Killers' life terms 'breach their human rights' EU court ruling

[blake22tt]

What do you guys think of the possibility of this setting a precedent.

Killers' life terms 'breach their human rights'
The European Court of Human Rights has ruled the whole life tariffs given to murderer Jeremy Bamber and two other killers breached their human rights.
The judges ruled by 16 to 1 that there had to be a possibility of release and review of the sentence.

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

[Stir]

Yarp.
Logical choice. It's true, after all.

No reason to get upset about it.

[Mayhem]

so they want to go back to how it was untill 2003?

as it´s written it´s about a possible review and release, not an end to life sentences

[serenka]

EU human rights at it again!

[Deleted]

The big question is: Should these people be subject to Human Rights when they act inhumanly themselves?

[Stir]

The big question is: Should these people be subject to Human Rights when they act inhumanly themselves?

The acts of others have no impact on my personal humanity.
If you were to do something abhorrent, and I would do something abhorrent to you, I am equally abhorrent.
Edit: Whether or not you deserve said treatment is irrelevant to the humanity of this treatment.

[Jackmoves]

Don't really see a problem with that, it would still be up to member nations judical systems to judge if the person reviewed was fit for release, just because they have the possibility doesn't mean they should be released.

[Zoranon]

The big question is: Should these people be subject to Human Rights when they act inhumanly themselves?

Unless you think they you stop beeing human by doing certain things then yes.

This decision will be a water on the mill of those in GB who want to rescind the signature of European charter of human rights.

[Simulacrum]

I guess the shield of human rights should indeed cover everyone who is human, which includes people one might think doesn't deserve its protection.

[solvexx]

Serving a life sentence does not mean you for go all human rights.

[Deleted]

What do you guys think of the possibility of this setting a precedent.

Killers' life terms 'breach their human rights'
The European Court of Human Rights has ruled the whole life tariffs given to murderer Jeremy Bamber and two other killers breached their human rights.
The judges ruled by 16 to 1 that there had to be a possibility of release and review of the sentence.

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

Bamber was 25 years old when he was convicted of having shot and killed his adoptive father, mother, sister, and her six-year-old twin sons in his parents' home at White House Farm.

Not only is their a special place in hell for people who kill children, But I am firmly of the opinion that they should be executed. Some might say that long imprisonment is a deterrent, The death penalty in my mind is the ultimate deterrent for such heinous crimes.

[Simulacrum]

Serving a life sentence does not mean you for go all human rights.

If you're fine with taking away one of someone's human rights, then you can't really turn around and complain about someonebody losing some other human right.

If they can be taken away, then that doesn't really make them human rights, does it, as much as it makes them 'humans who follow the law rights' or something, at which point why have human rights at all, instead of just legal protections?

'Human rights' is just a clever way of giving yourself legitimacy to interfere in the policies of other nations, where you'd have no legal right to do anything. When they violate human rights, that's like a bloody casus belli, right? But when we do it, well, then it's fine. We have good reasons for our human rights violations, eh? Unlike those other people in other countries.

[ripponesan]

The big question is: Should these people be subject to Human Rights when they act inhumanly themselves?

No dude, that question has been adressed a million times.

[Skroe]

Pretty soon access to the internet will be considered a human right too, if we're so intent on defining human rights downward.

Oh silly me, I'm two years late.

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/techn...-rights/38526/

[Stir]

Not only is their a special place in hell for people who kill children, But I am firmly of the opinion that they should be executed. Some might say that long imprisonment is a deterrent, The death penalty in my mind is the ultimate deterrent for such heinous crimes.

Deterrents never work for that level of crime.

[Xarkan]

What do you guys think of the possibility of this setting a precedent.

Killers' life terms 'breach their human rights'
The European Court of Human Rights has ruled the whole life tariffs given to murderer Jeremy Bamber and two other killers breached their human rights.
The judges ruled by 16 to 1 that there had to be a possibility of release and review of the sentence.

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

Well if i read it right they ruled that having no possibility for parole is the issue. People can still be kept in prison for the rest of their mortal existence they just have to have the right to beg for release every now and again so some people can laugh point and mock them before saying no?

Not that it makes much sense.. at a glance they comment based on articles 3 and 5 (§4) of the european human rights convention. Article 3 is about torture, article 5§4 seems to be that people should be granted a speedy appeal process if they claim their detention unlawful. Neither seems to indicate that people should not be kept in prison for the remainder of their lives if they are guilty? But obviously i am no lawyer

[Skroe]

matters. Ide see the point if we were holding them in a place like guantanamo, but a life sentence in a UK prison is still pretty cushy.

Yeah, those poor Guantanamo inmates.

Look at these inhuman living conditions.





http://media.pennlive.com/midstate_i...f2ce6a355e.jpg



Wait let me guess, you were under the impression it looked like this (which it did for all of 1 month, back in 2002, while they built the first of two facilities).



Seriously, could you have said anything more cliche? Look, I'm sorry they have to sleep on a Prison mat and not a twin bed with springs in it with Egyptian Silk sheets, but you know... it is prison.

[GKLeatherCraft]

Yarp.
Logical choice. It's true, after all.

No reason to get upset about it.

Oh look, one of these posts.
Yes, yes there is reason for people to get upset about it, and have strong feelings towards it, they are discussing people who murder and torture children, and other despicable things, To say otherwise is just silly.

This Devils advocate rubbish gets old quick, I wish people could just form their own opinion on matters, But ofcourse, that wouldn't be controversial enough.

OT: I think punishment should be a lot more bloody, and filled with pain, Breaching your human rights, shouldn't come in to it if you've been out murdering folk.

[Deleted]

More bollocks from the EU. I fail to see how it is inhuman to want somebody like Ian Huntley locked away forever. There are only 49 "whole life" prisoners in the UK, including the most notorious killers this country has ever seen. That's how rare it is.

[Stir]

Oh look, one of these posts.
Yes, yes there is reason for people to get upset about it, and have strong feelings towards it, they are discussing people who murder and torture children, and other despicable things, To say otherwise is just silly.

This Devils advocate rubbish gets old quick, I wish people could just form their own opinion on matters, But ofcourse, that wouldn't be controversial enough.

OT: I think punishment should be a lot more bloody, and filled with pain, Breaching your human rights, shouldn't come in to it if you've been out murdering folk.

That just means that you don't understand the topic, and respond solely out of emotion and a desire for vengeance.
The whole human rights thing states that humans have a right to freedom. By disallowing any chance for repeal, or the ability to gain parole (depending on the severity of the crime), you're taking away people's freedom in a very absolute sense. Therefore, you're breaking the whole human rights thing.

In practice, it'll still mean that mass murderers will remain imprisoned for the rest of their lives. However, certain procedures must remain intact in order to protect the integrity of the law.

So no. There is NO reason to be upset about it. A little bit of logic would have helped you figure that out. I'm not playing devil's advocate.

As for your OT: Yes, that is your opinion. But it is your opinion because you let knee-jerk responses do the thinking for you, and discard ratio altogether.