Killers' life terms 'breach their human rights'

[dipsydoodle]

Source: BBC News

The European Court of Human Rights has ruled the whole life tariffs given to murderer Jeremy Bamber and two other killers breached their human rights.

The judges ruled by 16 to 1 that there had to be a possibility of release and review of the sentence.

But they said this did not mean there was "any prospect of imminent release".

Prime Minister David Cameron said he "profoundly disagrees with the court's ruling", adding he is a "strong supporter of whole life tariffs".

On a website, Bamber, who murdered five members of his family, said the verdict was "hollow" as he was still serving a sentence for a crime he did not commit.

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

---

If the European Court of Human Rights has ruled that whole life tariffs breach human rights then it could in future prohibit extraditions to countries who impose whole life sentences.

[avebury]

1. One can only imagine what their comments

would be about the US Correctional Industry.

[vdogg]

2. As a matter of principle

I am against the death penalty. Reason being is that you cannot give someone their life back if you got the verdict wrong. That said, I wholeheartedly support the prospect of life without parole. When you take someones life, you violate their human rights. I have very little sympathy for someone who does this. If you have such a callous disregard for human life then you should lose your freedom for the entirety of your life, end of story.

[avebury]

3. Perhaps if the US was not so

interested in creating a privatized correctional industry and we focused more on fixing the societal problems that lead to so much crime, there would not be so much need for correctional facilities.

[ag_dude]

7. The article is about an English case

Heinous murders happen regardless of who is in charge of the prisons and glossing over the fact that we need to have something to address those situations because of issues related to the management of prisons does nobody any good.

[Orsino]

20. The word "address" hardly addresses the issue.

That the debate described in the OP isn't happening stateside shows how badly our make-crime-pay approach is failing to address much of anything--beyond making a class of citizens very uncomfortable, very dead, or both.

[idwiyo]

4. I beleive this is great decision. There must be reviews because there is always a chance someone

can be wrongfully convicted.
I am against death penalty in all cases, and I am also against incarceration without a chance of rehabilitation.

[muriel_volestrangler]

5. This isn't about wrongful conviction; just about rehabilitation

An appeal for wrongful conviction would always have been possible if new evidence turned up. This is about whether they should have the right to ask to be released because they've 'atoned' in whatever way is thought necessary, and they claim they are no longer a danger.

I can see the court's view that there always should be the chance of killer reforming; but I think that, if the whole life sentences are limited to those who really seem, at the time of sentencing, to look like a permanent danger to someone, then the good that knowing the killer is in for life does to the victims' relatives (or others who are potential future victims) might outweigh that, if the people concerned are extremely unlikely to be let out anyway.

[idwiyo]

11. I am talking about cases that either ethausted their right to appeal, or never even tried to appeal,

or tried and gave up because they are too poor, or because all stakes are against them. There are lots of reasons why someone might remain in prison even though they are innocent. At the very least this decision will give them a chance to eventually get out of prison.

I also don't believe in punishment for vengeance sake only. It's wrong, IMO. To believe otherwise will make me a hypocrite.

[AtheistCrusader]

16. Appeals are different from Parole.

Parole is a chance for the guilty to inject themselves back into society under certain rehabilitation milestones. Appeals are the process for the innocent to challenge wrongful convictions.


I think life w/o possibility of parole amounts to a death sentence, that only preserves the possibility of reversal if the courts got the sentence/conviction wrong. Otherwise, they might as well be the same.

You'd have to be a pretty heinous motherfucker for me to say 'no chance of parole for you'. If you don't hold out the possibility of rehabilitation/redemption, what's the point. Only the sort of sociopath that kills/tortures without remorse, and intends to do it again, would I lock up without possibility. Someone that is a clear, present, and enduring danger to society.

Like bankers.

[idwiyo]

21. I know the difference. Maybe I am not explaining myself properly.

I was trying to say that this decision will also give a second chance in case where appeal system failed.

I agree that life without a possibility of parole is no different than a death sentence and is wrong.

[AtheistCrusader]

22. I see.

And that does happen. Sometimes appeals get exhausted.

The introduction of DNA evidence has let go a lot of people close to, or at that limit.

[Nye Bevan]

6. Anyone remember Neil Entwistle, the Englishman who murdered his wife and daughter in MA

a few years ago? Then flew to England right after killing them and needed to be extradited back here? He is now serving life without parole in MA, but under this ruling, I guess that he might have been spared extradition because of the possibility of this sentence.

[geek tragedy]

9. Mass. would have had to amend to allow parole. They could set it up

so that there's no way it would be granted in his case.

[Nye Bevan]

17. So anyone expecting to be arrested for first degree murder in the US should hop on a plane to Europe

so that both the death penalty AND life without parole are off the table, guaranteed.

I oppose the death penalty unconditionally but I have no problem with life without parole for psychopathic scumbags like Entwistle.

[geek tragedy]

19. In general, anyone expecting to be arrested for murder should

get out of the country if able to do so. There are a lot of countries with less robust extradition treaties with the US that might be a better option.

[NoOneMan]

23. If he stayed, he could of just said they were attacking him with Skittles and Soda

Then no jail at all

[geek tragedy]

8. They didn't disallow life imprisonment, only life imprisonment without

the possibility of parole.

They explictly state that sometimes it's appropriate to imprison someone for their entire life, especially if they're still dangerous.

[hobbit709]

10. I guess the human rights the murderer abrogated aren't as important.

[Towlie]

12. Right! As we all know, proper punishment will bring the victims back to life.

[hobbit709]

14. No but letting a murderer loose won't help either.

[nomorenomore08]

26. See posts #8 and 25...

[iandhr]

13. I am against the death penalty...

...but I disagree with this ruling.

There are some murders that are so heinous that life no parole is an appropriate sentence.

[AlbertCat]

18. so heinous that life no parole is an appropriate sentence.

But if the crime IS that heinous, and the prisoner never changes, then the review boards will not release him.

But the thing is..... things change.

[Igel]

15. Barney the purple dinosaur comes to mind.

Everybody is good, deep down inside. How can you lock up somebody for life if all you need to do is bring out his inner goodness?

At some point the verbal and social reality that some elites--however they may have started out in life--have constructed diverges so much from, well, actual reality that the mind boggles.

In the case of Barney, I can see a valid need for assault rifles being held by the general population. But I hold out hope that some of the EU elites can still be rehabilitated.

[alp227]

24. Remember this is the SAME "human rights" court that helped free James Bulger's killers

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_James_Bulger

"On 15 March 1999, the court in Strasbourg ruled by 14 votes to five that there had been a violation of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights regarding the fairness of the trial of Thompson and Venables, stating: "The public trial process in an adult court must be regarded in the case of an 11-year-old child as a severely intimidating procedure". [33]"

"The European court case led to the new Lord Chief Justice, Lord Woolf, reviewing the minimum sentence. In October 2000, he recommended the tariff be reduced from ten to eight years, [7] adding that young offender institutions were a "corrosive atmosphere" for the juveniles. [58]

"The European court case led to the new Lord Chief Justice, Lord Woolf, reviewing the minimum sentence. In October 2000, he recommended the tariff be reduced from ten to eight years, [7] adding that young offender institutions were a "corrosive atmosphere" for the juveniles. [58]"

[nomorenomore08]

25. Please note that this is not about "eliminating life sentences" full stop.

There are those who represent a permanent danger to society - serial killers being the classic example - and who therefore can never be released safely, except perhaps in cases of extreme old age or infirmity.

This ruling, as far as I can see, is more about an automatic "life without parole" for murder. That is what is being argued as a violation of human rights, which I don't necessarily agree with - I think it's a case-by-case sort of thing - but it's not the same as saying that no one should ever get life.