Fury in Britain as European Human Rights judges rule all have right to seek parole

New Posts

wfgodot

wfgodot

Former Member
Joined
Mar 4, 2009
Messages
30,166
Reaction score
727
Always wanted to start a threadline with the word "fury"! Very tabloid. And not all in Britain are in a furor. From Daily Mail:

What about the victims' rights? Meddling European judges rule even Britain's most evil killers have human right to seek freedom
Victims’ families reacted with fury last night after European judges ruled serial killers must be given the right to seek parole.

In a hugely provocative decision, Strasbourg said murderers and rapists condemned to die behind bars must now be given a chance of freedom.

The families said the idea of the killers walking Britain’s streets again was a ‘horrendous prospect’ and ‘life must mean life’.

The whole-life tariff applies to 48 men and one woman – Rose West – whose crimes courts regard as so heinous they must never be let out.

But three of them – Jeremy Bamber, Douglas Vinter and Peter Moore – appealed to Europe, saying their sentences ‘undermined human dignity and destroyed the human spirit’. Vinter and Bamber even claimed their time in jail had left them ‘depressed and in despair’.

Yesterday the highest body of the European Court of Human Rights, the Grand Chamber, agreed with them.
---
Click to expand...
L-o-n-g article with many pictures at the link; here's also, in DM....

49 monsters given hope of freedom: They're the UK's most notorious killers, now they can seek parole

With the 49 listed, and with pictures.
 
Ill wait for the Guardian to chime in. The Daily Wail is really living up to its nickname with this story lol. Very inflammatory, and whipping up the usual anti-European biases of the Anglo-American audience.
 
Well it seems to me that all the ruling does really is say that with life cases there should be a way for them to be reviewed - not that anyone serving life can or must be released.

It seems reasonable to me, but then I'm a bleeding heart pinko, and I do believe that rehabilitation is possible (not that it always happens, in reality, but that it is possible - and that seems to me all that the ruling is acknowledging, and so a review should be available to the convicted).
 
I'm for the whole-life tariff in many if not all of the cases here with which I'm familiar. There is no need for a review in certain of them.
 
Here are the ones I'd never review, ones I do know something about, having read of the cases (I'm following the order they're listed in the second DM link in OP):

Ian Brady
Rose West
Dale Cregan
Dennis Nilsen
Peter Sutcliffe
Steven Wright

These I'd not review as the person has killed at least on two occasions, the second time after a previous conviction for murder, or during his time of incarceration for that murder:

Douglas Vinter
Robert Maudsley
Malcom Green
Royston Jackson
Desmond Lee
Andrew Dawson
David Cook

Jeremy Bamber's case enjoyed an extensive review recently and the conviction was found just. No more reviews for Jeremy Bamber then.

Many of the others are not worthy of review either, I think, but I don't know the cases well enough to comment.
 
I find myself in agreement with the solicitor quoted at the end of the Guardian article:

Commenting on the decision, Rebecca Niblock, a criminal law solicitor at Kingsley Napley LLP, said: "No doubt there will be renewed calls to pull out of the European convention on human rights and repeal the Human Rights Act. Yet Theresa May would do well to keep a sense of proportion: a right to have the sentence reviewed is quite different from a right to be released, and the number of prisoners affected is tiny – 49."

"England and Wales lag behind other European countries in the use of the whole-life sentence – the only other EU country which uses it is Holland. The repeated calls to withdraw from the European convention carry a huge risk of undermining the UK's reputation abroad. There is only so much the UK can say to other countries about their human rights records when they show disdain for judgments which go against them at Strasbourg.

"Making political capital at the expense of the rule of law is a dangerous game."
Click to expand...

Not as familiar with the sentencing practices/guidelines in England and Wales as I am here, but I'm comfortable in assuming that what she says regarding those two goes at least double for us here in the US.

On another note, now you've given me a few cases to look up with your last post, wfgodot! Familiar with about half the names, but some I've never heard at all yet, and I need some new (crime related) reading material.
 
I'd like to see those judges be made to live in a Big Brother style house with all persons on that laundry-list of foul murderers for at least a month - with ample reading matter at hand on all their various crimes - and see how safe THEY feel being surrounded by 'em!
 
Just My opinion but...
The irony of these murderers Lawyers playing off the back of a 'Human Rights' card - the hypocrisy!

I can see this becoming a very bad decision, and unfortunately it wont be recognized until there are more victims from the hands of these killers who got parole.
 
You do realise this is a fuss about nothing from people with a pre-determined anti-Europe agenda? There are about 50 prisoners in England and Wales serving whole life tarrifs, and currently it is already legal for the Home Secretary to review their sentence and reduce it. All the ECHR has ruled is that such decisions shouldn't lie with politicians but with independent judicial panels.

Basically they're ruling that the law in England and Wales should be the same as already exists in Scotland and Northern Ireland.

Wfgodot - there are a few red herrings in your list. Ian Brady and Peter Sutcliffe aren't covered by this ruling because they are not in the prison system, but held under the mental health laws as they are both judged legally insane. Jeremy Bamber absolutely should have his sentence reviewed again because the trial judge didn't sentence him to a full life tarrif, that was the Home Secretary's interference. Maybe Bamber does deserve to spend the rest of his life in prison, but decisions like that should be made by judges and not by politicians playing to the gallery.
 
Sonya610 said:
Glad to see all the pictures are of white people. Apparently immigration has impacted the UK in a very positive way!
Click to expand...

What does the race of any given defendant have to do with the laws about human rights?
 
Cappuccino said:
You do realise this is a fuss about nothing from people with a pre-determined anti-Europe agenda? There are about 50 prisoners in England and Wales serving whole life tarrifs, and currently it is already legal for the Home Secretary to review their sentence and reduce it. All the ECHR has ruled is that such decisions shouldn't lie with politicians but with independent judicial panels.

Basically they're ruling that the law in England and Wales should be the same as already exists in Scotland and Northern Ireland.

Wfgodot - there are a few red herrings in your list. Ian Brady and Peter Sutcliffe aren't covered by this ruling because they are not in the prison system, but held under the mental health laws as they are both judged legally insane. Jeremy Bamber absolutely should have his sentence reviewed again because the trial judge didn't sentence him to a full life tarrif, that was the Home Secretary's interference. Maybe Bamber does deserve to spend the rest of his life in prison, but decisions like that should be made by judges and not by politicians playing to the gallery.
Click to expand...
Good post, though I might suggest that "the gallery" are nothing other than the voting public, and that "pre-determined positions" are nothing other than consistent positions on a given topic.

Brady's attempt to re-enter the judicial system was recently thwarted. Back to Ashworth with him. Sutcliffe remains at Broadmoor. It is unknown how ECHR's human rights pronouncement will affect either case as yet.

Bamber was recently denied full review after a lengthy and careful process. He remains the convicted murderer of five family members including young twins.

Time moves in one direction: forward. Continual review of past convictions on little evidence only makes mock of an excellent judicial system and, in addition, drains time, talent, and treasure from the present and future decisions that that system must make.

Excellent point on the remit of the Home Secretary.

The country of Magna Carta needs no lecture on human rights.
 
 
Brady's attempt to re-enter the judicial system was recently thwarted. Back to Ashworth with him. Sutcliffe remains at Broadmoor. It is unknown how ECHR's human rights pronouncement will affect either case as yet.
Click to expand...

Its not unknown at all - it does not affect either of them. Both of their cases have always been handled under the mental health laws, and this judgement makes no difference to them.

Bamber was recently denied full review after a lengthy and careful process. He remains the convicted murderer of five family members including young twins.
Click to expand...

He remains convicted on a majority verdict, and under a sentence that was interfered with by a politician. Both of those things would be illegal in your country. If Bamber was an American he would be a free man right now.

The country of Magna Carta needs no lecture on human rights.
Click to expand...

I'm afraid it does, or at least a reminder that they were a founding member of the ECHR, under Winston Churchill.

Britain needs a reminder that if you deport someone to a country that practices torture, or would use evidence extracted under torture against you, then you are breaching human rights. Sad, but true.
 
Cappuccino said:
He remains convicted on a majority verdict, and under a sentence that was interfered with by a politician. Both of those things would be illegal in your country. If Bamber was an American he would be a free man right now.

Britain needs a reminder that if you deport someone to a country that practices torture, or would use evidence extracted under torture against you, then you are breaching human rights. Sad, but true.
Click to expand...
Point the first, I am not sure why this is in any way relevant as Bamber was tried and convicted in the country in which he was born and resided and killed.

The second, yes, an onerous thing, I fully agree. It's always a bit of a shocker however when countries which within living memory practiced genocide, capitulated to Nazism, and were governed for decades afterward by fascists can in any way be said to be of use in imparting this wisdom. And adding this branch of discussion to the context of the OP above - rights for prisoners who have been convicted of murder to seek parole - is extending its context in a manner suggestive of the red herring.

It didn't make the snip but Sutcliffe has already been moaning about his "human rights" and their violation (see WS link above) and it is thought by some that Brady's attempt to re-enter the prison system was made exactly so that he would benefit if any sort of re-hearing of his odious case, in order to seek eventual release.
 
Point the first, I am not sure why this is in any way relevant as Bamber was tried and convicted in the country in which he was born and resided and killed.
Click to expand...

Its relevant because you are an American citizen pronouncing on a verdict and sentence that would be illegal in your own country. If Jeremy Bamber was a US citizen, he would be free right now, guilty or innocent.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 151 more.
Total: 3,522 (members: 152, guests: 3,370)

Online statistics

Members online
152
Guests online
3,370
Total visitors
3,522
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
592,270
Messages
17,966,479
Members
228,735
Latest member
dil2288
Back
Top