.

Rader was a sexual sadist who killed ten people, including a nine-year-old boy and an eleven-year-old girl, between 1974 and 1991. He was active in a local church congregation which meant he had ready access to children and vulnerable adults. his position as Church president meant that those who knew him would probably have been pre-disposed to trust him and allow him into their homes. He was sentenced to life without possibility of parole and I cannot for the life of me see why he, or anyone like him, should be allowed the possibility of one day being released to resume life in society. None of his victims have that luxury to look forward to, and the risk that multiple killer might take more innocent lives after release is surely too great to be entertained.

Yes, I agree that they should be kept in jail for life. I don't want the death penalty back, did you quote my post by mistake?

[Dinkydoo]

A complicated subject littered with emotions.

People who commit atrocious crimes against humanity shouldn't have thier right to live taken from them - as much as I think that some people don't deserve to live, with the amount of needless pain and sufferring they've caused others. If an underlying medical condition is at play then irrespective of the crime committed I feel that they, as a human being, deserve the right to appropriate treatment and if in the rare scenario where a criminal is proven beyond all doubt to have been 'cured' of thier condition, they should be considered for release after a reasonable amount of thier sentence has been served.

Werner Herzog did a fantastic documentary on Death Row which may still be available on 4 OD and released a similar feature length documentary called Into The Abyss - both well worht a watch. Herzog doesn't argue for or against capital punishment in either documentary although he states outright that he is against it. The viewer is left to make up thier own mind based on the contrasting cases presented that range from an attempted theft-turned triple homicide, a debatable act of self defence and the famous Texas Seven case where escaped inmates 'accidently' killed a pursuing police officer and as per state law, any accomplace to killing a police officer is convicted of the actual murder themselves.

[--------]

Yes, I agree that they should be kept in jail for life. I don't want the death penalty back, did you quote my post by mistake?

Sorry, FR - I meant to start off with a :agree: because I share your suspicion that those who want us to opt out of the HR legislation see it as a door to all sorts of unpleasantness, including the restoration of the death penalty. But - there are people who are just not safe to have on the streets. Supervision outside prison doesn't work, or at least not to the degree of security required when we're dealing with people like the ones in FalkirkHibee's list. I think we're pretty well in total agreement here - I do apologise for giving the impression I was attacking you.

[Steve-O]

What gets me about the article is that I do not believe for one minute David Cameron truly believes what he's saying, but he knows that's what most people will want to hear. Yes, hardly the first time a politician has done such a thing, but it irked me when I read it.

[Sylar]

A potentially classic example of why some people shouldn't get back out:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-23314018

[Steve-O]

A potentially classic example of why some people shouldn't get back out:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-23314018

Day release is not the same as parole.

[--------]

Day release is not the same as parole.


Prisoners don't get "parole" in the UK. They're released on licence - which as you say isn't the same as day release.

[Sylar]

Day release is not the same as parole.

I wasn't arguing a point about the length of release and I'm well aware of the difference.

Point being (which I thought was apparent) that some criminals, when allowed back out of prison, will commit more crimes.

[Steve-O]

Prisoners don't get "parole" in the UK. They're released on licence - which as you say isn't the same as day release.

Yes they do. The licence you speak of is a parole licence, and the body that decides if they are released is The Parole Board.

http://www.justice.gov.uk/about/parole-board

[Steve-O]

I wasn't arguing a point about the length of release and I'm well aware of the difference.

Point being (which I thought was apparent) that some criminals, when allowed back out of prison, will commit more crimes.

I think the case you chose was a VERY rare instance though.

Of course some will commit more crimes, it is impossible to predict what will happen. However, for all the stories you see in the papers about the bad things done by those on parole, there are countless others who have not reoffended, but we don't hear about those cases.

[Phil D. Rolls]

Sorry, FR - I meant to start off with a :agree: because I share your suspicion that those who want us to opt out of the HR legislation see it as a door to all sorts of unpleasantness, including the restoration of the death penalty. But - there are people who are just not safe to have on the streets. Supervision outside prison doesn't work, or at least not to the degree of security required when we're dealing with people like the ones in FalkirkHibee's list. I think we're pretty well in total agreement here - I do apologise for giving the impression I was attacking you.

No problem sir. I just wasn't sure what you were getting at, sorry for the curt response, it was unintentional.

I agree, some people need to be locked up for life. I do have a concern, and this actually happens, that some people might end up being kept in hospitals, because people are too scared to keep let them out. When it comes to assessing madness, subjectivity is a big part of it.

However, if someone has committed a heinous crime, and they show no understanding of what they have done, or no remorse, then they should not get out.

[heretoday]

It all depends on your definition of Human Rights and whether, and in what measure, they can be forfeited in certain situations.

The ECHR doesn't have the perfect answer. No one has.

I can only opine that capital punishment is a bad idea if the perp still has vital information on other victims' whereabouts - the Brady Dilemma.

[--------]

Yes they do. The licence you speak of is a parole licence, and the body that decides if they are released is The Parole Board.

http://www.justice.gov.uk/about/parole-board



OOPS! My mistake. It's just that I've usually heard it referred to as "out on licence". Apologies. :slipper:

[Steve-O]

OOPS! My mistake. It's just that I've usually heard it referred to as "out on licence". Apologies. :slipper:

Yeah they do seem to refer to it like that in the UK for some reason.

Here the prisoners get a release licence when they leave the prison but its always referred to as 'on parole'.

Go figure!