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

[Deleted]

Wasnt the breaching the Human rights part that the convicts didnt get their sentence.
right of the bat when convicted?

[Wikiy]

Frankly, I think sleep deprivation is more inhumane. Nobody ever calls us out on that, though...

Well, I don't know if it's more inhumane, but it sure as hell is horrible. I've only once gone without sleeping at all and the next day I felt like I'd been beaten for hours the day before.

[Kalyyn]

Well, I don't know if it's more inhumane, but it sure as hell is horrible. I've only once gone without sleeping at all and the next day I felt like I'd been beaten for hours the day before.

Oh man, we'll sometimes make people go several days without sleep. You flood their room with light and play heavy metal 24/7. Then, at random intervals, you play different sounds like a fog horn or a raid siren. Makes it literally impossible to sleep. Technically it's not torture, but good lord... I mean, at least with waterboarding, if it's done correctly then it's just a few minutes of pants-shitting terror (or however long until you talk), and then you're done. With the sleep deprivation, that takes days to break you down. Long, stressful days of grueling misery.

I know why we have to do that to people, but I honestly wish there was another way.

[Wikiy]

Oh man, we'll sometimes make people go several days without sleep. You flood their room with light and play heavy metal 24/7. Then, at random intervals, you play different sounds like a fog horn or a raid siren. Makes it literally impossible to sleep. Technically it's not torture, but good lord... I mean, at least with waterboarding, if it's done correctly then it's just a few minutes of pants-shitting terror (or however long until you talk), and then you're done. With the sleep deprivation, that takes days to break you down. Long, stressful days of grueling misery.

Well yeah my point was that if one day of not sleeping feels so horrible I can only try to imagine how several might feel.

I know why we have to do that to people, but I honestly wish there was another way.

I'd respond to this but I think it's best if we don't get involved in a political discussion that will take days to "resolve" and wont actually get us anywhere. ^^

[Kalyyn]

I'd respond to this but I think it's best if we don't get involved in a political discussion that will take days to "resolve" and wont actually get us anywhere. ^^

Fair enough. It must suck to be a moderator, always having to be responsible and whatnot

[Ilgalar]

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.

id like to hear you say this again when its your family friend or any of your loved ones who is a victim of such a crime...

[Wikiy]

Fair enough. It must suck to be a moderator, always having to be responsible and whatnot

It's not really about that, I get involved in heated political discussions as much as I did back when I wasn't a mod (although I'm extra careful not to insult people now), I'm just not in the mood currently to go through a discussion which we've both probably had already, be it amongst the two of us or with other people. We also both probably know exactly what it would look like.

[Vetis]

the main problem with EU human rights is its often big news because it protects scumbags more than other people from being victims in the first place.

[Calzaeth]

id like to hear you say this again when its your family friend or any of your loved ones who is a victim of such a crime...

I'd like to hear you say this again when its your family friend or any of your loved ones who is a prisoner for life despite having changed.

See how silly the goddamn "Come back when YOU lose someone"-argument is? Fact is, the majority of us will go through our entire lives without ever being personally involved in a rape/murder case. Stop applying to emotions, because both sides can do that, and sound just as reasonable.

[Wikiy]

I'd like to hear you say this again when its your family friend or any of your loved ones who is a prisoner for life despite having changed.

See how silly the goddamn "Come back when YOU lose someone"-argument is? Fact is, the majority of us will go through our entire lives without ever being personally involved in a rape/murder case. Stop applying to emotions, because both sides can do that, and sound just as reasonable.

Also, I'd add that it's really silly to just follow and fulfill the emotional whims of people that are in such emotional stress that they can't really think rationally. This is just a blatant example which doesn't have much to do with murderers, but my friend once said that in a hypothetical scenario he'd rather let the rest of the world die off than letting his girlfriend die. He's impaired by emotions to the point that he can't even think rationally, objectively and logically about certain things. In that case the emotion in question is love and in this case it's the need for revenge, their own vision of justice (which is itself entirely changed by their emotional turmoil), or simply a coping-like emotional mechanism.

[Notchris]

Some people should never have even the slimmest chance of rejoining society. Ex: Luis Garavito, you can't believe he's possible to "rehabilitate" and allow back amongst the public. That'd be absolutely insane.
The guy raped and murdered a confirmed 138 young boys with a possibility of over 300.

The whole "rehabilitation" shit has to be within reason. Not everyone can be "fixed", and not everyone who is "fixed" should be put back into public.
It's doubtful that a guy who murdered his family including his 6 year old twin step-sisters is EVER going to be let to walk amongst the general populous ever again, regardless if he's rehabilitated.

This ruling just means there's going to be a lot of meetings filled with "no" votes. It's going to be a formality more then anything.

[Deleted]

However, if you really wanna opt out of that, just for your information, the entirety of Europe will laugh at you for reducing yourself to the level of Belarus. Just saying.

I don't think anybody here really gives a fuck about what the rest of Europe thinks of us. The idea that we'd suddenly become "the level of Belarus" (cool nation bashing, by the way) is pretty ridiculous. We'd just be free tell certain prisoners that they will never be free. Such other countries at "the level of Belarus" currently include Switzerland and France. Not exactly totalitarian police states

[Wikiy]

I don't think anybody here really gives a fuck about what the rest of Europe thinks of us. The idea that we'd suddenly become "the level of Belarus" (cool nation bashing, by the way) is pretty ridiculous. We'd just be free tell certain prisoners that they will never be free. Such other countries at "the level of Belarus" currently include Switzerland and France. Not exactly totalitarian police states

Funny you should consider me comparing the UK to Belarus (not that I'm comparing it in any other way other than willingness to cooperate with the rest of Europe) as nation bashing since that's pretty much nation bashing of Belarus.

And no, Switzerland and France aren't at the level of Belarus in the sense in what I was talking about because they're members of the European Council and they adhere to the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights. Unlike Belarus, the only European country which doesn't. And also, I'm not saying you're at the level of Belarus yet, I'm saying that would be the case if you left the European Council.

[Deleted]

You're making comments about the "level of Belarus", you are creating a hierarchical structure suggesting Belarus is inferior. "REDUCING yourself to the level of Belarus" you said. These are plain English words.

Either way, there are many countries who don't adhere to the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights, principally because they aren't in Europe. Perhaps "reducing yourself to the level of Canada" might have been a better example for you to use. Or Australia. Or Japan. Are you suggesting that the rest of Europe is laughing at Australia, because they don't happen to subscribe to the ECHR? Or was it simply the fact that you hold, frankly, offensive views about the nation of Belarus that led you to that comment? Either way, if Britain does leave the ECHR, I'd be happy with being a nation like Canada, or Australia. They seem to manage just fine.

[Wikiy]

You're making comments about the "level of Belarus", you are creating a hierarchical structure suggesting Belarus is inferior. "REDUCING yourself to the level of Belarus" you said. These are plain English words.

I was talking about the level of cooperation with other European countries. If calling out a country for being at a low level concerning that is nation bashing, then I honestly don't know what isn't.

Either way, there are many countries who don't adhere to the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights, principally because they aren't in Europe. Perhaps "reducing yourself to the level of Canada" might have been a better example for you to use. Or Australia. Or Japan. Are you suggesting that the rest of Europe is laughing at Australia, because they don't happen to subscribe to the ECHR? Or was it simply the fact that you hold, frankly, offensive views about the nation of Belarus that led you to that comment? Either way, if Britain does leave the ECHR, I'd be happy with being a nation like Canada, or Australia. They seem to manage just fine.

All those countries don't have to adhere to the decisions of the court. That's the key point. As a member of the European Council, the UK is obligated to adhere to the decisions. The only way it would stop being obligated is if it left. However, most Brits don't seem to be interested in it. They (and I say they instead of you because you are interested in it) want to simultaneously not adhere to the decisions of the ECHR and stay in the European Council. Unfortunately, the two are mutually exclusive.

[Masark]

Perhaps "reducing yourself to the level of Canada" might have been a better example for you to use.

As I mentioned upthread, that's almost precisely what is occurring in this case. There is no "life life" sentence in Canada. Parole hearings will happen after a maximum of 25 years.

[Deleted]

I was talking about the level of cooperation with other European countries. If calling out a country for being at a low level concerning that is nation bashing, then I honestly don't know what isn't.

No you were being derogatory. The direct implication was that Belarus (and countries at that level) should be laughed at for not being subject to the ECHR. It was uncalled for.

All those countries don't have to adhere to the decisions of the court. That's the key point. As a member of the European Council, the UK is obligated to adhere to the decisions. The only way it would stop being obligated is if it left. However, most Brits don't seem to be interested in it. They (and I say they instead of you because you are interested in it) want to simultaneously not adhere to the decisions of the ECHR and stay in the European Council. Unfortunately, the two are mutually exclusive.

I doubt many people would care if we were to leave the European Council. The underlying fact is many nations exist outside the EC and are perfectly healthy democracies. The notion that a nation should be laughed at for not being subject to the principles of the ECHR is ridiculous.

As I mentioned upthread, that's almost precisely what is occurring in this case. There is no "life life" sentence in Canada. Parole hearings will happen after a maximum of 25 years.

The point I was making with Canada is that it manages to exist outside the ECHR without being laughed at. There are countries in the EC who do have life meaning life, such as France and Switzerland, and outside the EU America has the possibility of life without parole. Would we dismiss these countries as being at "the level of Belarus" if they didn't wish to abide by the ECHR's ruling? Of course not. If Britain were to leave the European Council there would be little fundamental change, and we would be on a par with countries like Canada and Australia. Hardly worthy of derision.

[Wikiy]

No you were being derogatory. The direct implication was that Belarus (and countries at that level) should be laughed at for not being subject to the ECHR. It was uncalled for.

First of all, I didn't say they should be laughed at, I said that's going to happen either way, and I wasn't talking about being subject to the ECHR, only about being a member of the European Council. The two are mutually inclusive, but that's another matter entirely and I don't really have an opinion on it.

The point I was making with Canada is that it manages to exist outside the ECHR without being laughed at.

Sure, but Canada is a member of the UN and a signatory of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights. Same for all European countries, except Europe decided (and by that I mean that all nations decided together, not some random government in Brussels because this has nothing to do with the EU) to make sure that no European country would be in a position to violate those rights, and if that does happen, the country would have to stand trial. Yes, that happens all the time at ECHR and yes, it does happen all the time that countries are in the wrong and that they are violating basic human rights.

So yeah, I find it a bit weird that a country would become part of something they generally agree with and then opt out when they're wrong and not willing to admit it. And yeah, I understand how much you disagree with there being supranational authorities which can actually decide something for a country against that country's wishes, but let's face it, the UK became part of the EC while knowing that such situations can happen.

Let's also face the fact that the same thing happens in federal countries. Federal courts and federal governments dictating policies to areas where people don't really agree with said policies. The same thing happens in your country as well. England dictating policies to Scotland. So don't go around pretending like someone's attacking the sovereignty of the UK. The wishes of one people on one land get violated on every single administrative degree. It escapes me why people act like it's a special kind of violation when it's committed by a multitude of nations onto one nation (while that nation itself willingly got itself into that situation and while its citizens are divided on the issue) as opposed to multitude of regions within a nation onto a single region.

If Britain were to leave the European Council there would be little fundamental change, and we would be on a par with countries like Canada and Australia. Hardly worthy of derision.

Well, it would accomplish one thing, it would show us continental Europeans, who constantly keep wanting to dictate you Brits around, how much you think you're not Europeans at all.

[Deleted]

It was an insult, you directly, clearly said that a country would be laughed at for being at the level of Belarus. Stop dancing around the semantics.

Britain is a member of the UN and a signatory of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights. The issue here is what is "wrong". It is not a case of being wrong and not wishing to admit it, it is a case of deciding for ourselves if we believe something to be wrong, rather than being subject to the morality of others. Yes, Britain signed up to the EC, however I doubt it was with the intention of giving child killers the right to review. England dictates relatively little policy to Scotland, indeed in this exact case prisoners in Scotland are not subject to whole life tariffs. Moreover you might have missed the fact that Scottish people are going to get the chance to decide if they agree with being subject to UK law or not. Why shouldn't nations, or regions, or even towns be able to decide for themselves if they wish to abide by the rulings of supposedly higher authorities? As the various nations who aren't in the EC or subject to the ECHR prove, it isn't necessary to be a member to operate a thriving democracy. Why waste the time and money?

And no, we're not Europeans, we just happen to live on an island close by.

[Puck]

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.

Except that statistical evidence shows that it isn't.