Cameron Backs 'Life Means Life' Sentences

I know, because you are not a real libertarian

Here are some of the things the ECHR has done for us, copy+pasted:

-Requiring that when somebody is killed by the state there must be a proper independent investigation, and that armed personnel should be trained properly (McCann et al v UK)
-Preventing the government informing paramilitaries they know will kill someone of that individual's location, to execute by proxy (Shaghan v UK)
-You can't put an ethnic individual in a cell with a racist offender and take bets on how long he'll last (he died) (R on the application of Amin v SSHD)
-It led to safeguards and legal standards for wiretapping (Malone v UK)
-You can't "interrogate" prisoners by forcing them into certain positions or depriving them of light and sound (Ireland v UK)
-The legalisation of homosexuality in Northern Ireland (Dudgeon v UK)
-Stopping contempt of court from infringing on freedom of the press (Sunday Times v UK)
-The mentally ill who voluntarily commit themselves to an institution are owed the same duty - suicide watch etc - as those who are sectioned (Rabone v Pennine Care)
-Ensuring that existing prisoners still get access to solicitors (Golder v UK)
-Ensuring that workers maintain rights to join trade unions (Wilson v UK)
-Giving the police an obligation to act if somebody is being dangerously stalked (Osman v UK)
-Preventing indefinite detention under the declaration of a national emergency (A v SOS for the Home Dept).
-Preventing public birching of children by the police in the Isle of Man (Tyrer v UK)

Do you honestly think we would never have made any of these decisions ourselves without the ECHR?

I wonder one thing

A common criticism of the death penalty is the fact that there's a chance of innocent people being wrong convicted and put to death (something which I and most people probably agree with). But when it comes to releasing prisoners who have previously been shown to be capable of committing the most atrocious crimes imaginable, people (liberals) seem to easily be prepared to to give them the benefit of the doubt - can anyone explain this frankly ridiculous line of thought? No matter what it's never going to be 100% certain that a previous murderer won't re offend, even if he may appear to be rehabilitated. Isn't it an absolute disgrace that some (even if it may be a minority) of these men will go on to murder more innocent people, yet they will still continue to be released simply on the notion that they "probably" won't? When did previous murderers and rapists start getting the benefit of the doubt ?

Well done, you have learnt how to copy and paste my writing.

Posted from TSR Mobile