FabSwingers.com forum: ECHR v UK government

By *kywatcher OP Man
over a year ago

Southwick

Looks as if further trouble looms ahead.

After the Abu Qatada case it appears that current UK government wants to withdraw from the European Court for Human Rights.

The stance seems to be further aggravated by the latest ruling by ECHR on the cases of three UK 'whole life' prisoners including Jeremy Bamber that they should have reviews and the possibility of release.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *atisfy janeWoman
over a year ago

Torquay

I haven't seen the news this morning, has there been a ruling on it yet?

I knew it was due at around 10am

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *nnyMan
over a year ago

Glasgow

EKHR judgement says "the whole life tariffs given to murderer Jeremy Bamber and two other killers breached their human rights."

I'm not going to second guess the judges who passed these sentences but it occurs to me that the lack of possibility of any release must make it difficult to maintain discipline in prison.

Only today we hear that Mark Bridger, the man found guilty of abducting and murdering five-year-old April Jones in Powys, has been slashed in the throat by a fellow inmate.

Whether Bridger deserved this or not is irrelevant. If there's no fear of additional punishment, there's no incentive for prisoners to comply with the regime.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *kywatcher OP Man
over a year ago

Southwick

"I haven't seen the news this morning, has there been a ruling on it yet?

I knew it was due at around 10am"

Yes appeal upheld:

"Whole-life jail terms without the possibility of review amount to a breach of human rights, European judges have ruled.

Murderer Jeremy Bamber and two other killers, Douglas Vinter and Peter Moore, have won an appeal in the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights that their sentences amount to inhuman and degrading treatment."

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

The principle is based partially on the concept that they've removed any "hope" during their lives to appeal. The reality is that for all three their appeals would probably be rejected. It also means that the separation of judiciary and executive becomes a little clearer as Home Secretaries will struggle to impose a whole life tarrif after a judge has given another sentence.

I stand by for the "hang em high" "scum" "if I had my way" "political correctness gone mad" "dogooders" etc brigade which normally arrives in any judicial conversation on here.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ouple in LancashireCouple
over a year ago

in Lancashire

the way I heard it the Court said there has to be the possibility of review in whole life sentences..

but that this ruling did not mean there is any prospect of imminent release..

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Whether Bridger deserved this or not is irrelevant. If there's no fear of additional punishment, there's no incentive for prisoners to comply with the regime.

This was partially the point that the Howard League made. Take away hope and you increase risk to other prisoners and staff

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ouple in LancashireCouple
over a year ago

in Lancashire

Whether Bridger deserved this or not is irrelevant. If there's no fear of additional punishment, there's no incentive for prisoners to comply with the regime.

This was partially the point that the Howard League made. Take away hope and you increase risk to other prisoners and staff"

its a no brainer to suppose that with some dangerous people who have nothing to lose and may see 'gaining notoriety' as their only option..

oops mustn't show my pinko leftie, sandal wearing side in saying that..

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ust_for_laughsCouple
over a year ago

Hinckley

"The principle is based partially on the concept that they've removed any "hope" during their lives to appeal. The reality is that for all three their appeals would probably be rejected. It also means that the separation of judiciary and executive becomes a little clearer as Home Secretaries will struggle to impose a whole life tarrif after a judge has given another sentence.

I stand by for the "hang em high" "scum" "if I had my way" "political correctness gone mad" "dogooders" etc brigade which normally arrives in any judicial conversation on here."

Are you me, in disguise ?

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I stand by for the "hang em high" "scum" "if I had my way" "political correctness gone mad" "dogooders" etc brigade which normally arrives in any judicial conversation on here."

I like to think that do gooders offer a balance to the more extreme views which in turn enable a balanced perspective.

Whatever our views on ECHR, its good for any justice system to be challenged and reviewedby aanother running parallel to.

As for the hang em high view, there's always people who support it.

Personally the whole point of a justice system is to evidence that good people can rise above those who have done bad and set examples. Killing them I'm not sure is the right approach for civilised society. I don't think I'm politically correct in saying so, and I've seen enough gruesome deaths to know I don't want it done in my name.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

So far so good!

The concept here is sound, they are insisting on a review not release. I worry that some decisions made by Home Secretaries are based on how we "feel" rather than what's correct. They need to be re-elected judges don't (thank god)

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

ECHR has got it right today in my opinion.

It gets it right most of the time.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"ECHR has got it right today in my opinion.

It gets it right most of the time. "

Clearly you're a lefty, dogooders with a soupçon of communist thrown in! Thought I'd get that in there first

Of course I too think they've got it right

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *icketysplitsWoman
over a year ago

Way over Yonder, that's where I'm bound

It's not often I'd disagree with the current debate. I agree it is broadly right but I think there are some exceptional cases where it would be right to be able to say life is life.

It will be interesting to see what happens with the 49 cases on whole life tariffs.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Can I just congratulate everyone for their sensible views.

As someone in touch with the law (not HR I hazard to add) it is nice to see some logical posting and not the common slating of the legal system generally which we all commonly see

I really do get frustrated with how tabloid's portray some things (such as our domestic HR legislation). Perhaps I need to learn to accept it is a fact of life!

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *nnyMan
over a year ago

Glasgow

"It's not often I'd disagree with the current debate. I agree it is broadly right but I think there are some exceptional cases where it would be right to be able to say life is life.

It will be interesting to see what happens with the 49 cases on whole life tariffs."

Nothing will change. The cases will be reviewed every few years over a bottle or two of Claret in Pommeroys and be instantly forgotten.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"It's not often I'd disagree with the current debate. I agree it is broadly right but I think there are some exceptional cases where it would be right to be able to say life is life.

It will be interesting to see what happens with the 49 cases on whole life tariffs."

Yes and maybe those 49 cases may all be exceptional

Also what happens when a person on a minimum life term is still in prison when maybe a person on a whole life term has been released in a shorter time than the person on that minimum term ?

I see more appeals to the ECHR

Remember the murdered also

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *john121Man
over a year ago

staffs

lets not forget that the government wants to abandon ECHR, which when you consider they used it to secure the non extradition of British computer hacker Gary McKinnon,

Mr McKinnon, 46, who admits accessing US government computers but claims he was looking for evidence of UFOs, has been fighting extradition since 2002.

The home secretary told MPs there was no doubt Mr McKinnon was "seriously ill" and the extradition warrant against him should be withdrawn.

Mrs May said the sole issue she had to consider was his human rights.

So they only want to use it when it's convenient to do so..

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *nnyMan
over a year ago

Glasgow

Welcome to the wonderful world of the Tories.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Welcome to the wonderful world of the Tories."

And labour and liberals !!!

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

We only ever like institutions that agree with us generally

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"We only ever like institutions that agree with us generally "

I as a right winger come on to your leftie thread , post within the spirit of that thread and then you go to the gutter an being on politics ! Shame on you ! Lol

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"We only ever like institutions that agree with us generally

I as a right winger come on to your leftie thread , post within the spirit of that thread and then you go to the gutter an being on politics ! Shame on you ! Lol

The voice of reason that's me!

To be honest I'm not traditional left or right, take what I like and leave the rest.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I really can't believe the Daily Mail readers haven't been on the thread yet. Something must be wrong, the balance of reality is out of kilter........hang on...

Bloody EU telling our courts what to do. They should all be killed and save my hard earned taxes going to support them. Vote UKIP!

Balance restored.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

People are outraged because people aren't outraged. Brilliant.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Well I know what I believe and that's mostly my own thoughts and outrages, but why should they have the right to any thing? The people they murdered and there families will live with the misery and private hell they caused forever, they don't get a right to anything other than the lives that were taken away.

To me that's a life sentence for the loved ones of the murdered with out any chance of appeal

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Well I know what I believe and that's mostly my own thoughts and outrages, but why should they have the right to any thing? The people they murdered and there families will live with the misery and private hell they caused forever, they don't get a right to anything other than the lives that were taken away.

To me that's a life sentence for the loved ones of the murdered with out any chance of appeal"

I dont think this was the ratio decidendi but some have suggested those without a hope of getting out have little reason to follow the rules which is quite a good point

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"I really can't believe the Daily Mail readers haven't been on the thread yet. Something must be wrong, the balance of reality is out of kilter........hang on...

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

To me that's a life sentence for the loved ones of the murdered with out any chance of appeal

I dont think this was the ratio decidendi but some have suggested those without a hope of getting out have little reason to follow the rules which is quite a good point"

All be it that I can see the point people are trying to make, it's still holds true that the murdered and there families had the right of hope taken from them completely and nothing in the world can give them back there lives. Why give human rights to people who care nothing for other people and there basic human right to live a life and grow old and die naturally, they refused to live by rules in the outside world so why would we give them more rights while they are being punished for the most evil of crimes. Sorry to rant but to me this is a ruling not in favour of the innocent

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

All the ruling is saying is the grounds for consideration have to be wider, no one is giving these people the key to their own cell.

I understand your point about those who have lost a loved one dont have any rights but at the same time I really dont consider this judgement to have by any means thrown the door open.

We will obviously have to wait and see what these considerations are

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Human rights are based on being a human not on being a good or productive one. Otherwise many of us would be totally screwed

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Human rights are based on being a human not on being a good or productive one. Otherwise many of us would be totally screwed "

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

When we decide to remove basic human rights from someone, immediately we find ourselves in a predicament. Because one individual then has to make a decision they have to live with.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"lets not forget that the government wants to abandon ECHR, which when you consider they used it to secure the non extradition of British computer hacker Gary McKinnon,

Mr McKinnon, 46, who admits accessing US government computers but claims he was looking for evidence of UFOs, has been fighting extradition since 2002.

The home secretary told MPs there was no doubt Mr McKinnon was "seriously ill" and the extradition warrant against him should be withdrawn.

Mrs May said the sole issue she had to consider was his human rights.

So they only want to use it when it's convenient to do so.."

I listened to her speech and what she actually said was there were things that are right about it and things that don't suit the UK needs. She herself admitted and quoted several instances where ECHR had gone in our favour.

There will always be grey areas in cases to work around.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *andcCouple
over a year ago

London and Cheshire

"All the ruling is saying is the grounds for consideration have to be wider, no one is giving these people the key to their own cell.

I understand your point about those who have lost a loved one dont have any rights but at the same time I really dont consider this judgement to have by any means thrown the door open.

We will obviously have to wait and see what these considerations are"

It's simple stop giving them whole life sentences!

Give the 110 years instead and if they're good they can have their sentence cut by 10 years

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"All the ruling is saying is the grounds for consideration have to be wider, no one is giving these people the key to their own cell.

I understand your point about those who have lost a loved one dont have any rights but at the same time I really dont consider this judgement to have by any means thrown the door open.

We will obviously have to wait and see what these considerations are

It's simple stop giving them whole life sentences!

Give the 110 years instead and if they're good they can have their sentence cut by 10 years

Hahaha all fair

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I was saddened to hear of the ECHR ruling. I don't agree with the death penalty, its too final - and mistakes have been made, such as with Barry George, the man convicted of the murder of Jill Dando - only have his sentence quashed 8 years later.

However, the use of Human Rights to defend those convicted of one of the most inhuman acts possible is quite frankly, galling and desperate.

Rather than the view that, by having whole of life sentences they have no opportunity to show they have been 'rehabilitated' they convicted should focus on proving that they are innocent of the crime. That is what they can focus the rest of their life on if they are truly innocent.

Because, for the premeditated killing of another human being in cold blood, there can be no rehabilitation in my honest opinion.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ixson-BallsMan
over a year ago

Blackpool

for the 49 or others that may join the elite group of "whole life tariff"...

the simple solution is surely to give them a long tariff, say 50 years plus for those in their 20's and reduce it by 10 years per decade of age ie

40 years for someone in their 30's etc)...

they've got some hope then of ending their days outside

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

The reason we should give rights to those guilty of the most despicable acts is because we are better than them. It really is as simple as that.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

If freedom is a human right aren't we infringing their human rights by incarcerating them ?

So by denying them the very basic right of freedom why do we then choose what rights they are entitled to.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *atisfy janeWoman
over a year ago

Torquay

The government (any government) don't like to leave it in the hands of dithering judges to hand down sentences if the truth be told, hence the introduction of the 'Whole Life Term' via the Houses of Parliament.

It enabled the government that introduced it to appease public opinion without going as far as to reintroduce the death penalty.

I'm expecting to see sentencing guidelines adjusted accordingly to

introduce longer sentences for crimes such as murder, short of life meaning life.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *xpresMan
over a year ago

Elland

Time to withdraw from europe now its getting worse

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"If freedom is a human right aren't we infringing their human rights by incarcerating them ?

So by denying them the very basic right of freedom why do we then choose what rights they are entitled to. "

That's a very good point, we must not forget though that one of the main reasons for incarceration is to protect the public.

People who do not respect the human rights of others, and infringe them risk incarceration so that we can protect the human rights of individuals they could effect.

Yes punishment is an important element, but where should 'societies revenge' end, at taking away all hope?

Maybe yes, the ECHR say no and I happen to agree with them.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Do the people who commit these awful crimes deserve any hope of realese! They are in prison for punishment and the safety of law abiding citizens and they have been using tax payers money to appeal. Human rights (bollocks) what about the victims !

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Do the people who commit these awful crimes deserve any hope of realese! They are in prison for punishment and the safety of law abiding citizens and they have been using tax payers money to appeal. Human rights (bollocks) what about the victims ! "

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

People that have tortured, raped and killed kids to be given hope of getting out and having their sentences reviewed?

Can't say i'm in favour of that. In fact I think it's a sad state of affairs if some of these prisoners taste freedom again. They lost their freedom by taking away their victims freedom

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

dear lord. Oh well. Human rights is what it says on the tin. Human refers to people no matter what they've done or how pointless you may think it is. We are allowed to incarcerate people under human rights act as long as we use due process.

Exactly which bits of the HRA would you like removed? Fair trial? Freedom of _xpression? (Might make this forum awkward) right to liberty and security? Or the whole thing and let whichever gov gets in to decide?

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

YAY finally! We got a "law abiding citizens", and a "tax payers money". Shame it wasn't "hard earned" but you can't have everything.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

So which one of these do you disagree with? or is it that some people aren't human and we should be able to remove all of these?

So who isn't human? Prisoners? Serious offenders? Repeating offenders? People who don't contribute? People of a particular group? Perhaps people with mental health problems? Who do we decide and who gets to decide?

The right to life l Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment l Freedom from forced labour l Right to Liberty l Fair trial l l Retrospective penalties l Privacy l Freedom of conscience l Freedom of _xpression l Freedom of assembly l Marriage and family l Freedom from discrimination l

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"People that have tortured, raped and killed kids to be given hope of getting out and having their sentences reviewed?

Can't say i'm in favour of that. In fact I think it's a sad state of affairs if some of these prisoners taste freedom again. They lost their freedom by taking away their victims freedom

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"People that have tortured, raped and killed kids to be given hope of getting out and having their sentences reviewed?

Can't say i'm in favour of that. In fact I think it's a sad state of affairs if some of these prisoners taste freedom again. They lost their freedom by taking away their victims freedom

They are having them reviewed! They are not being released!

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

The problem I find it that when people have been in for that long, they are far too institutionalised to ever intigrate into society again.

Like most have said, knowing you'll never be released makes compliance with the laws inside difficult.

That said, the irony of a mass murder talking about breach of human rights is laughable.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

So which of their human rights don't they deserve? Who decides who doesn't get them and which ones?

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Lets be honest here this is purely an academic move which really has little bearing on weather these guys will ever be out of prison, all it means is they can try then be denied.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I think when you strip someone of their human right (by brutally murdering them) you forgo any of your own rights.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"I think when you strip someone of their human right (by brutally murdering them) you forgo any of your own rights."

And who removes them? Because if you remove the right to life or torture then you too join the people who brutally murder people or torture them.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *obbygggMan
over a year ago

Birmingham

All very reasonable aren't you? Maybe if you had had an infant kidnapped,raped,tortured and murdered you might think differently.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"All very reasonable aren't you? Maybe if you had had an infant kidnapped,raped,tortured and murdered you might think differently."

Which is why in the UK we don't include relatives in sentencing. Quite common in countries with sharia law however. The law is supposed to be impartial and based on facts and evidence and not emotion. However, if we did, then the twat who knicked my tv just before Christmas would have received a proper kicking. Something that may have made me feel better at the time of course.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *nnyMan
over a year ago

Glasgow

"Lets be honest here this is purely an academic move which really has little bearing on weather these guys will ever be out of prison, all it means is they can try then be denied."

A truth deliberately ignored by the right wingers who jump on every seemingly anti-British decision by anyone, anywhere.

No wonder UKIP is ripping the Tory party membership to shreds.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *nnyMan
over a year ago

Glasgow

"All very reasonable aren't you? Maybe if you had had an infant kidnapped,raped,tortured and murdered you might think differently.

We allow victim statements though.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"All very reasonable aren't you? Maybe if you had had an infant kidnapped,raped,tortured and murdered you might think differently."

Europe isnt saying these 'people' will be allowed out all of a sudden.... they are saying the criteria for release needs to be wider then terminal illness or physical incapacity

No one knows what will happen... it will takes years for any data to be compiled but we would all hope that the reality is that the additional criteria is strict

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *nnyMan
over a year ago

Glasgow

"All very reasonable aren't you? Maybe if you had had an infant kidnapped,raped,tortured and murdered you might think differently."

I'll leave sentencing to the judge who has sat through the entire proceeding and not bother too much what Sun readers think about the appropriateness of a tariff.

If a judge imposes a whole life tariff, that'll still be legal and the person convicted will still remain incarcerated till they die.

All the ECHR has said is that these sentences should be reviewed from time to time - not that anyone MUST be released.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

We allow victim statements though."

Quite right too and that takes a part in sentencing but the person sentencing sits in judgement and should be applying the law as it fits to the case not purely on emotion.

As you say further on this current case is purely about reviewing not about releasing. But conveniently many people don't think that bit through and just like to be outraged

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *nnyMan
over a year ago

Glasgow

We allow victim statements though.

Quite right too and that takes a part in sentencing but the person sentencing sits in judgement and should be applying the law as it fits to the case not purely on emotion.

............."

The jury sits in judgement.

The Judge, Sheriff, Magistrate etc apply the law as befits the case.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Never mentioned torture or removal of life. I said removal of rights and freedom is one such right.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Never mentioned torture or removal of life. I said removal of rights and freedom is one such right."

But those are part of the human rights act and saying people don't deserve to have it applied to them if they've committed those rights. Removal of freedom is a right allowed under HRA as long as it is done within the other rights. Fair trial, no torture, no removal of life. So within that the court is correct they've removed the right of freedom however they've taken away hope which is seen as an infringement of the article on inhuman or degrading treatment. So should we remove that right?

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

We allow victim statements though.

Quite right too and that takes a part in sentencing but the person sentencing sits in judgement and should be applying the law as it fits to the case not purely on emotion.

.............

The jury sits in judgement.

The Judge, Sheriff, Magistrate etc apply the law as befits the case."

The judge also sits in judgement in cases and can direct a jury so they both judge and apply the law

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

In a word, yes.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"All very reasonable aren't you? Maybe if you had had an infant kidnapped,raped,tortured and murdered you might think differently."

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"In a word, yes."

So we should be able to treat people in an inhuman and degrading way? Can you not see the irony?

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I don't think that ensuring brutal mass murderers are effectively kept in prison is remotely inhumane or degrading. Maybe it's just me.......

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"I don't think that ensuring brutal mass murderers are effectively kept in prison is remotely inhumane or degrading. Maybe it's just me......."

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Never mentioned torture or removal of life. I said removal of rights and freedom is one such right.

I am often referred too as a leftie and I can often be seen on the do gooders table at recess but in this instance I don't really care if the removal of hope is taken from a prisoner in a case where a judge seems it right and proper to remove it. We have already removed their right to freedom. If they have commited a crime so heinous that a judge deems it proper that they should never be free again then remove their hope. I'm not really sure that if you remove hope then you can't expect th the comply with the rules apply here. As I understand it this initially only applies to three prisoners and could possibly apply to a further forty nine. I'm sure the prison service can take care of that few people.

And just because I believe that certain prisoners don't deserve any hope of a release date it doesn't mean I want them tortured or hung.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ust_for_laughsCouple
over a year ago

Hinckley

"Never mentioned torture or removal of life. I said removal of rights and freedom is one such right.

And just because I believe that certain prisoners don't deserve any hope of a release date it doesn't mean I want them tortured or hung. "

Are these cases where the judge has given a whole life tariff, or where the Home Secretary has intervened ?

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"In a word, yes.

So we should be able to treat people in an inhuman and degrading way? Can you not see the irony?

By locking people up so they cannot commit further crimes is in no way degrading or inhuman. I am struggling to see why anyone would see that it is.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"I don't think that ensuring brutal mass murderers are effectively kept in prison is remotely inhumane or degrading. Maybe it's just me.......

The debate that they should be kept in prison isn't what we are talking about. What the decision is about is the removal of any right of review ever. Not that they will be released. The court has decided that removal of that right is both inhuman and degrading. The review will more than likely keep them in prison. The reality is that our need for vengeance is often based on emotion at the time not on rational thought and process. Therefore in time we should review the initial whole life tarrif especially if it has been imposed by an elected official who's trying to garner votes (Home Secretary).

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Never mentioned torture or removal of life. I said removal of rights and freedom is one such right.

And just because I believe that certain prisoners don't deserve any hope of a release date it doesn't mean I want them tortured or hung.

Are these cases where the judge has given a whole life tariff, or where the Home Secretary has intervened ?"

Either or both. It doesn't really matter. If they are acting within the law then so be it.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"In a word, yes.

So we should be able to treat people in an inhuman and degrading way? Can you not see the irony?

By locking people up so they cannot commit further crimes is in no way degrading or inhuman. I am struggling to see why anyone would see that it is. "

Look at it this way. A prisoner that is locked up with no hope of release whatsoever has no incentive to live by the rules imposed on him in prison! Whereas, a prisoner that has some hope of release, (no matter how small that hope is) has an incetive to behave.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"In a word, yes.

So we should be able to treat people in an inhuman and degrading way? Can you not see the irony?

By locking people up so they cannot commit further crimes is in no way degrading or inhuman. I am struggling to see why anyone would see that it is. "

That is not the judgement. The judgement is that they should be able to REVIEW the sentence. Locking people up is not what they say is degrading or inhuman never being able to review it is. I am struggling to see why anyone would see that never being ABLE to review it is not.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Never mentioned torture or removal of life. I said removal of rights and freedom is one such right.

And just because I believe that certain prisoners don't deserve any hope of a release date it doesn't mean I want them tortured or hung.

Are these cases where the judge has given a whole life tariff, or where the Home Secretary has intervened ?

Either or both. It doesn't really matter. If they are acting within the law then so be it. "

Except under the HRA of which the UK is a signatory they're not acting within the law

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"I don't think that ensuring brutal mass murderers are effectively kept in prison is remotely inhumane or degrading. Maybe it's just me.......

Elected official being the main word. If we don't like the decisions they make we won't vote for them next time around.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ust_for_laughsCouple
over a year ago

Hinckley

"Never mentioned torture or removal of life. I said removal of rights and freedom is one such right.

And just because I believe that certain prisoners don't deserve any hope of a release date it doesn't mean I want them tortured or hung.

Are these cases where the judge has given a whole life tariff, or where the Home Secretary has intervened ?

Either or both. It doesn't really matter. If they are acting within the law then so be it. "

I'd say it was, the qualifications required to be Home Secretary are what, exactly ?

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Never mentioned torture or removal of life. I said removal of rights and freedom is one such right.

And just because I believe that certain prisoners don't deserve any hope of a release date it doesn't mean I want them tortured or hung.

Are these cases where the judge has given a whole life tariff, or where the Home Secretary has intervened ?

Either or both. It doesn't really matter. If they are acting within the law then so be it.

Except under the HRA of which the UK is a signatory they're not acting within the law"

Then maybe the review should be whether we remain a signatory.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Never mentioned torture or removal of life. I said removal of rights and freedom is one such right.

And just because I believe that certain prisoners don't deserve any hope of a release date it doesn't mean I want them tortured or hung.

Are these cases where the judge has given a whole life tariff, or where the Home Secretary has intervened ?

Either or both. It doesn't really matter. If they are acting within the law then so be it.

I'd say it was, the qualifications required to be Home Secretary are what, exactly ? "

That you are a minister is a democratically elected government.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ust_for_laughsCouple
over a year ago

Hinckley

"Never mentioned torture or removal of life. I said removal of rights and freedom is one such right.

And just because I believe that certain prisoners don't deserve any hope of a release date it doesn't mean I want them tortured or hung.

Are these cases where the judge has given a whole life tariff, or where the Home Secretary has intervened ?

Either or both. It doesn't really matter. If they are acting within the law then so be it.

Except under the HRA of which the UK is a signatory they're not acting within the law

Then maybe the review should be whether we remain a signatory. "

You'd like a government, any government, to determine what your Human Rights should be ? There's a slippery slope, if ever I saw one.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ust_for_laughsCouple
over a year ago

Hinckley

"Never mentioned torture or removal of life. I said removal of rights and freedom is one such right.

And just because I believe that certain prisoners don't deserve any hope of a release date it doesn't mean I want them tortured or hung.

Are these cases where the judge has given a whole life tariff, or where the Home Secretary has intervened ?

Either or both. It doesn't really matter. If they are acting within the law then so be it.

I'd say it was, the qualifications required to be Home Secretary are what, exactly ?

That you are a minister is a democratically elected government. "

And this qualifies you to be able to overrule judicial process and apply whole life tariff's (usually after a public outcry that the original sentence wasn't 'tough enough')

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Never mentioned torture or removal of life. I said removal of rights and freedom is one such right.

And just because I believe that certain prisoners don't deserve any hope of a release date it doesn't mean I want them tortured or hung.

Are these cases where the judge has given a whole life tariff, or where the Home Secretary has intervened ?

Either or both. It doesn't really matter. If they are acting within the law then so be it.

Except under the HRA of which the UK is a signatory they're not acting within the law

Then maybe the review should be whether we remain a signatory.

You'd like a government, any government, to determine what your Human Rights should be ? There's a slippery slope, if ever I saw one."

How did you arrive at that from what I've posted. I am trying to say that our elected government and past governments seem to be doing fine when it comes to this particular part of the HRA. After all it is only affecting three people and if all we are doing is removing their hope of a release date then I will still sleep soundly tonight.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *rumCoupleCouple
over a year ago

birmingham

The jury sits in judgement.

The Judge, Sheriff, Magistrate etc apply the law as befits the case.

The judge also sits in judgement in cases and can direct a jury so they both judge and apply the law"

I suggest people read about jury nullification. We are allowed to use our consciences you know.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Never mentioned torture or removal of life. I said removal of rights and freedom is one such right.

And just because I believe that certain prisoners don't deserve any hope of a release date it doesn't mean I want them tortured or hung.

Are these cases where the judge has given a whole life tariff, or where the Home Secretary has intervened ?

Either or both. It doesn't really matter. If they are acting within the law then so be it.

I'd say it was, the qualifications required to be Home Secretary are what, exactly ?

That you are a minister is a democratically elected government.

And this qualifies you to be able to overrule judicial process and apply whole life tariff's (usually after a public outcry that the original sentence wasn't 'tough enough')"

It seems so , yes.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ust_for_laughsCouple
over a year ago

Hinckley

Because if we have a review on remaining a signatory and it's decided that we don't, who then legislates on Human Rights ? It wasn't a massive leap.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"I don't think that ensuring brutal mass murderers are effectively kept in prison is remotely inhumane or degrading. Maybe it's just me.......

Elected official being the main word. If we don't like the decisions they make we won't vote for them next time around. "

And when we kick them out of office and disagree with their decisions on whole life tariff we will now be able to review them.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"All very reasonable aren't you? Maybe if you had had an infant kidnapped,raped,tortured and murdered you might think diferently.

Why does someone always have to drag kids into it? Why not just say "a member of your family" instead of trying to gain points in an argument by dropping the K bomb. It's not a trump card it's trying to stimulate people's emotional incontinence.

Ffs.

And no-one has said these people are going to get out of jail, ever. Just that the whole life term removes the hope of release In the distant future. So everyone take a prozac and chill the fuck out. The baby rapists are staying behind bars.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ust_for_laughsCouple
over a year ago

Hinckley

"Never mentioned torture or removal of life. I said removal of rights and freedom is one such right.

And just because I believe that certain prisoners don't deserve any hope of a release date it doesn't mean I want them tortured or hung.

Are these cases where the judge has given a whole life tariff, or where the Home Secretary has intervened ?

Either or both. It doesn't really matter. If they are acting within the law then so be it.

I'd say it was, the qualifications required to be Home Secretary are what, exactly ?

That you are a minister is a democratically elected government.

And this qualifies you to be able to overrule judicial process and apply whole life tariff's (usually after a public outcry that the original sentence wasn't 'tough enough')

It seems so , yes. "

Theresa May has a degree in geography, which probably makes her more qualified on where they should go, rather than how long they should stay for

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"All very reasonable aren't you? Maybe if you had had an infant kidnapped,raped,tortured and murdered you might think diferently.

Ffs.

So why the debate then, I can't see anyone arguing that these people shouldn't be kept in prison. We are only removing the hope of a release date. No one thinks they should be released so where is the problem ?

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *nnyMan
over a year ago

Glasgow

The jury sits in judgement.

The Judge, Sheriff, Magistrate etc apply the law as befits the case.

The judge also sits in judgement in cases and can direct a jury so they both judge and apply the law

I suggest people read about jury nullification. We are allowed to use our consciences you know."

What do you suggest? Diplock? Trial by ordeal?

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"I don't think that ensuring brutal mass murderers are effectively kept in prison is remotely inhumane or degrading. Maybe it's just me.......

Elected official being the main word. If we don't like the decisions they make we won't vote for them next time around.

And when we kick them out of office and disagree with their decisions on whole life tariff we will now be able to review them."

You find out which party agrees with your views and you vote accordingly.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Never mentioned torture or removal of life. I said removal of rights and freedom is one such right.

And just because I believe that certain prisoners don't deserve any hope of a release date it doesn't mean I want them tortured or hung.

Are these cases where the judge has given a whole life tariff, or where the Home Secretary has intervened ?

Either or both. It doesn't really matter. If they are acting within the law then so be it.

I'd say it was, the qualifications required to be Home Secretary are what, exactly ?

That you are a minister is a democratically elected government.

And this qualifies you to be able to overrule judicial process and apply whole life tariff's (usually after a public outcry that the original sentence wasn't 'tough enough')

It seems so , yes.

Theresa May has a degree in geography, which probably makes her more qualified on where they should go, rather than how long they should stay for

Well at least she'll know if the rocks they are breaking , if hard labour is brought back in, are porous or non porous.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Good god, you'd think these people are getting released tomorrow the way half of you are carrying on!

They are NOT getting released, EVER!!

All that it means is, a review has to occur to determine if they SHOULD be paroled or not. It does not mean they WILL be paroled.

If i was jailed for a full life term with no hope of parole, what is to stop me continueing my murderous urges in jail? What would they do to me? Call me a bad boy and add another couple years onto my full life sentence?

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

You know something yes the decision in my view is terrible but the tories are like spoilt kids.

Because they do not agree eu on this point wr look childish. So what if its said it affects human rights it dies not for one second mean they will ever get anywhere near parole let alone release.

Our courts ie supreme court have input in eu law so to just blame the eu is frankly ridiculous.

On a slight tangent here the bloke who was falsely imprisoned for the murder of jill dando has been told he xannot receive compensation.

Fact he is not guilty should mean he is eligible in my view.

The government picks and chooses which law they accept and do not accept.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ust_for_laughsCouple
over a year ago

Hinckley

"Never mentioned torture or removal of life. I said removal of rights and freedom is one such right.

And just because I believe that certain prisoners don't deserve any hope of a release date it doesn't mean I want them tortured or hung.

Are these cases where the judge has given a whole life tariff, or where the Home Secretary has intervened ?

Either or both. It doesn't really matter. If they are acting within the law then so be it.

I'd say it was, the qualifications required to be Home Secretary are what, exactly ?

That you are a minister is a democratically elected government.

And this qualifies you to be able to overrule judicial process and apply whole life tariff's (usually after a public outcry that the original sentence wasn't 'tough enough')

It seems so , yes.

Theresa May has a degree in geography, which probably makes her more qualified on where they should go, rather than how long they should stay for

Well at least she'll know if the rocks they are breaking , if hard labour is brought back in, are porous or non porous. "

This could run and run

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Good god, you'd think these people are getting released tomorrow the way half of you are carrying on!

They are NOT getting released, EVER!!

All that it means is, a review has to occur to determine if they SHOULD be paroled or not. It does not mean they WILL be paroled.

So if they are never getting released why review ? It's a pointless task. And we are only talking about a possible fifty prisoners here. If the prison services can't control that small amount of people then we really are in trouble.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *uckoo clockCouple
over a year ago

Merseyside

Discussions such as this naturally seen to be a rallying cry for the hang them right, but equally a condescending arrogance from the left that anyone who opposes their view is bigoted.

Memories of Gordon Brown spring to mind ?

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *nnyMan
over a year ago

Glasgow

" .........So if they are never getting released why review ? It's a pointless task. ........... "

Lawyers get paid a LOT of public money for dragging cases like this through every level of court they can find.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *nnyMan
over a year ago

Glasgow

"Discussions such as this naturally seen to be a rallying cry for the hang them right, but equally a condescending arrogance from the left that anyone who opposes their view is bigoted.

Memories of Gordon Brown spring to mind ?"

Mrs Duffy was, and may still be, a bigot.

What Gordon did wrong was get caught say so on mic.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *uckoo clockCouple
over a year ago

Merseyside

"Discussions such as this naturally seen to be a rallying cry for the hang them right, but equally a condescending arrogance from the left that anyone who opposes their view is bigoted.

Memories of Gordon Brown spring to mind ?

Mrs Duffy was, and may still be, a bigot.

What Gordon did wrong was get caught say so on

mic."
Think you have just proved the point ?

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Good god, you'd think these people are getting released tomorrow the way half of you are carrying on!

They are NOT getting released, EVER!!

All that it means is, a review has to occur to determine if they SHOULD be paroled or not. It does not mean they WILL be paroled.

So, how would YOU control these prisoners that have nothing whatsoever to stop them re-offending again in prison? Shackle them up 24hrs a day? It takes seconds to knife a warden or other inmate!

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *nnyMan
over a year ago

Glasgow

Just on the subject of Gordon Brown, let's not forget he gave his entire £1.3 million of income last year directly to charity or to fund charitable work.

Mr Brown personally does not receive a penny from speeches or writings. He has no 'second income' and does not benefit from 'outside earnings'. All the fees from speeches and writings are not paid to him and all the money goes directly to charity or to fund charitable work by himself and his wife.

He doesn't even draw the official ex-PM's pension.

Gordon is a Son of the Manse so there's no 'family fortune' to fall back on.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *nnyMan
over a year ago

Glasgow

"Discussions such as this naturally seen to be a rallying cry for the hang them right, but equally a condescending arrogance from the left that anyone who opposes their view is bigoted.

Memories of Gordon Brown spring to mind ?

Mrs Duffy was, and may still be, a bigot.

What Gordon did wrong was get caught say so on

mic. Think you have just proved the point ?"

No, I think I've proved you don't understand what happened.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I have no idea. I think the way it was reported in the media led the easily led to believe that these people would be back on the streets by friday. It's effectively an argument about how judgements are worded isn't it.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"I don't think that ensuring brutal mass murderers are effectively kept in prison is remotely inhumane or degrading. Maybe it's just me.......

Elected official being the main word. If we don't like the decisions they make we won't vote for them next time around.

And when we kick them out of office and disagree with their decisions on whole life tariff we will now be able to review them.

You find out which party agrees with your views and you vote accordingly. "

Which is what people should do, but, with this judgement when they get kicked out because we as a population we don't like them we can now review their decisions on whole life tariff if we wish.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

the mail article was awful

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Good god, you'd think these people are getting released tomorrow the way half of you are carrying on!

They are NOT getting released, EVER!!

All that it means is, a review has to occur to determine if they SHOULD be paroled or not. It does not mean they WILL be paroled.

We are not just talking about 50 prisoners. This is a precedent for all future cases and all future killers.

I think the 50 figure is the current number but this will of course change

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

So, how would YOU control these prisoners that have nothing whatsoever to stop them re-offending again in prison? Shackle them up 24hrs a day? It takes seconds to knife a warden or other inmate!"

I am not suggesting we shackle anyone up. This ruling affects about fifty prisoners. There are more than fifty prisons in the UK. So you can spread them out. You give them an incentive to behave by increasing or removing privileges accordingly.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

So, how would YOU control these prisoners that have nothing whatsoever to stop them re-offending again in prison? Shackle them up 24hrs a day? It takes seconds to knife a warden or other inmate!

And what about future full term lifers? Or do you imagine for one minute that figure won't grow in the future?

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Or rather not how they are worded but how they are interpreted by the media in order for them to sell papers

This Country is not perfect but the media making a meal out of issues such as these which are likely to have little bearing really does piss me off. Makes everyone think things are a lot worse than they are!

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Good god, you'd think these people are getting released tomorrow the way half of you are carrying on!

They are NOT getting released, EVER!!

All that it means is, a review has to occur to determine if they SHOULD be paroled or not. It does not mean they WILL be paroled.

So, how would YOU control these prisoners that have nothing whatsoever to stop them re-offending again in prison? Shackle them up 24hrs a day? It takes seconds to knife a warden or other inmate!"

Perhaps you can tell us how many of the people serving whole life terms ,if any , have committed such crimes while incarcerated

One of the three in question was released after killing to kill again

Also do you not think their lives could be made much more difficult if they were to commit such crimes

It maybe true that all reviews would be unsuccessful but it is the erosion of sentence that is the point .

Some on here argued against the death penalty arguing that keeping people in prison for a whole life term was the alternative . Now you argue for revue of whole life terms . What will you argue for next ? No whole life terms ?

Human rights yes . No execution , no torture but when you commit such heinous crimes your rights do diminish . You are jailed for a term subscribed by law

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

So, how would YOU control these prisoners that have nothing whatsoever to stop them re-offending again in prison? Shackle them up 24hrs a day? It takes seconds to knife a warden or other inmate!

And what about future full term lifers? Or do you imagine for one minute that figure won't grow in the future?"

You put them in the appropriate prison and counsel them but let them know in uncertain terms that their level of behaviour really does affect their level if treatment.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

So, how would YOU control these prisoners that have nothing whatsoever to stop them re-offending again in prison? Shackle them up 24hrs a day? It takes seconds to knife a warden or other inmate!

And what about future full term lifers? Or do you imagine for one minute that figure won't grow in the future?

You put them in the appropriate prison and counsel them but let them know in uncertain terms that their level of behaviour really does affect their level if treatment. "

Aaaah. So, these prisoners would behave because they would have their telly privillages revoked if they slashed a wardens throat for example?

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

So, how would YOU control these prisoners that have nothing whatsoever to stop them re-offending again in prison? Shackle them up 24hrs a day? It takes seconds to knife a warden or other inmate!

And what about future full term lifers? Or do you imagine for one minute that figure won't grow in the future?

You put them in the appropriate prison and counsel them but let them know in uncertain terms that their level of behaviour really does affect their level if treatment.

Aaaah. So, these prisoners would behave because they would have their telly privillages revoked if they slashed a wardens throat for example?"

Are you suggesting a judge when sentencing should take into consideration how the prisoner may behave whilst in jail ?

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

It appears that we all (mostly) agree that some degree of human rights under the HRA apply to everyone just not necessarily which ones or to which degree. As a rule I suspect this means the judgement is correct as we were never going to gain consensus on the decision and what we did get has disappointed everyone to a greater or lesser extent.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

So, how would YOU control these prisoners that have nothing whatsoever to stop them re-offending again in prison? Shackle them up 24hrs a day? It takes seconds to knife a warden or other inmate!

And what about future full term lifers? Or do you imagine for one minute that figure won't grow in the future?

You put them in the appropriate prison and counsel them but let them know in uncertain terms that their level of behaviour really does affect their level if treatment.

Aaaah. So, these prisoners would behave because they would have their telly privillages revoked if they slashed a wardens throat for example?

Are you suggesting a judge when sentencing should take into consideration how the prisoner may behave whilst in jail ? "

Nope. But isn't the prisners behaviour in jail part of his rehabilitation? Doesn't a prisoner need sme sort of incentive to to behave? Other than missing a weeks episode of eastenders!

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"It appears that we all (mostly) agree that some degree of human rights under the HRA apply to everyone just not necessarily which ones or to which degree. As a rule I suspect this means the judgement is correct as we were never going to gain consensus on the decision and what we did get has disappointed everyone to a greater or lesser extent. "

But if the judgment disappointment everyone (your words, maybe a typo ? ) then obviously it is the wrong one.

Sorry if I've misread what you'd written but that's how it sounds.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

So, how would YOU control these prisoners that have nothing whatsoever to stop them re-offending again in prison? Shackle them up 24hrs a day? It takes seconds to knife a warden or other inmate!

And what about future full term lifers? Or do you imagine for one minute that figure won't grow in the future?

You put them in the appropriate prison and counsel them but let them know in uncertain terms that their level of behaviour really does affect their level if treatment.

Aaaah. So, these prisoners would behave because they would have their telly privillages revoked if they slashed a wardens throat for example?

Are you suggesting a judge when sentencing should take into consideration how the prisoner may behave whilst in jail ?

Nope. But isn't the prisners behaviour in jail part of his rehabilitation? Doesn't a prisoner need sme sort of incentive to to behave? Other than missing a weeks episode of eastenders! "

But whole life termers aren't in there for rehabilitation they are in there to protect the public. And you know as well as I do that we are not talking about TV privileges.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

So, how would YOU control these prisoners that have nothing whatsoever to stop them re-offending again in prison? Shackle them up 24hrs a day? It takes seconds to knife a warden or other inmate!

And what about future full term lifers? Or do you imagine for one minute that figure won't grow in the future?

You put them in the appropriate prison and counsel them but let them know in uncertain terms that their level of behaviour really does affect their level if treatment.

Aaaah. So, these prisoners would behave because they would have their telly privillages revoked if they slashed a wardens throat for example?

Are you suggesting a judge when sentencing should take into consideration how the prisoner may behave whilst in jail ?

Nope. But isn't the prisners behaviour in jail part of his rehabilitation? Doesn't a prisoner need sme sort of incentive to to behave? Other than missing a weeks episode of eastenders!

But whole life termers aren't in there for rehabilitation they are in there to protect the public. And you know as well as I do that we are not talking about TV privileges. "

What 'privilages' are you talking about then? Meals? Clothes? The 1 hour exercise period?

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

So, how would YOU control these prisoners that have nothing whatsoever to stop them re-offending again in prison? Shackle them up 24hrs a day? It takes seconds to knife a warden or other inmate!

And what about future full term lifers? Or do you imagine for one minute that figure won't grow in the future?

You put them in the appropriate prison and counsel them but let them know in uncertain terms that their level of behaviour really does affect their level if treatment.

Aaaah. So, these prisoners would behave because they would have their telly privillages revoked if they slashed a wardens throat for example?

Are you suggesting a judge when sentencing should take into consideration how the prisoner may behave whilst in jail ?

Nope. But isn't the prisners behaviour in jail part of his rehabilitation? Doesn't a prisoner need sme sort of incentive to to behave? Other than missing a weeks episode of eastenders!

But whole life termers aren't in there for rehabilitation they are in there to protect the public. And you know as well as I do that we are not talking about TV privileges.

What 'privilages' are you talking about then? Meals? Clothes? The 1 hour exercise period?"

If your way of debating is to make the person opposing you look silly then I'd rather not play. So far you have suggested that I want to shackle prisoners twenty four hours a day. Then you imply that I am worried about how much TV they watch, now you are suggesting I don't want prisoners fed or clothed. If you can't keep it sensible then I shall cease to reply.

Privelages in prison encompass a whole range of things from how long you are allowed to mingle with the prison population to what job you are allowed to undertake. All of these make the prisoners life inside more bearable to a degree.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

But if the judgment disappointment everyone (your words, maybe a typo ? ) then obviously it is the wrong one.

Sorry if I've misread what you'd written but that's how it sounds. "

Phone predictive typing!

If it disappoints all of us for the same reason then yes. But if it's in the middle of all of them then yes it's correct decision.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *rumCoupleCouple
over a year ago

birmingham

The jury sits in judgement.

The Judge, Sheriff, Magistrate etc apply the law as befits the case.

The judge also sits in judgement in cases and can direct a jury so they both judge and apply the law

I suggest people read about jury nullification. We are allowed to use our consciences you know.

What do you suggest? Diplock? Trial by ordeal?

I was countering the incorrect point of view that a juror has to vote a certain way "because of the law". If, as a juror, you disagree with the law, then you have the privilege of being able to vote "not guilty", no matter what the judge may think or say. There are a few cases where, no matter what the evidence, I would refuse to return a guilty verdict for.

Remember Clive Ponting ? Despite his admitting his guilt, a jury decided he was innocent, and cleared him, much to Mrs Thatchers fury.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"ECHR has got it right today in my opinion.

I agree, after all there is no better torture than the removal of hope, so the chance to do that every few years by refusing parole should be re-instated... think the whole life sentence was only really introduced to make a good headline anyway.