Is is right to free terrorist? This is happening in Spain

[Deleted]

http://www.eitb.com/en/news/politics...arot-doctrine/


BUT FEW DAYS LATER...


http://elpais.com/elpais/2013/10/22/...08_903908.html

Not only her but murderers, rapist and terrorist are being released because Parot Doctrine is against human rights it seems.

Ines del Rio is a terrorist member of ETA, her cell has killed more than 20 people including a citizen of the US, she is now free and many more will be.

What are your thoughts on this?

[Deleted]

killed more than 20 people including a citizen of the US

now THAT is of course intolerable and needed to be mentioned specifically

[Theinquisition]

Seems to me that Spain is a Sorviegn nation. No one is forcing them to release murderers than their own politicians. Sounds like the Spanish people need to stand up and kick their leaders in the ass.

[Deleted]

now THAT is of course intolerable and needed to be mentioned specifically

Though it happened many years ago, I thought that it was needed to be said. Its not because the victim was from the US but because he was from a foreing country.

[Kalis]

There is a loophole in Spanish sentencing, so do one of the following:

1. fix the loophole.

2. accept that someone having served 24 years of a 30 year sentence isn't like they got out after a year.

3. ignore the ECHR and accept the fines they'll impose for doing so.

[Ashnazg]

http://www.eitb.com/en/news/politics...arot-doctrine/


BUT FEW DAYS LATER...


http://elpais.com/elpais/2013/10/22/...08_903908.html

Not only her but murderers, rapist and terrorist are being released because Parot Doctrine is against human rights it seems.

Ines del Rio is a terrorist member of ETA, her cell has killed more than 20 people including a citizen of the US, she is now free and many more will be.

What are your thoughts on this?

It must be late and I must be tired, but from what I am reading, the European Court of Human Rights objected to a retroactive application of a new law. That is something I totally support - laws should not be applied retroactively to convicts.

[Wikiy]

Seems to me that Spain is a Sorviegn nation. No one is forcing them to release murderers than their own politicians. Sounds like the Spanish people need to stand up and kick their leaders in the ass.

Actually, the ECHR is forcing them, and legally at that. Spain is a member of the Council of Europe. Spain has no choice in this. They can either adhere to the European Convention on Human Rights and the institution that ensures those rights are respected (the Court) or they can leave the Council of Europe.

Welcome to Europe, where countries are forced to do things by supra-national organizations. I thought that was obvious?

[Deleted]

Read this today. Nothing good will come of this. Victims groups will be up in arms. Letting assasins like that free. Spain should have ignored ECHR like Britian did with giving voting rights to prisoners.

[Themius]

There are sentences for a reason. Once a person has served their sentence and isn't considered a threat I don't see why they should be held.

[Deleted]

Seems to me that Spain is a Sorviegn nation. No one is forcing them to release murderers than their own politicians. Sounds like the Spanish people need to stand up and kick their leaders in the ass.

nort quite, Spain is a member of the EU and has agreed to adhere to the ECHR, the ones telling them to release them. either Spain does as they say and its all fine, or they ignore the ECHR and get fined or something.

[Deleted]

There are sentences for a reason. Once a person has served their sentence and isn't considered a threat I don't see why they should be held.

Please improve your reading comprehension. Thank you.

[Deleted]

Did any one actually read what it's really about?

Spanish government tried to use a law implemented in 2006 to retroactively (ex post facto law) apply to sentences that were given decades before.

[Eyechewer]

Well I know I'm saying the forbidden word and risking an entire change in topic (which i don't intend to do)

But generally I think people would agree that releasing terrorists is ok.
When Israel releases terrorists as a one sided move people around the world said what a good move that was. When the united states gauranteed to abolish guantanamo and release "rehabilitated" terrorists people said that it was long overdue.

I think they shouldn't have been imprisoned in the first place. A shot to the head, and you won't have to deal with these savages again. But yes, generally releasing terrorists is regarded as a good thing, for reasons beyond my intellect

[Theinquisition]

Actually, the ECHR is forcing them, and legally at that. Spain is a member of the Council of Europe. Spain has no choice in this. They can either adhere to the European Convention on Human Rights and the institution that ensures those rights are respected (the Court) or they can leave the Council of Europe.

Welcome to Europe, where countries are forced to do things by supra-national organizations. I thought that was obvious?

Crazyness, eventually if people think their gov't is not willing to make sure that proper justice is shown, than eventually people will take it into their own hands.

[Wikiy]

Crazyness, eventually if people think their gov't is not willing to make sure that proper justice is shown, than eventually people will take it into their own hands.

First of all, I'm not sure why you think Spaniards are for a retroactive application of laws to convicts and secondly, the people wont take anything into their hands (although it's ironic you're saying that because the person in question is a Basque national (yes, national, Spain isn't a single nation) who did take things into her own hands and decided to do something against what she thought was Spanish injustice towards her country - and don't mistake this for me condoning her actions). Same as how Americans wont ever start a revolution where they bring down the government with their personal guns. That's delusional, paranoid thinking. Oh, and thirdly, Spain, like any other European country, prefers being a part of the collective project called European integration, even if the cost is losing some sovereignty.

Edit: If there's ever going to be a revolution in the developed world, it's gonna be because a government's turned tyrannical and has started to seriously do things against its own citizens, but that ain't likely to happen. No more than Hitler 2.0 is likely to somehow come to power in a developed, democratic Germany. And the last thing a revolution's gonna happen over is a single court case which has nothing to do with the people.

[Themius]

Please improve your reading comprehension. Thank you.

You're kind of a rudey aren't you? Take that uppity shitty attitude elsewhere love.

[Mihalik]

I'm not Spanish, but I live in Spain. I think this is awful and insulting to the families of the victims, especially as those engaged in terrorism, seem to be completely unrepentant.

But as Kalis mentioned before, there is a gigantic loophole in Spanish law, which is the source of this decision. This situation could have potentially been avoided politically, if the government would have made an effort. It is true that laws can't be changed retroactively, but something could have been done, given enough political will.

Something the current government totally lacks, and seem to be relieved it can hide behind the European courts and blame everything on them.

[Kalis]

Crazyness, eventually if people think their gov't is not willing to make sure that proper justice is shown, than eventually people will take it into their own hands.

Justice was shown, but not quite as much as what they'd hoped for.

She was sentenced to 3,000 years in prison, however this was made into a 30 year sentence - this was Spain's decision, based on whatever sentencing laws they had in place at the time, and there is no issue with that reduction.

Spain had a law in place that stated if you did certain things in prison, it would reduce your sentence, e.g. education programmes.

Spain argued that, although she had completed the required programmes to reduce her sentence, they should be taken from the 3,000 years, not the 30 years.

Instead of serving 30 years, she served 24 1/2 years, so she would have been released in 4 1/2 years regardless of the ECHR ruling.


From what I can gather, the reduced sentencing legislation guaranteed early release if the conditions were met, and that is the fuck up - Spanish legislators being the ones who fucked up due to not inserting something stating that the reduction would be from the total sentence.

[Wikiy]

I'm not Spanish, but I live in Spain. I think this is awful and insulting to the families of the victims, especially as those engaged in terrorism, seem to be completely unrepentant.

You'd be saying the exact same thing in 6 years if the ECHR hadn't intervened.

- - - Updated - - -

Justice was shown, but not quite as much as what they'd hoped for.

She was sentenced to 3,000 years in prison, however this was made into a 30 year sentence - this was Spain's decision, based on whatever sentencing laws they had in place at the time, and there is no issue with that reduction.

Spain had a law in place that stated if you did certain things in prison, it would reduce your sentence, e.g. education programmes.

Spain argued that, although she had completed the required programmes to reduce her sentence, they should be taken from the 3,000 years, not the 30 years.

Instead of serving 30 years, she served 24 1/2 years, so she would have been released in 4 1/2 years regardless of the ECHR ruling.


From what I can gather, the reduced sentencing legislation guaranteed early release if the conditions were met, and that is the fuck up - Spanish legislators being the ones who fucked up due to not inserting something stating that the reduction would be from the total sentence.

No one fucked up. When she was sentenced, Spanish law said she could have years reduced off her sentence if she worked at the prison. So that's what she did. A few decades later, for some reason, Spain introduced a law which said the reduction is applied to the total sentence (3000 years) instead of the maximal sentence any person can spend in Spanish prison (30 years). In essence, they decided to fuck her over after she'd been working her ass off for decades thinking she's gonna get something in return. Maybe she deserves it, but that is in no way legal or moral conduct of a country.

So yeah, the ECHR intervened and concluded her legal rights were broken and she was released when she was supposed to be.

[Themius]

You'd be saying the exact same thing in 6 years if the ECHR hadn't intervened.

- - - Updated - - -



No one fucked up. When she was sentenced, Spanish law said she could have years reduced off her sentence if she worked at the prison. So that's what she did. A few decades later, for some reason, Spain introduced a law which said the reduction is applied to the total sentence (3000 years) instead of the maximal sentence any person can spend in Spanish prison (30 years). In essence, they decided to fuck her over after she'd been working her ass off for decades thinking she's gonna get something in return. Maybe she deserves it, but that is in no way legal or moral conduct of a country.

So yeah, the ECHR intervened and concluded her legal rights were broken and she was released when she was supposed to be.

given this what I said about her serving her time was spot on and that uppity person didn't need to be so rude.