European Court of Human Rights

Is it just me or have they lost the plot a bit? Why should murderers rights be considered at all? They get a life sentence but now they have to at least know they 'might' get released otherwise they will get upset and be unhappy in prison.

Baffled.

Because they're human rights, the rights held by all human beings. Young, old, black, white, rich, poor; teachers, doctors, drug-dealers and murderers.

A review of if they need to stay in jail, review time comes up, nope your staying in prison ad infinitum every 10 years until they die

Murderers have the right not to be executed. They should be grateful for that.

It's cases like this. Which confirms the HRA should be reviewed . This is not why the various articles were introduced all those decades ago . But lawyers over the years look for ways to distort the truth and in doing so forget about the victims . Quatada , bamber, brady , bridger et al all murdered many innocent people but they seem to have more rights than the victims and relatives of this crime .

The HRA should revert to the originally reason the articles were introduced and not used to protect terrorist or frivolous claims being made under the act

What rights are the victims and their relatives being deprived of? The ECHR doesn't enshrine the right to see your relative's murderer imprisoned til the day they die.

What rights are the victims and their relatives being deprived of? The ECHR doesn't enshrine the right to see your relative's murderer imprisoned til the day they die.

Just look up the number of convicted murderers who kill again after release.

If someone is a persistent danger to society, it can be addressed through the parole system.

Whitey Grandad; convicted murderers who kill again after release are a consequence of this system not working. Ever wonder why it's not working?

What rights are the victims and their relatives being deprived of? The ECHR doesn't enshrine the right to see your relative's murderer imprisoned til the day they die.

The right to see full justice done. Doesn't need to be enshrined in an act really.

The right to see full justice done. Doesn't need to be enshrined in an act really.

Broken down, whole life sentences are the next best thing to the death penalty. The UK gov knows this when it is dishing them out, as does the UK public. The ECHR knows this too. Do it properly - show we're a civilised society.

Per head of population, these cases are so rare we can afford to do so, and if not, we should ask why not.

Because they're human rights, the rights held by all human beings. Young, old, black, white, rich, poor; teachers, doctors, drug-dealers and murderers.

They are murderers, IMO if you completely ignore anothers human rights then you essentially forfeit yours down to a basic level IMHO.

The right to see full justice done. Doesn't need to be enshrined in an act really.

'Full justice' is subjective. It doesn't necessarily mean somebody's locked up until they die.

They are murderers, IMO if you completely ignore anothers human rights then you essentially forfeit yours down to a basic level IMHO.

It's all fun and games until someone mentions wrongful conviction.

It's all fun and games until someone mentions wrongful conviction.

So we shouldn't send people to prison for ACTUAL life, in case they didn't really do it? Even though they have (rightly or wrongly) been found guilty?

If new evidence comes to light etc. and someone is found not guilty a while later, then they should get a f*ck ton of compensation. But you cannot convict someone and then treat them on the basis that you might have got it wrong.

Live and let live and free everyone

So we shouldn't send people to prison for ACTUAL life, in case they didn't really do it? Even though they have (rightly or wrongly) been found guilty?

 

If new evidence comes to light etc. and someone is found not guilty a while later, then they should get a f*ck ton of compensation. But you cannot convict someone and then treat them on the basis that you might have got it wrong.

I think there is every reason for some people to be in prison for their entire lives, but it needs to happen inside a process that acknowledges the chance for rehabilitation. It may turn out that in the vast majority of cases, parole boards determine that a prisoner isn't fit to return to society. That works well enough for me, and Hungary excepted, every other country in Europe except England and Wales.

Duncanrg judging by your post . I take it your in favour of the murderers . So in your honest opinion do you think they should have a much lighter sentence Or even released much earlier . You happy to have these evil monsters living next door to you and your family .?

Simple solution: let the victim's family decide when/whether the killer should be let out.

'Full justice' is subjective. It doesn't necessarily mean somebody's locked up until they die.

What rights are the victims and their relatives being deprived of? The ECHR doesn't enshrine the right to see your relative's murderer imprisoned til the day they die.

seeing their loved ones

It's all fun and games until someone mentions wrongful conviction.

That is a terrible arguement pap, I expect better from you

Care to elaborate?

If its proven that someone was wrongly convicted then it doesn't matter at that stage whether we have a "life means life" policy or not. They would be let out regardless, would they not?

Care to elaborate?

So you are saying that convicted criminals should not be brought to an appropriate justice in the off chance that they have been wrongly convicted ? Despite tge fact that our legal system is one of the best in the world and is designed specifically to ensure justice is brought only to those that have committed a crime beyond reasonable doubt ?

Regardless of the outcome, we are not talking capital punishment within which an innocent man can have no chance of reprieve. If new evidence comes to light etc they can be freed.

We are talking about the worst of offenders here, life should mean life. Looking at it subjectively you are given more thought to a criminal who has removed any chance of life etc from an innocent then you are to the innocent that has had his life extinguished.

A review of if they need to stay in jail, review time comes up, nope your staying in prison ad infinitum every 10 years until they die

Yes, this. There are ways and means to get round the drivel directives from the ECHR.

Personally would prefer the UK Govt to confront the court head-on. But I also think the ECHR behaviour, combined with certain elements of the European Parliament and Commission behaviour, is part of an orchestrated attempt to get us to leave anyway. A type of "constructive dismissal". Without us, the major road-block to European hegemony and German imperialism is removed.

So you are saying that convicted criminals should not be brought to an appropriate justice in the off chance that they have been wrongly convicted ? Despite tge fact that our legal system is one of the best in the world and is designed specifically to ensure justice is brought only to those that have committed a crime beyond reasonable doubt ?

 

Regardless of the outcome, we are not talking capital punishment within which an innocent man can have no chance of reprieve. If new evidence comes to light etc they can be freed.

 

We are talking about the worst of offenders here, life should mean life. Looking at it subjectively you are given more thought to a criminal who has removed any chance of life etc from an innocent then you are to the innocent that has had his life extinguished.

Nope, I'm saying that whole life sentences are not an appropriate sentence full stop. I don't agree with the death penalty either. If our system is so infallible, you may wish to look at the number of convictions that are overturned.

A whole life conviction removes any incentive to reform. You're effectively sentencing someone to death; the execution method is old age.

Listening to the reports of Bradys victims pleading 'I want to see my mummy's enough for me to want these type of people to have no rights whatever, how can such evil people have any human rights as they didn't give their poor victims any. Liberal thoughts when these people laugh at civilised thoughts

1) Just because they have the right to request a parole hearing doesn't mean it has to be granted - the system is quite capable of keeping them locked up for the full term.

2) When people refer to 'the worst offenders', etc, where is the line drawn ? There will always be that grey area that blurs the definition, ( yes I know - Brady, Sutcliffe, Rose West, etc, but they are very much the exception ).

That is a terrible arguement pap, I expect better from you

Agreed. It's not difficult to have a "life means life" sentence with an appeals process for wrongful convictions.

Agreed. It's not difficult to have a "life means life" sentence with an appeals process for wrongful convictions.

The whole-life sentences process is flawed because there is no direct means to challenge it. That's the basis of the Human Rights claims, by the way.

You're also assuming that your wrongfully convicted whole-lifer will still be alive once exonerated. Many are not well liked by the other inmates.

1) Just because they have the right to request a parole hearing doesn't mean it has to be granted - the system is quite capable of keeping them locked up for the full term.

2) When people refer to 'the worst offenders', etc, where is the line drawn ? There will always be that grey area that blurs the definition, ( yes I know - Brady, Sutcliffe, Rose West, etc, but they are very much the exception ).

Seems about the long and the short of it. Can't quite see what the fuss is about meself (apart from the obvious political sabre-rattling about Euro intereference, etc).

Seems about the long and the short of it. Can't quite see what the fuss is about meself (apart from the obvious political sabre-rattling about Euro intereference, etc).

Agree just people making a mountain out of a molehill .

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 2

If is what they indeed to do, the quicker they bring back hanging the better. Give them an inch and they take a mile.

I've just spent a few mins reading up on some of the crimes committed by the list of 49 lifers covered by this ruling.

I really wonder why precious taxpayer resources are being used in keeping this filth alive.

I've just spent a few mins reading up on some of the crimes committed by the list of 49 lifers covered by this ruling.

 

I really wonder why precious taxpayer resources are being used in keeping this filth alive.

Capital punishment has long been abolished, and rightfully so.

Feeding and clothing these people is a small price to pay to defend the principle that the state doesn't kill its own citizens.

I think there is every reason for some people to be in prison for their entire lives, but it needs to happen inside a process that acknowledges the chance for rehabilitation.

Not really, if we are never going to let them out we don't need to worry about their rehabilitation.

I think whole life sentences are appropriate because they completely remove the criminal's hope, that's part of their punishment.

It's time to just pull out of the European Court of Human Rights.

It's time to just pull out of the European Court of Human Rights.

It's the European Convention on Human Rights, and if you are willing to give up all the protections it gives to you so as to ensure that a handful of murderers can be locked in an oubliette, then I think you would be making the wrong choice.

'Full justice' is subjective. It doesn't necessarily mean somebody's locked up until they die.

It should do.

You're a disgrace.

Not really, if we are never going to let them out we don't need to worry about their rehabilitation.

 

I think whole life sentences are appropriate because they completely remove the criminal's hope, that's part of their punishment.

 

It's time to just pull out of the European Court of Human Rights.

A lot of prison officers would disagree with that approach, simply because removing any hope of eventual release removes their incentive to behave and feign rehabilitation. You end up with even more violent psychopaths than they would otherwise be.

It's the European Convention on Human Rights, and if you are willing to give up all the protections it gives to you so as to ensure that a handful of murderers can be locked in an oubliette, then I think you would be making the wrong choice.

A lot of prison officers would disagree with that approach, simply because removing any hope of eventual release removes their incentive to behave and feign rehabilitation. You end up with even more violent psychopaths than they would otherwise be.

Then why do we not just remove them entirely from society ?

A lot of prison officers would disagree with that approach, simply because removing any hope of eventual release removes their incentive to behave and feign rehabilitation. You end up with even more violent psychopaths than they would otherwise be.

If they are locked up and the key thrown away then it doesn't matter how violent or psychopathic they become. As long as there's somewhere in their cell to urinate and defecate, and there's a small slot in the wall to pass them bread and water, they won't affect anyone else.

Then why do we not just remove them entirely from society ?

Im not actually against the death penalty for multiple murderers. All Im saying is if you do have people in prison for decades you need some mechanisms for making sure they dont spend their time attacking and slashing wardens.

Im not actually against the death penalty for multiple murderers. All Im saying is if you do have people in prison for decades you need some mechanisms for making sure they dont spend their time attacking and slashing wardens.

See above. Don't ever let them out of their cells.

If they are locked up and the key thrown away then it doesn't matter how violent or psychopathic they become. As long as there's somewhere in their cell to urinate and defecate, and there's a small slot in the wall to pass them bread and water, they won't affect anyone else.

you'd fit in well in Pinochet's Chile

you'd fit in well in Pinochet's Chile

I just dont see why we pander and tip toe around the rights of those who clearly do not agree with the merits of the rights they now demand are respected.

It's the European Convention on Human Rights, and if you are willing to give up all the protections it gives to you so as to ensure that a handful of murderers can be locked in an oubliette, then I think you would be making the wrong choice.

I don't think they will take any notice has some of the most stupid commenters remind me of the wild.west lynch mob mentality.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 2

I just dont see why we pander and tip toe around the rights of those who clearly do not agree with the merits of the rights they now demand are respected.

Because if you want a free society rights have to be inalienable - they apply to everybody and cannot be removed. Its something fought for since the Magna Carta. The alternative is that the government gets to decide who is deserving of those rights. There are enough examples and warnings throughout history of the dangers of creating Untermenchsen.

you'd fit in well in Pinochet's Chile

Thanks

The alternative is that the government gets to decide who is deserving of those rights

People are convicted by their peers, not politicians. We should give the decision on release to those same peers. IMO.