Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst
1
2
3
4
... LastLast
  1. #21
    Deleted
    The ruling had nothing to do with their right to freedom. The ruling was based upon the argument that whole life tariffs constitute inhuman or degrading treatment. Please try reading before commenting.

  2. #22
    Merely a Setback Sunseeker's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    In the state of Denial.
    Posts
    27,074
    I don't have a particular problem with this. It's not eliminating life sentences, just life sentences without possibility of parole.
    Human progress isn't measured by industry. It's measured by the value you place on a life.

    Just, be kind.

  3. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by tommypilgrim View Post
    The ruling had nothing to do with their right to freedom. The ruling was based upon the argument that whole life tariffs constitute inhuman or degrading treatment. Please try reading before commenting.
    I disagree.

  4. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by Stir View Post
    Yarp.
    Logical choice. It's true, after all.

    No reason to get upset about it.
    OK so then I guess the people that were murdered didnt have a human right to live?

  5. #25
    IMO you forfeit your human rights when you kill another person.

  6. #26
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by Stir View Post
    I disagree.
    The men claimed that being denied any prospect of release was a violation of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights - which protects people from inhuman or degrading treatment.

    The court found that for a life sentence to remain compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights there had to be both a possibility of release and a possibility of review.

    The judges said: "Moreover, if such a prisoner is incarcerated without any prospect of release and without the possibility of having his life sentence reviewed, there is the risk that he can never atone for his offence: whatever the prisoner does in prison, however exceptional his progress towards rehabilitation, his punishment remains fixed and unreviewable.
    You can disagree all you like, you're still wrong.

  7. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by Stir View Post
    Deterrents never work for that level of crime.
    They would if the sentence was carried out immediately, instead of 20yrs later. If you get the death sentence you should have 2 weeks to get your shit in order and then out you go

  8. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by Dabrix32 View Post
    OK so then I guess the people that were murdered didnt have a human right to live?
    I would urge you to think of the two as separate issues.
    I would also ask of you not to make blatantly incorrect and offensive conclusions like that merely because you did not take the time to think about things beforehand.
    It's not clever.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by tommypilgrim View Post
    You misunderstand. I disagree with the article's contents as well, and find them misleading. The last paragraph you cited is a quote from the judge, which is not about actual release, but about atonement, and a desire for it. It's merely placed in a way that would lead people to assume otherwise.

  9. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by Slenderman View Post
    The big question is: Should these people be subject to Human Rights when they act inhumanly themselves?
    No. In my opinion you are born with human rights and the right to be preserved and protected, but the very moment you severely violate another human being (rape, murder, mutilation) you forfeit your human rights and should thus get a life sentence in prison or execution.
    Quote Originally Posted by Lochglen View Post
    I am wondering if Blizzard are going to give the Alliance the 5 mounts because the worgen have running wild, the horde have 5 new mounts , i just think they should balance it out, how say you all.
    Quote Originally Posted by Rixis View Post
    hows about you give half your money to africa because you have more than them, and it's not balanced
    no? didn't think so

  10. #30
    So what if someone butchers a family, shows no remorse at trial, and even says when he gets out he will kill again then he still shouldnt be given life?

  11. #31
    Of course, the review process has a lot to do with it as well. Charles Manson has his parole hearings, and he has yet to be released. As long as there is reason to believe that the person in question is safe to be released into the general public, their release should be considered. It is possible for people to be rehabilitated. Killing is wrong, of course, but not all killers are serial killers or purveyors of lifelong heinous criminal activity. People can be pushed into any number of acts given the right circumstances.

  12. #32
    The Lightbringer GKLeatherCraft's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    England
    Posts
    3,835
    Quote Originally Posted by Stir View Post
    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.
    Oh dear, if you think your opinion is correct over everything, then i feel sorry for you, There is reasons for people to get upset over it, there are reasons for people to get upset over a lot of things, We are talking about out opinions here, not what is right or wrong via the law, that was the OP's question, not who thinks they understand human rights laws, It seems you clearly missed that, and you don't understand the topic.

  13. #33
    Legendary! Vargur's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    European Federation
    Posts
    6,664
    Quote Originally Posted by Slenderman View Post
    The big question is: Should these people be subject to Human Rights when they act inhumanly themselves?
    I'd like to point out

    The judges said: "Moreover, if such a prisoner is incarcerated without any prospect of release and without the possibility of having his life sentence reviewed, there is the risk that he can never atone for his offence: whatever the prisoner does in prison, however exceptional his progress towards rehabilitation, his punishment remains fixed and unreviewable.
    Science flies you to the moon. Religion flies you into buildings.
    To resist the influence of others, knowledge of oneself is most important.


  14. #34
    I disagree with that, but I'm not a Euro and you guys have a different culture over there when it comes to that kind of thing.

  15. #35
    Quote Originally Posted by Gobra View Post
    Oh dear, if you think your opinion is correct over everything, then i feel sorry for you, There is reasons for people to get upset over it, there are reasons for people to get upset over a lot of things, We are talking about out opinions here, not what is right or wrong via the law, that was the OP's question, not who thinks they understand human rights laws, It seems you clearly missed that, and you don't understand the topic.
    Let us then say that I do not approve of knee-jerk emotional responses when there is time for ratio and strategic thought. The implications of such emotional responses (if given the credence you would wish them to have) are simply too destructive.

  16. #36
    The Lightbringer GKLeatherCraft's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    England
    Posts
    3,835
    Quote Originally Posted by Stir View Post
    Let us then say that I do not approve of knee-jerk emotional responses when there is time for ratio and strategic thought. The implications of such emotional responses (if given the credence you would wish them to have) are simply too destructive.
    I don't think we should torture people, i think it's what they deserve, if we did to prisoners these sorts of things it would devolve us as a society, Ofcourse things like this have to be well planned, and thought out, I just think people that breach others rights in such a way don't deserve any better themselves.

  17. #37
    Quote Originally Posted by Stir View Post
    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.
    Let's just hug them then. Everything will be alright.
    Money talks, bullshit walks..

  18. #38
    The Insane Masark's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    17,970
    So your sentencing is now required to be something like Canada.

    The highest sentence here is life with the possibility of parole after 25 years.

    Warning : Above post may contain snark and/or sarcasm. Try reparsing with the /s argument before replying.
    What the world has learned is that America is never more than one election away from losing its goddamned mind
    Quote Originally Posted by Howard Tayler
    Political conservatism is just atavism with extra syllables and a necktie.
    Me on Elite : Dangerous | My WoW characters

  19. #39
    Quote Originally Posted by schwank05 View Post
    IMO you forfeit your human rights when you kill another person.
    You don't forfeit rights, you can't.

  20. #40
    Herald of the Titans
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Dual US/Canada
    Posts
    2,595
    One of the things that I always try to keep in mind is that the legal system of every country is run by humans, and humans make mistakes. We semi-regularly hear of people who had life sentences revoked because new evidence proved that they were innocent all along, and even sometimes of innocent people being executed. These cases are a double-whammy of horrible, because not only was an innocent person punished for crimes they didn't commit, but the REAL criminal got to walk away smelling of roses.

    I'm all for keeping the true monsters of society locked up for life. Jeffrey Dahmer, Robert Pickton, Gary Ridgway, and the like are horrific people and society could never be safe with any of them walking the streets again. That being said, I still support the idea of their cases being reviewed periodically. I want to be certain that the person locked away is the actual monster. I want my legal system to be based on facts that will stand through the years, and not on emotions that can change. The review and parole hearings are a way for us to make certain that yes, we are in fact doing the right thing by keeping someone in jail, and I think we as a society are better for that.

    I know here in Canada we had somewhat of a public outcry when Clifford Olsen had his parole hearings, but there was never really any chance that he was going to be let free. Hell, even if he /had/ been freed, someone would have shot him and been hailed a hero for it. The only harm done in the parole hearings was due to the media giving the asshole a bunch of attention when it came up, not because of the system itself.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •