[Closed] inhuman and degrading

I always looked at prison for offenders like this as a way of protecting the public from these people. I agree death sentences are inhumane but I wonder if the prisoner, upon knowing he will spend the rest of his life in prison, should be given the option of terminating.

I think they're probably just doing this to be a PITA, and because they're bored. Rather than on some point of principle.

And the lawyers are rubbing their hands with glee, happy to take great big splodges of legal ad funds for a case that'll likely go on and on and on and on and on, until they all kark it anyway

Is a whole life sentence ever appropriate?

IMHO yes. Some people commit acts so monstrous that they should be kept locked up for ever. And a judge should have that sentence available to him when they're found guilty. Its not like its used extensively, is it?

I thought this would be a 'using the Underground in this weather post'...

I thought this would be, "The state of my breakfast croissant". Overcooked. Shocking.

In my opinion some people are just plain evil, rehabilitation won't work because that is who they are, luckily the amount of people like this is minimal but I definitely think we should have the ability to keep everyone else safe by locking them up.

Given that Bamber is still denying he did it, I can't see how he would be eligible for parole even without the whole life tariff.

But in general, if we don't have the death penalty, I think it it's worthwhile to have some kind of ultimate sanction to mark out murders which are particularly extreme and shocking.

Mark Bridger is a good example, and the prospect of the likes of Fred West (had he lived) ever being released would be unacceptable in terms of public opinion and natural justice.

Dear god Flashy! You've not in the provinces are you?

We had heard rumour of [url= http://www.greggs.co.uk/menu/breakfast-range/croissant/ ]this metroplitan affectation[/url] traveling north

In my opinion some people are just plain evil,

inhuman and degrading ???

I thought this was going to be a thread about traveling on public transport in this heat.

In the case of Vinter, he was obviously not rehabilitated. The question for me would be were his actions, in killing 2 people, humane and those of a person able to function in society? Clearly the answer is no. Therefore to protect the rest of society from his possible future actions the only course would be life in prison.

These people would almost certainly never be released anyway. I don't see why there shouldn't be a system in place for periodically reviewing this though.

Thought this was a thread about flying with Ryan Air.

If I were a Tory administration looking to dismantle legal aid, having convicted murderers claim it in order to attempt to get off their life sentences would be just the sort of thing I’d want buzzing round the media to discredit it in the eyes of the public.

The way I see it, these people are given the sentences they deserve with good reason. Just because a bit of time has gone by, doesn't mean their crime is now any less. The sentences should stick.
Imagine if it was your kid they'd killed. 10 years go by of their life sentence, everyone else can say, yeah they've served their time, let them out... but your life sentence of having lost a child to some murdering scumbag will go on.

jackthedog - you cynical old dog, you!

Next you'll be suggesting that they're crossing their fingers that the European Court 'sides with murderers'! (to quote tomorrows Daily Mail headlines). So that Theresa can then use it as further justification to pull out of the European Convention on Human Rights

The old scandanavian system of outlaw and/or exile has some appeal in cases like this.

Oh do come on, I think that this an interesting enough topic for it not to fall to the base level of finding any excuse to have a pop at *insert political party of particular dislike*

The prisoners are having a go at getting their sentences reduced through the ECHU (as they are permitted to by law).
It's nothing to do with the Tories, or Labour or the Libdems and it's quite ridiculous to try and point the finger at any of them.

These guys all [b]chose[/b] to commit an act that had absolutely catastrophic effects on the lives of others. They have been given whole life sentences because they are very exceptional murderers. They have not been judged mentally ill otherwise they would not be in prison therefore they are wholly responsible for their actions. Any sympathy I may have is reserved for the victims and their families.

I'm on the fence, because I don't think it's so black and white. Maybe in these limited cases it is, but take it down the sliding scale of offences and eventually you'll hit a grey area. At exactly what point do you become Evil?

But the other side of the coin is that if you have a mandatory review process, but they have no chance of being succesful, that's just a waste of time and resources and arguably also inhumane. A sliver of hope's worse than none at all sometimes.

One does not "cook" croissants.

Oh do come on, I think that this an interesting enough topic for it not to fall to the base level of finding any excuse to have a pop at *insert political party of particular dislike*

The prisoners are having a go at getting their sentences reduced through the ECHU (as they are permitted to by law).
It's nothing to do with the Tories, or Labour or the Libdems and it's quite ridiculous to try and point the finger at any of them.

Bet you a fiver (I don’t do paypal so it’ll have to be via the post) that the narrative in the mainstream media turns to questioning the legitimacy of legal aid before the story has run its course.

Is this an update? Can't tell by the time it shows on my screen (US internet proxy)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23230419

Bet you a fiver (I don’t do paypal so it’ll have to be via the post) that the narrative in the mainstream media turns to questioning the legitimacy of legal aid before the story has run its course.

Bet you a fiver (I don’t do paypal so it’ll have to be via the post) that the narrative in the mainstream media turns to questioning the legitimacy of legal aid before the story has run its course.

And I bet the same that Theresa May has been on the tellybox denouncing the European Court of Human Rights, and advocating Britains immediate withdrawal from the Convention, before the day's out. All in Daily-Mail-Headline friendly soundbites for tomorrows foaming-at-the-mouth editorials

I suppose the bigger problem is that the application of both legal aid and access to the EUCHR for murderers (and other unpopulars like Hamza, Qatada) gives ammunition to those who want to do away with it. Whilst I see the benefits, I'm in two minds about the EUCHR myself (in its current form).

The whole situation is bonkers for people like this - they have a worthless existence which has no end and the state pays out millions to home them whilst they do it. The punishment aspect is rather mute as they can't really 'learn' from it as they have no prospect of starting a new life having learned as lesson. There is no preventative aspect to whole life terms because the sort of person who commits these sort of crimes is not of a state of mind to be put off by the consequences however grim.

After a few years of 'punishment' incarceration they should just look the other way and give the inmates an opportunity to top themselves and save everyone a load of hassle, misery and money.

I think the reality is that the Sun and Daily Mails readership should not be pandered to in policy making. The reality is that the management of the prison population is by consensus to a great extent. If you have people in there who have no hope whatsoever of any kind, what chance is there of actually managing them. It would be worth reading Charles Bronsons autobiography in this context.

So overall I think policy should be made by those who understand what is going on in reality with a modicum of steerage from the politicos. It should not ever be to pander to the uninformed.

There's no doubt that its manna from heaven for the 'Leave the EU' lobby (although the two things are not the same)

Thing is, in seeking to ensure that the public are kept safe, that justice is seen to be done, and that the will of the people is expressed through parliamentary supremacy, then its hard to argue that leaving the ECHR is not the correct course of action.

I think the reality is that the Sun and Daily Mails readership should not be pandered to in policy making.

I quite agree, and would add the Guardian, Telegraph and any other politically biased news publication. They are all just trying to further their own agendas by reporting news in a certain light with their own slant.

I've been meaning to read Bronsons book, thanks for the reminder. 😀

There have already been rulings by the same courts saying the sentences were not grossly disproportionate, so the 3 in particular are not going anywhere soon, it is just a small change to the whole life tariff that is required to add in the possibility of parole.

Obviously offenders on that particular tariff will have to hit exceptionally high targets to even get a parole review and even then it is no guarantee that it will be successful.

Looking at this dispassionately I am having trouble understanding why this relatively minor change is such a big deal or am I missing something?

'... the Court would note that, in the course of the present proceedings, the applicants have not sought to argue that, in their individual cases, there are no longer any legitimate penological grounds for their continued detention. The applicants have also accepted that, even if the requirements of punishment and deterrence were to be fulfilled, it would still be possible that they could continue to be detained on grounds of dangerousness. The finding of a violation in their cases cannot therefore be understood as giving them the prospect of imminent release.'

Looking at this dispassionately I am having trouble understanding why this relatively minor change is such a big deal or am I missing something?

It's a fair point. I suppose that the issue (for some) is that these people have carried out some very depraved murders and are being given a shed load of public cash to go to a non-UK court to overturn the decision made by a UK court.
There is a fair question in that are whole life sentences ever appropriate? Given the lack of heed the murderers paid to their victims human rights, is it fair that they get to go to court for theirs?

I thought this would be another thread about 'the cycle-show'...

You know what.. I just can't be bothered.

Oh Molly. You're just no fun any more. 🙁

Looking at this dispassionately I am having trouble understanding why this relatively minor change is such a big deal or am I missing something?

Read Charles Bronsons book. It explains it way better than I can, but in general its because the removal of all hope basically dehumansies the inmates. That then leads to behaviours which are extremely difficult to deal with let alone control. i.e. how do you punish someone who is already at the maximum limit of what can be done to them? Therefore the concept of leaving some hope that there is an alternate outcome is actually more of a control mechanism for the system rather than any realistic opprtunity for parole. i.e. there is still something else we can take away while there is hope.

Thus my earlier comment. i.e. do not pander to public opinion, and do take the advice of those who have to deal with these people daily.

Just seen DezBs link. That's it, no more "life means life". No more whole life tariffs. Regardless of the crime; all are going to be eligible for parole.
Does this mean that if a prisoner has behaved well, shown remorse and demonstrates that he/she is rehabilitated that they [i]have[/i] to let them out?

This is not really a EHRC point we used to have a fair system where whole lifers got a review after 25 years .This was removed by Blunket who believed that parliament or he should fix sentences not judges and the parole board . This was in part ideological and in part popularist posturing . Many of his so called sentence reforms have been changed or had exceptional circumstances caveats added .

The ECHC have merely used the convention which was drafted by the uk to take uk law back to where it was before Blunket chose to try and cross the divide between political power and the rule of law. I am very much in favour for whole life tariffs for the very few offenders who merit them but also believe that those tariffs should not preclude the possibility of review to see if they remain justified. a whole lifer released would remain on licence and liable to recall to prison at any time.

CaptainFlashheart - Member

I thought this would be, "The state of my breakfast croissant". Overcooked. Shocking.

I feel your pain - the egg in my Eggs benedict this morning had a decidely firm yolk. 👿

the OT - these guys are, as has been already said, just seeking attention and if they get away with it, which is all too conceivable then they will feel vindicated. I only hope that the kind of resolve that is needed here is shown by the Justice Secretary and they tell the ECoHR to **** off.

"Does this mean that if a prisoner has behaved well, shown remorse and demonstrates that he/she is rehabilitated that they have to let them out?"

In short no, but it does mean if someone posed no risk and had served an appropriate period of punishment the parole board would have to give reasons why they were being detained. I am currently working to try and get a lifetime preventative order removed from some one who offended as a child/young adult, is now living a stable and productive life and has done nothing wrong since his release from prison which was heavily supervised. The police are so far successfully opposing that even though they and the judge are frankly struggling to identify any real risk posed.

In cases of this magnitude no one wants to be in the Daily Mail as the person who freed a killer to kill again.

Does this mean that if a prisoner has behaved well, shown remorse and demonstrates that he/she is rehabilitated that they have to let them out?

Personally I have no problem with whole life or it being given a tariff - either way , in the worst cases, they are never ever coming out

Not sure why we need to give them hope tbh or what right has been broken

It has been ruled on..

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

In short no, but it does mean if someone posed no risk and had served an appropriate period of punishment the parole board would have to give reasons why they were being detained.

behaved well, shown remorse and demonstrates that he/she is rehabilitated

I know a chap on a whole life sentence. It's quite correct that he is; he's a complete menace.

are they then open to more ECHR action

Wont really matter as the court can rule on whether the process is legit not the decision- it snot like they have to be released now.

ie they want us to have a review after 25 years so we will have whole life sentences that are reviewed for parole at 25 years and someone will then say it is still a whole life sentence but we will review it in say 10 years

I think there is some degree of fairness in removing sentencing form the political process tbh as the populus is often lustful for revenge and therefore put undue pressure on politicians

The review is pretty pointless tbh as, I assume, it will simply rubbber stamp the decision

 

The ECHC have merely used the convention which was drafted by the uk to take uk law back to where it was before Blunket chose to try and cross the divide between political power and the rule of law.

To be fair, the 1965 abolition of the death penalty act introduced a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment, there is only one sentence for murder, life, any comment from the judge is nothing more than a recommendation to the secretary of state of a minimum sentence before release under licence, so the exercise in discretion has [i]always[/i] been one of political nature, rather than judicial, and the argument that Blunkett believed that parliament or he should fix sentences not judges and the parole board is, in the case of murder, a valid one, as parliament specifically laid down in statute that there was only one sentence for murder, and any attempt by a court to tie the hands of the secretary of state or limit this sentence would be ultra vires.

the exercise in discretion has always been one of political nature

have they not ruled that this is also unfair ?

Ie it should be out of the politicians hands

i am not sure why we let public opinion in as , for example, the Bulger killers would never see freedom if we did this.
it seems a charter for revenge rather than justice

i am not sure why we let public opinion in as , for example, the Bulger killers would never see freedom if we did this.

perhaps not the best example.....

Depends if you agree with locking up children who are below the age of criminal responsibility for life without reveiw as a reasonable way for a civilised society to behave. Personally, my overwhelming feeling in respect of those two is what on earth have they been through to create a situation that results in that awful outcome, and what can we do to prevent the waste of one young life becoming the waste of three.

Depends if you agree with locking up children who are below the age of criminal responsibility for life without reveiw as a reasonable way for a civilised society to behave.

Fair enough, but bear in mind the original offence had nothing to do with sexual abuse, and that the subsequent offences are very much related to those who have also been abused against. That immediately puts an entirely different perspective on the complexity of the whole problem. Lock em and throw away the key does nothing to improve the situation either directly or indirectly.

" Mr Venables more recent spot of bother (possession and distribution of child pornography) which, in hindsite does not indicate a fully rehabilitated individual." not that I wish to condone kiddy porn but a) what shaped him to have that interest ?? he was unlikely to have developed it prior to sentence b) those offences would dependent on nature of image not normally lead to immediate custody. So not a pleasant example but a pertinent one. Does an offence by a person of previous bad character deserve to be treated more significantly than one by a person of good character who has had every advantage in life?

Wot crankboy said

Mr Venables more recent spot of bother (possession and distribution of child pornography) which, in hindsite does not indicate a fully rehabilitated individual.

Allowing a politician to maintain control imparts on judicial neutrality and allows something other than the facts [ moral outrage , to look tough on crime whatever] to be factors in sentencing.
Allowing a neutral organisation to decide is far better [ and safer] than allowing a populist fool pandering for votes and an image to decide.

Well, its already being reported as "European Court of Human Rights wants to release our most dangerous murderers".

Great.

How long before the 60+ million people in the UK demand to abandon their own Human Rights so we can convict a handful of serial killers more easily.

The actual change seems quite reasonable to me.

what the right wing press is spinning this story to discredit bloody human right and the bloody Europeans - well no one could have [s]discussed[/s] predicted that

I think that there are certainly suggestions of sexual abuse in the Bulger case (without going into too much detail)
Crankboy makes some very pertinent points, it was discussed on the first page that some people are just "evil", perhaps Venables is one of those, or perhaps (as you suggest) he is just a product of his environment. It's interesting that the Thomson has not been in trouble though.

well no one could have [s]discussed[/s] predicted that

Please Do Not export such ruling to non-EU nations. Keep it in EU.

🙄

This will make me sound like I should be locked up, but here goes anyway.........in cases like the three mentioned I would deem, because of the acts perpetrated, that they had acted in an inhuman way and therefore given up any human rights.

I would then replace animal testing with testing on them. Let scientists grow extra ears on the prisoners backs, test the toxicity of blusher, lipsticks etc. That, or the running man actually made real and replacing all other reality TV. This is why I am not in charge of anything and should never be I hasten to add.

Sorry guys but to me these people lost there human rights when they took the life off someone!

EU court of Human Rights for convicted murderers ... 🙄

This happens when the fart smell sweet and soon pigs will fly ... 😆