ECHR rules that its against human rights to jail someone for life.
Scroll to see replies
Original post by Apocrypha
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23245254
Whats everyone's view on this? Is this a sign that our human rights laws need to be rewritten? Should the ECHR be allowed to make these rulings?
Life in prison is seen as the better alternative to capital punishment, is this now taking it a little too far?
This means some of the UK's most prolific murderers and other criminals can potentially be released from prison in future?
Has the ECHR gone too far?
Whats everyone's view on this? Is this a sign that our human rights laws need to be rewritten? Should the ECHR be allowed to make these rulings?
Life in prison is seen as the better alternative to capital punishment, is this now taking it a little too far?
This means some of the UK's most prolific murderers and other criminals can potentially be released from prison in future?
Has the ECHR gone too far?
I don't think you understand what the ruling was.
They didn't say life in prison is against human rights. They said having no chance to be released is what's wrong. I.e. having no possibility of parole.
Original post by danny111
I don't think you understand what the ruling was.
They didn't say life in prison is against human rights. They said having no chance to be released is what's wrong. I.e. having no possibility of parole.
They didn't say life in prison is against human rights. They said having no chance to be released is what's wrong. I.e. having no possibility of parole.
'Ministers have criticised a ruling by the European Court of Human Rights that whole-life tariffs breach a prisoner's human rights.'
I dont know, what you just said and what i said is essentially the same thing? Jailing someone for actual life (with no possibility of release) is against human rights according to ECHR.
(edited 10 years ago)
Original post by miser
From what I understood, it wasn't the ruling that life sentences contravened human rights, but that life sentence without review did.
I guess you misunderstood, i am talking about whole life sentences, hence the title was 'jail someone for life', not 'life sentences'
Original post by Apocrypha
'Ministers have criticised a ruling by the European Court of Human Rights that whole-life tariffs breach a prisoner's human rights.'
I dont know, what you just said and what i said is essentially the same thing? Jailing someone for actual life (with no possibility of release) is against human rights according to ECHR.
I dont know, what you just said and what i said is essentially the same thing? Jailing someone for actual life (with no possibility of release) is against human rights according to ECHR.
No they said as long as the prisoner has parole hearings it's fine if he does actually end up in prison til he/she dies.
There is a difference.
I agree, they should be released immediately and given luxury accommodation in Brussels.
Original post by danny111
No they said as long as the prisoner has parole hearings it's fine if he does actually end up in prison til he/she dies.
There is a difference.
There is a difference.
Which is essentially the same thing, as it's giving people with whole life sentences the possiblity of release with parole hearings.
Life without parole is the standard sentence for anyone who would otherwise be executed if this was the USA. Still i dont expect the Tories to give in to the ECHR on this one, its probably time for them to grow a pair in that sense.
Original post by Apocrypha
Which is essentially the same thing, as it's giving people with whole life sentences the possiblity of release with parole hearings.
Life without parole is the standard sentence for anyone who would otherwise be executed if this was the USA. Still i dont expect the Tories to give in to the ECHR on this one, its probably time for them to grow a pair in that sense.
Life without parole is the standard sentence for anyone who would otherwise be executed if this was the USA. Still i dont expect the Tories to give in to the ECHR on this one, its probably time for them to grow a pair in that sense.
Yea but it's not the same thing.
One you know you will die in that ****hole.
The other you know if you improve you might actually have a chance.
Original post by Apocrypha
I guess you misunderstood, i am talking about whole life sentences, hence the title was 'jail someone for life', not 'life sentences'
I meant to draw attention to the fact that your post says that the ECHR ruled that it is against human rights to "jail someone for life," which isn't strictly true. The ruling was that you couldn't jail someone for life without the possibility of release pending a review of their circumstances.
Original post by danny111
Yea but it's not the same thing.
One you know you will die in that ****hole.
The other you know if you improve you might actually have a chance.
One you know you will die in that ****hole.
The other you know if you improve you might actually have a chance.
Well you know there are limits, Jeremy Bamber murdered his family, framed his mentally ill sister and was crying at the funeral, that's an evil man. No matter how recuperated he becomes.
You think Life without Parole is sentence is commonly dished out in British courts, they are far softer than that. Even April Jones' murderer is unlikely to receive one. Ian Huntley didnt actually receive a whole life tariff etc.
People who receive them are vile and nasty, and always make the headlines.
Original post by Apocrypha
Well you know there are limits, Jeremy Bamber murdered his family, framed his mentally ill sister and was crying at the funeral, that's an evil man. No matter how recuperated he becomes.
You think Life without Parole is sentence is commonly dished out in British courts, they are far softer than that. Even April Jones' murderer is unlikely to receive one. Ian Huntley didnt actually receive a whole life tariff etc.
People who receive them are vile and nasty, and always make the headlines.
You think Life without Parole is sentence is commonly dished out in British courts, they are far softer than that. Even April Jones' murderer is unlikely to receive one. Ian Huntley didnt actually receive a whole life tariff etc.
People who receive them are vile and nasty, and always make the headlines.
It's about the principle. That's what law is about isn't it.
Original post by Apocrypha
Well you know there are limits, Jeremy Bamber murdered his family, framed his mentally ill sister and was crying at the funeral, that's an evil man. No matter how recuperated he becomes.
He was convicted on highly questionable circumstantial evidence.
Original post by SR255
I am going to be edgy and say that whatever the crime there is really no practical point in keeping people in prison forever. It's just totally punitive not to mention expensive as hell. Keeping a diabetic, wheelchair bound, no threat to society 75 year old man in prison because of something he did 50 years ago? The medical bills alone make it not worth it. If we are going to be that punitive we may as well just bring back the death penalty.
... that is even more expensive.
You're more talking about the expense of keeping old people alive in general. That is a far more worthwhile debate than a handful of people in prison.
You forfeit your claim to human rights when you rob someone of theirs. Terrorists and mass murderers should never be released; as capital punishment is already abolished there really will be no deterrent for future offenders. There needs to be a line drawn somewhere, where we say enough is enough, if you go too far then it's too bad, no use in complaining about how your rights are being violated.
Original post by Apocrypha
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23245254
Whats everyone's view on this? Is this a sign that our human rights laws need to be rewritten? Should the ECHR be allowed to make these rulings?
Life in prison is seen as the better alternative to capital punishment, is this now taking it a little too far?
This means some of the UK's most prolific murderers and other criminals can potentially be released from prison in future?
Has the ECHR gone too far?
Whats everyone's view on this? Is this a sign that our human rights laws need to be rewritten? Should the ECHR be allowed to make these rulings?
Life in prison is seen as the better alternative to capital punishment, is this now taking it a little too far?
This means some of the UK's most prolific murderers and other criminals can potentially be released from prison in future?
Has the ECHR gone too far?
The European court of human rights is a disgrace anyway. Far too often they seem to put the human rights of the guilty before the rights of the innocent.
Not to long ago they said that in a court case where a young child has been raped that for the child to give a video statement from another room so as not to have a panic attack when they see their attacker was against the suspects human rights as he has the right towed his accuser face to face.
But what of the human rights of the child not to be put through that trauma?
So now we have a situation where dozens of cases have already fallen through due to witnesses refusing to testify.
You can't please a hundred percent of the people a hundred percent of the time and similarly you cannot protect everyone human rights as sometimes two peoples human rights will conflict with one another.
It just seems to me that far too often Europe makes the wrong decision with regards to who wins and who loses with regards to these laws.
What makes it worse is that before we decided to dismantle what was considered the best and most admired justice system in the world and replace it with a clearly broken European model we were exactly that, admired. Because we had the best system in the world that actually looked after victims and punished criminals.
Original post by dj1015
Just as we get rid of Qatada, this comes up.
WHAT A SURPRISE.
Clearly the ECHR's biased agenda meant they couldn't wait to throw this stone in the works. Let these sick sadistic people out of jail should never happen. They should be swinging from the gallows, not pandering to the socialists in the EU.
My only comfort is, is the fact that in the not to distant future we will drop the EU and all that it brings with it like a bad habit.
WHAT A SURPRISE.
Clearly the ECHR's biased agenda meant they couldn't wait to throw this stone in the works. Let these sick sadistic people out of jail should never happen. They should be swinging from the gallows, not pandering to the socialists in the EU.
My only comfort is, is the fact that in the not to distant future we will drop the EU and all that it brings with it like a bad habit.
you clearly have read all the information about this and associated press releases
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Rishi Sunak relaunches plans to send asylum seekers to Rwanda
- Is it time for change - is the status quo about to end challenged?
- OSCOLA
- Unconscious bias - is it time to rethink how we address VAWG?
- how to reference European Convention On Human rights
- Can immigration actually been controlled?
- Rishi Sunak threatens to remove UK from ECHR if Rwanda plan blocked
- Thoughts on Abortion?
- OCR A Level Law Paper 3
- Politics essay analysis
- Personal Statement
- Freedom of Speech (Rights & Responsibilities)
- Will DSA affect me after i graduate?
- OCR A-level Law Paper 3 (H418/03) - 12th June 2023 [Exam Chat]
- AQA A Level Philosophy Paper 1 7172/1 - 19 May 2022 [Exam Chat]
- Im gay but a christian
- Why is religion difficult?!
- 2023 King's Speech
- Edexcel A Level Politics Paper 3B: 9PL0 3B - 17 June 2022 [Exam Chat]
- Macbeth essay
Latest
Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
