Human Rights

[fbg40]

European Court of Human Rights has decreed in their infinite wisdom that 3 murderers currently being detained at Her Majesty's Pleasure in this country, have been wrongfully sentenced - the then HS changed the term of 25 years that they were originally given to Whole of Life.
Why don't these people keep their noses out of our business ?
Any opinions out there ? - I'm sure there will be !!
FBG40

[VHG]

It does always seem that the European Court sides with the criminals.

p.s They put their nose in our business because the prisoners appealed to them so they had to make judgement on it.

Pity the b******s who did the murders did not think about the human rights of the people they murdered (and their families).

[fbg40]

Well said VHG, my sentiments exactly.
FBG40

[jno]

or, of course, didn't murder. Jeremy Bamber is, as he says, in a spot: he can't show repentance and contrition because (he says) he didn't do it.

[Gromit]

It's all a bit Shawshank Redemption.

Except Stephen King didn't write it, it is real life. And it has Jeremy Bamber not Tim Robbins involved.

[Old_Geezer]

I have no objection to sentences being reviewed periodically in case they are no longer the best course of action, but it seems to me that an expectation of whole life is perfectly reasonable in some cases to protect the human rights of the rest of society. And that generally a review would be a formaility to see the individual hasn't changed and is still a big enough risk to others to be kept in the care of the prison.

[237SJ]

They didn`t strictly say that they had been wrongly sentenced. They said that the whole of life recommendation breached their human rights. The sooner Britain breaks away from the European Court`s confines, the better but that won`t happen while we have this government because the Lib Dems are against it.

[Brenden]

The repeal of the death sentence referendum got the yes vote because we were promised that a life sentence meant serving life - it should stand.

[Sharingan]

I'm actually very glad about this. I'm not comfortable with the idea that someone can just be incarcerated forever with no chance ever of having so much as a review. We risk becoming like the US if we encourage that, and we really don't want that. If someone is a danger keep them there forever, that's fine, but in the case of Jeremy Bamber I am uncomfortable with his conviction never mind about a whole life tariff.

[FredPuli43]

They didn't say that there was anything wrong with whole life sentences either. What they said was that the prisoner should be allowed a review to see whether he should remain in prison. In the past, there was such a review after 25 years had been served but it did not mean that the prisoner was let out

[sir.prize]

The ECHR says it's 'inhuman' for murderers to get whole-life sentences. Well - where does the victim figure in this?

[FredPuli43]

Rest assured , Sharingan, that Bamber is a calculating man, of psychopathic tendencies, who was rightly convicted. He tried to sell the idea that his sister, who had had some degree of mental illness, had done the murders and then killed herself. This is the story he is still trying to sell. It was undone by the fact that he was such an obvious liar under cross-examination and came across as the cold, calculating person who would murder his step-parents and his sister to make sure that he was the one who got the money. The forensic evidence was also against him; naturally he has been concentrating on that, because it showed his version of the shooting was false; but that's only part of it. He had motive too

[FredPuli43]

No sir.prize, they did not say it was inhuman for someone to get a whole life sentence. What they said was that that was proper, but the man should have the opportunity to have it reviewed at some time over the serving of it. As we know, other prisoners have that opportunity, but it doesn't mean they are let out, and the likes of Myra Hindley (who has been inside for so long that there probably was such a right of review when she was sentenced) will still serve until death.

[Sharingan]

I'll take your word for that Fred, since I must confess I haven't ever waded through everything, but I was slightly persuaded after the last lost appeal that he might not have done it. He did have a motive but then the rest of the family have a motive as well and they've ended up with the money. Did you have anything to do with the trial personally? I might get interested in this case, now you've stirred my curiosity:)

[jno]

Hindley did indeed do so, FredPuli, but she died long ago.

[Jeza]

What I don't understand is, not just this case but why do we allow Europe to dictate to us, what we can and can't do, In 1975 we voted for a Common Market not a You will do as we say. The sooner we have a referendum the better IMO.

[sir.prize]

OK Fred, in your view I have erred. I was aiming to quote a main headline from today's edition of The Telegraph; but I forgot the quotation marks around 'inhuman'. Maybe I should change my choice of newspaper and rely on the 'red tops'.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/philipjohnston/100225558/strasbourg-decision-on-whole-life-killers-is-a-step-too-far/

[sir.prize]

To clarify: The ECHR says it's 'inhuman' for murderers to get whole-life sentences.

[Sharingan]

without the possibility of review...

[joeluke]

If we had the death penalty then we wouldn't have to worry about murdering scum whingeing about their 'human rights'

Do-gooders who think murderers should have 'rights' would soon sing a different tune if one of their family was murdered