Human Rights

[fbg40]

European Court of Human Rights has decreed in their infinite wisdom that 3 murderers currently being detained at Her Majesty's Pleasure in this country, have been wrongfully sentenced - the then HS changed the term of 25 years that they were originally given to Whole of Life.
Why don't these people keep their noses out of our business ?
Any opinions out there ? - I'm sure there will be !!
FBG40

[marval]

It is time we put the victims and their families first. What is the point of calling it a life sentence if it doesn't mean life?

[jno]

the trouble with the death penalty is the wrong people kept getting executed. I'm not sure how it helps the victims to know that (a) an innocent person has been put to death and (b) the real killer is still out there.

[sir.prize]

jno - the problem with your idea is it is outdated. DNA is a wonderful invention . . . .

[paddywak]

From what I understand they don't say we've got to let them out but we have got to re-asses their case every now and then so re-assess them and decide they need another to 25 years.

[paddywak]

Or we could just hang them in the first place.

[FredPuli43]

When someone is convicted of two or more murders, at different times and places and on completely different evidence, there's really no room for doubt. We could hang that person without a qualm. We used to do that, since the Home Secretary would never recommend mercy in such a case. The ones that the Home Secretary (and the jury) got wrong were very rare. Timothy Evans was one. Were there any others? There were plenty who were hanged when we wouldn't hang them now, even given the chance, because standards have changed; for example someone who murdered their unfaithful lover would be hanged years ago but not, probably , now; but that is another matter.

[neil42]

Yup no problem of them getting a review ,I say they can have it on their 99th birthday,,we can then appeal any decision to let them go free ,am sure that will take time,you know how these lawyers like to spin out a case,so that should keep them banged up a few more years.if they last that long

[jim360]

The sentence itself is fine. The lack of review is not. I don't see why this is such a problem. I hope that these people continually fail to pass such a review, but if they actually are fit to be released into Society again safely they should be. That's what Human rights mean. They apply to humans, and these people (there are very few of them) are still humans.

The chances of these people ever being fit to be released again are almost precisely zero because they all have personality disorders that essentially amount to being unable to recognise that they did anything wrong. So on those grounds this decision isn't going to disrupt our lives in any way other than from now on we might just check that we're still doing the right thing. There is no harm in that.

[askyourgran]

Alas Brady still lives and bleeds but at least he's back inside. On the other hand poor Stefan Kiszco was released almost too late, was that the ECHR or an independent review that led to his release?

[FredPuli43]

Quite, jim. There are 49 people under 'for life' sentences. None of them are people who you'd ever want outside, unless they were taken outside the prison when on the point of death, for better treatment than they could get in prison. Bamber, for example, is evidently a psychopath; he has an incurable condition. That he confined himself to wiping out his adoptive parents and all the other heirs to their money; his sister and her two young children; to get the inheritance, puts him in a different category to one who kills randomly or for sexual motives, but still means that anyone whom he could kill, pursuant to some grievance, would be in mortal danger, and he will remain a danger to the public for the rest of his life

[humbersloop]

//Do-gooders who think murderers should have 'rights' would soon sing a different tune if one of their family was murdered//

and you make that sweeping assertion absolutely secure certain that that's the case in fact Joe? Tell me how you know that

[ummmm]

Of course they should be reviewed in some cases.

[FredPuli43]

But the shout "What about the rights of the victims? " is a shout which applies in every murder (and manslaughter and death by dangerous or careless driving too). To use it for whole life tariff cases is only as appropriate as it is in other cases of murder

[vulcan42]

The murderers gave up their human rights when they denied their victims right to life.

[ludwig]

Don't worry, we've got pompous judges and officials of our own. They'll just decide that the decision of the ECHR contravenes something or other, and we'll just ignore it and send the people back to jail that should be there after ticking all the necessary boxes.

[FredPuli43]

Surely they don't give up all human rights, vulcan. Anyone will have a lot of rights when innocent, but a convicted murderer doesn't lose all of them; he loses his liberty and his right to family life but not his right to not be tortured or not to suffer cruel and unusual punishments.

[jno]

ah yes, DNA, the new wonder drug, cures all known errors

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2010/1003.bobelian.html

[sir.prize]

jno - thanks for that. I admire your determination. A pity you went into the early hours searching out that article. At a lengthy4000+ words it doesn't appeal . . . I can find better things to do.

[ToraToraTora]

Just give them a release date if that's what they want, 31st July 2096. problem solved.

[FredPuli43]

Sharingan, at the time of the Bamber trial, it was covered extensively, it was the talk of the Bar and I knew both John Marriage , the QC prosecuting, and Ed Lawson, one of the defence counsel well. I forget who was leading counsel for the defence. The defence looked runnable provided you could take the jury into technical distractions about the forensic evidence, so they didn't "keep their eye on the ball" and see the wider picture for what it was.

As to evidence, remember that Bamber blamed his sister. That meant that she had shot her own children, with no motive, as well as her parents but had failed to kill the allegedly absent Bamber. If Bamber did it with the motive of inheriting, he would have needed to kill both her and the children because otherwise the children would inherit in their mother's place. On that ground alone the Crown had a strong case. And he was in financial difficulties. The forensics certainly helped, showing that she could not have shot herself , since the results showed the opposite (if I remember correctly, she'd have needed exceptionally long arms,apart from anything else), but were not really needed.