European Court of Human Rights

Bet the human rights lawyers are rubbing their hands with this one, old witch blair will be at the front of the queue waiting to get her grubby mitts on some taxpayers money to represent these vile humans

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

So you are backtracking on the removal of the rights of prisoners to see a lawyer, get medical care, have a shower, get exercise etc?

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

I have my pedant hat on. People are JUDGED by their peers but convicted by the judiciary. Politicians sometimes interfere with the judiciary. I think I'm right in saying that the then Home Secretary, David Blunkett, 'gave' the judiciary the option to impose whole life sentences.

This current politicking is the product of the Conservatives' attempt to alienate us from the ECHR and, I suspect, they also think a lot of people will assume that it's all part of being in the EU. We know, of course, that Great Britain was instrumental in setting up the ECHR and we should be proud of that even if we don't always like the independent decisions passed by that court. We should also be careful what we wish for ....

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.

Is it the prisoners themselves, or smart arsed self-promoting lawyers that take these cases to Court ?

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.

Agree it's the bedrock of any free and democratic society hence why country's like the USA have a constitution for Good and bad.I rather: judges rule on Law's than tinpot politicians

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 2

So you are backtracking on the removal of the rights of prisoners to see a lawyer, get medical care, have a shower, get exercise etc?

Yep. Sounds like a reasonable exchange for killing someone to me.

If someone killed one of my children they would be much safer inside prison than outside...

Just a different opinion of course.

Yep. Sounds like a reasonable exchange for killing someone to me.

 

If someone killed one of my children they would be much safer inside prison than outside...

 

Just a different opinion of course.

So if they were on the outside you'd kill them and then we could lock you up in a cell and throwaway the key and feed you through a slot in the door with no appeals, visits from family, lawyers, exercise or showers etc. Does it still seem such a cracking idea?

...

So if they were on the outside you'd kill them and then we could lock you up in a cell and throwaway the key and feed you through a slot in the door with no appeals, visits from family, lawyers, exercise or showers etc.

You'd be mistaking me for someone acting rationally. If someone killed one of my kids and got let out of prison I wouldn't be thinking or acting rationally.

You'd be mistaking me for someone acting rationally. If someone killed one of my kids and got let out of prison I wouldn't be thinking or acting rationally.

So you think different standards of detention should apply to people convicted of a crime whilst the balance of their mind was disturbed?

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.

So you are comparing monsters like Rose West with Jews persecuted and exterminated during the Holocaust.

Pathetic.

****ing hell. Alpine has missed the point totally and come out with a knee jerk reaction. Lawks oh lawkey.

Just FYI, to be clear the point was about the dangers of creating sub groups of the population to whom normal protections of law and access to justice do not apply. Besides the Jews the Nazis imprisoned and exterminated the mentally and physically disabled, political prisoners, gypsies, Jehovah's witnesses, trades unionists, diplomats and foreign nationals from 'hostile' countries, Freemasons, and 'social deviants' like prostitutes, tramps, alcoholics, addicts, pacifists and criminals.

Doesn't have to be the Nazis, plenty of other examples. Legislative removal of rights and judicial oversight from different groups preceded 'cleansing' in the Yugoslav breakup, Kosovo, Soviet era gulags, Cambodia, Argentinian junta, Rwanda, Nicaragua and on and on.

I know my feelings on those that have committed hideous crimes . And I disagree with some of the interpretations this Strasbourg lawyers put on law . Yes these vile people may be incarcerated and tortured in prison till they die according to some liberal minded lawyers . . But are they really tortured . Where do they get this crap from .apart from grabbing the headlines .brady is looked after 24/7. As for the other argument that some of these creatures might reform if they knew they had a chance of release . It's a difficult argument. Lets release Bamber Brady and co and if they have reform or kill again . If they kill again then those judges who made the decision should be sent to prison and share a cell with the likes f Brady .

I don't really see how this makes much difference. The ruling doesn't change the justice system's ability to lock anyone up indefinitely if it so wishes. All it means is that every x amount of years(which can be a long amount of years), a whole life tariff is reviewed. There are only 49 irrc people that this applies to in the UK. I doubt that any one of them would be released, and if they were it would be under the correct circumstances.

So you think different standards of detention should apply to people convicted of a crime whilst the balance of their mind was disturbed?

You're also mistaking me for someone who has thought this through....

I don't really see how this makes much difference. The ruling doesn't change the justice system's ability to lock anyone up indefinitely if it so wishes. All it means is that every x amount of years(which can be a long amount of years), a whole life tariff is reviewed. There are only 49 irrc people that this applies to in the UK. I doubt that any one of them would be released, and if they were it would be under the correct circumstances.

What really depresses a chap about this country sometimes is that our leaders know damn well that the above post is correct in all respects - but that will not stop them expressing a bogus sense of outrage anyway because furthering their own political agenda is more important to them than the simple truth.

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'm not saying give up all our human rights, just don't sign up to that specific agreement. The UK is more than capable of writing it's own.

We live in England, you can't fart without effecting someones human rights. Why do people think we are suddenly going to turn into Stalinist Russia by making slight changes to laws concerning mass murderers?

We live in England, you can't fart without effecting someones human rights. Why do people think we are suddenly going to turn into Stalinist Russia by making slight changes to laws concerning mass murderers?

The point is we don't need to change anything, other than a semantic point about allowing somebody to apply for something that will be automatically turned down. The parole process is quite capable of keeping 49 people locked up until they die.

The point is we don't need to change anything, other than a semantic point about allowing somebody to apply for something that will be automatically turned down. The parole process is quite capable of keeping 49 people locked up until they die.

I don't think they are, plenty of people have been released to offend again. Anyway the chance of parole would give them hope, they need to know they will die inside to be punished properly.

This is a classic example of our now lack of power to change things when things are not right, let the people sing and give us our referendum.

Anyway the chance of parole would give them hope, they need to know they will die inside to be punished properly.

"Vengeance is Mine" sayeth the Lord.

"Vengeance is Mine" sayeth the Lord.

He told me that to the other night as well after a few too many in the Slug and Lettuce......................

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.

Nonsense. It's entirely possible to have a whole life tariff and a fair system to challenge the conviction that led to that sentence.

If a wrongful conviction is reversed on appeal then the sentence falls away.

Nonsense. It's entirely possible to have a whole life tariff and a fair system to challenge the conviction that led to that sentence.

 

If a wrongful conviction is reversed on appeal then the sentence falls away.

Is it? Everyone currently on a whole life tariff, bar one, has admitted guilt. The one that hasn't is Jeremy Bamber, convicted for the White House Farm Murders in the 1980s. In his time in prison, there have been two attempts on his life, once with a broken bottle and more recently (2004), a knife attack requiring 28 stitches in the neck.

Between the attempted murders and the fact that the sentence is a political one, I don't think a wrongly convicted whole-lifer has much chance of getting the conviction overturned at all. Bamber has been told by the Home Secretary that he will never be released. With that prevailing attitude, his chances of getting his conviction overturned are slim to nil.

Is it? Everyone currently on a whole life tariff, bar one, has admitted guilt. The one that hasn't is Jeremy Bamber, convicted for the White House Farm Murders in the 1980s. In his time in prison, there have been two attempts on his life, once with a broken bottle and more recently (2004), a knife attack requiring 28 stitches in the neck.

 

Between the attempted murders and the fact that the sentence is a political one, I don't think a wrongly convicted whole-lifer has much chance of getting the conviction overturned at all. Bamber has been told by the Home Secretary that he will never be released. With that prevailing attitude, his chances of getting his conviction overturned are slim to nil.

It seems that you're confusing sentence with conviction. Either way I don't understand your point about Bamber. So he doesn't admit his guilt and he's had a tough time in prison. Surely he would have had the same tough time as a convicted murderer whether he was a standard lifer as opposed to being on a whole life tariff? Murderers, rapists, child abusers et al get a dose of their own medicine inside, its a reality.

Back to the initial point, if evidence becomes available to cast doubt on a conviction (not sentence) then an appeal will always be possible regardless of whether its a whole life case or something else.

Pap are you saying that Ian Brady should now be released if You do not agree with the life means life sentence ? Might be a good idea to release him and throw him to the wolves . No he would get a new name , protection, housing and wall to wall social workers and probationers to support him . In this case I think like others he should rot in jail

****ing hell. Alpine has missed the point totally and come out with a knee jerk reaction. Lawks oh lawkey.

 

Just FYI, to be clear the point was about the dangers of creating sub groups of the population to whom normal protections of law and access to justice do not apply. Besides the Jews the Nazis imprisoned and exterminated the mentally and physically disabled, political prisoners, gypsies, Jehovah's witnesses, trades unionists, diplomats and foreign nationals from 'hostile' countries, Freemasons, and 'social deviants' like prostitutes, tramps, alcoholics, addicts, pacifists and criminals.

 

Doesn't have to be the Nazis, plenty of other examples. Legislative removal of rights and judicial oversight from different groups preceded 'cleansing' in the Yugoslav breakup, Kosovo, Soviet era gulags, Cambodia, Argentinian junta, Rwanda, Nicaragua and on and on.

You used the word "Untermenschen". It has specific connotations. It is also a pretty taboo word where I live.

Pap are you saying that Ian Brady should now be released if You do not agree with the life means life sentence ? Might be a good idea to release him and throw him to the wolves . No he would get a new name , protection, housing and wall to wall social workers and probationers to support him . In this case I think like others he should rot in jail

No, I'm saying I don't agree with the principle of locking someone up indefinitely and outside any effective review system. Brady should be reviewed, and be denied release.

No, I'm saying I don't agree with the principle of locking someone up indefinitely and outside any effective review system. Brady should be reviewed, and be denied release.

What's the difference between locking someone up for life without review and locking someone up for life with a review that is automatically going to be turned down?

Brady might have his review and say he's really sorry and promises not to do it again. Why won't you let him out like you would other serial killers?

No, I'm saying I don't agree with the principle of locking someone up indefinitely and outside any effective review system. Brady should be reviewed, and be denied release.

I don't agree. A life for a life of incarceration. There is no 'review system' for the victims.

I don't agree. A life for a life of incarceration. There is no 'review system' for the victims.

Not every murder case is the same so what is meant by a "life" sentence should be on a case by case basis.

Example. Take an 18 year old woman in say an arranged marriage. Her husband beats her, locks her under lock and key, rapes her and controls her life. He cuts off her contact with the outside world so she has no way out. She kills him and is convicted of murder. Should she spend her whole life in prison? The law has to impose a life sentence but the judge determines the tariff. In her case should she have a chance of returning to society after not too many years or be locked up forever?

Then you have your proper nasty killers like Hindley and Sutcliffe that should never see the civilised world again.

Simply, there are murderers and there are murderers and I don't agree that every murderer should receive a whole life tariff. I do, however, think that some cases justify it and that if the judge deems it the appropriate sentence then their should be no review. The bottom line is that a sentence is based on the facts of case and the sentence should be upheld and respected unless a court overturns it. A review to a panel of people is an appeal through the backdoor and I don't agree with the concept.

Not every murder case is the same so what is meant by a "life" sentence should be on a case by case basis.

 

Example. Take an 18 year old woman in say an arranged marriage. Her husband beats her, locks her under lock and key, rapes her and controls her life. He cuts off her contact with the outside world so she has no way out. She kills him and is convicted of murder. Should she spend her whole life in prison? The law has to impose a life sentence but the judge determines the tariff. In her case should she have a chance of returning to society after not too many years or be locked up forever?

 

Then you have your proper nasty killers like Hindley and Sutcliffe that should never see the civilised world again.

 

Simply, there are murderers and there are murderers and I don't agree that every murderer should receive a whole life tariff. I do, however, think that some cases justify it and that if the judge deems it the appropriate sentence then their should be no review. The bottom line is that a sentence is based on the facts of case and the sentence should be upheld and respected unless a court overturns it. A review to a panel of people is an appeal through the backdoor and I don't agree with the concept.

This