Should 'life' Mean Life?

[anotheoldgit]

Do you agree that whole-lifers should be entitled to a review of their sentence 25 years into their term at the very latest?

Well it seems that the European Court of Human Rights does.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/10645444/Court-of-Appeal-to-rule-on-life-means-life-sentences.html

[anotheoldgit]

FredPuli43

/// AOG, if , by "pet ruling" you mean the twisting of a story; that a tribunal held that a man had a right to remain just because he had a pet cat, I think you may find that the decision was on other grounds ! All that happened was that, as obiter dicta,a by the way, the tribunal observed that the man had a cat. Feline presence or absence; if he had not had a cat. the decision would not have gone against him; was immaterial. ///

Can't you reason some things out for yourself or do you like to take the opportunity of someone's else's ability to twist a person's words so that they fit in with their own agenda?

Who mentioned pets feline or canine, pet ruling, pet hate or in this case pet agenda, are all recognisable expressions and to any right mind person cannot be confused with domestic animals.

[FredPuli43]

AOG, I carefully prefaced my answer by "If..."

You referred to 'their pet ruling'. If , by that you meant that 'a criminal's right to family life' was a 'pet ruling' then you English has puzzled me. It is a statement of principle, that any person has the right to family life. That includes criminals who may pray it in aid against deportation, in some circumstances. It is not 'a ruling', 'pet' or otherwise; it is the fundamental law.

There was a celebrated case of a ruling about a pet,and the right to family life, which the tabloids distorted, and to which I referred after "If..."

[andres]

I agree with joeluke . Get rid of these vile creatures ,either hanging or lethal injection. They took the lives of innocent people and don't deserve to languish in prison for the rest of their lives.