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.
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 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.
IMO you forfeit your human rights when you kill another person.
You can disagree all you like, you're still wrong.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.
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 - - -
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 mindMe on Elite : Dangerous | My WoW charactersOriginally Posted by Howard Tayler
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.