"Whole life" sentences for Serial Killers breaches "Human Rights"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23230419

3 convicted Serial Killers have won an appeal at the European Court of Human Rights against "whole-life tariffs" were they are sentenced to jail for the rest of their life without possibility of parole (except on compassionate grounds). One is convicted of killing five family members, another four gay men 'for sexual gratification' and the third admitted killing his wife AFTER having already spent nine years in prison for murdering a colleague. That someone should be released after 9 years for murder to kill again then to be released again in the future is sickening.

I don't believe in the Death Penalty due to the risk of executing an innocent, however when the Death Penalty was abolished in this country the idea was that life sentences would serve instead. Then the concept of a life-sentence has been eroded again and again until ultimately we've had to use the term "whole-life" sentence to mean what life itself should mean (and only 49 people in the entire country have such a sentence) but instead now that too is illegal.

When the European Convention on Human Rights was passed we had the Death Penalty, the Convention was passed to prevent a repeat of the abuses of Nazi and other regimes that had just happened not to mean murderers must have the possibility of being released. Murderers unless acquitted should not be released and bullshit like this court case if anything tempts me to want to see a restoration of the Death Penalty instead.

This is the case of one of the animals whose Human Rights are being violated by being properly sentenced by a court to a whole life tariff. If we had the Death Penalty he'd get it for this I'd think.

Quote:

---

Wife murderer will 'die in jail'
21 Apr 08 16:38

A convicted murderer from Teesside has been told he will die in prison after strangling and stabbing his wife.
Douglas Vinter, 38, was separated from Anne White when he stabbed her to death at his mother's house in February.
The bodybuilder, who was released from prison in 2005 after serving nine years for killing a workmate, later told police "I had my reasons".
Vinter, of no fixed address, admitted murder and was given a whole life sentence at Teesside Crown Court.
The court heard how he met Ms White while on prison leave, and the pair married in 2006.
They separated seven months later, after Vinter twice beat her at their home in Eston.
She was out with friends on 10 February when he bundled her into a car and took her to his mother's house in Normanby.

'Extreme violence'
Police found her body in the kitchen when Vinter, who used anabolic steroids and had been drinking and taking cocaine, handed himself into police the following morning.
Ms White had been strangled and stabbed four times, and two knives - one of them broken in half - were found on the floor.
The Recorder of Middlesbrough, Judge Peter Fox QC, said: "The extreme violence which you used is described as continuing, as far as can be seen.
"You therefore fall into that small category of people who should be deprived permanently of their liberty. I therefore pass a whole life sentence."
Vinter, formerly a railway signalman, was jailed in 1996 for the knife murder of train worker Robert Eden, 24, in a railway cabin.

---

He would have been 26 when he first murdered Robert Eden, then he gets released to get married, twice beat her up before stabbing her viciously to death just like he'd stabbed to death his first victim. But its "inhuman or degrading punishment" to lock up for life this repeated murderer when at the time that we passed the Convention he'd have got the Death Penalty for either of those offences let alone both.

Agreed, the sentences in these instances should remain whole life tariffs.

I'm interested to know what the conditions of 'life' sentences are in other EU countries?

Sentencing as a whole in the UK needs a major review however.

It was only a matter of time after capital punishment was banned. Can't wait until all sentences over a decade are considered to be human rights violations.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23230419

3 convicted Serial Killers have won an appeal at the European Court of Human Rights against "whole-life tariffs" were they are sentenced to jail for the rest of their life without possibility of parole (except on compassionate grounds). One is convicted of killing five family members, another four gay men 'for sexual gratification' and the third admitted killing his wife AFTER having already spent nine years in prison for murdering a colleague. That someone should be released after 9 years for murder to kill again then to be released again in the future is sickening.

I don't believe in the Death Penalty due to the risk of executing an innocent, however when the Death Penalty was abolished in this country the idea was that life sentences would serve instead. Then the concept of a life-sentence has been eroded again and again until ultimately we've had to use the term "whole-life" sentence to mean what life itself should mean (and only 49 people in the entire country have such a sentence) but instead now that too is illegal.

When the European Convention on Human Rights was passed we had the Death Penalty, the Convention was passed to prevent a repeat of the abuses of Nazi and other regimes that had just happened not to mean murderers must have the possibility of being released. Murderers unless acquitted should not be released and bullshit like this court case if anything tempts me to want to see a restoration of the Death Penalty instead.

---

After skimming through the ruling I come to the conclusion the court doesn't say life sentences are in violation per se. They say they are in violation if the court sentencing is obliged to it. I am pretty certain that people who serve a life sentence in Holland (where we don't have a mandatory life sentence) will not benefit from this ruling.

The ruling is a blow for mandatory sentencing, not for life sentences.

Shameful to give a mandatory sentence to a serial killer...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

Shameful to give a mandatory sentence to a serial killer...

---

Yes, it runs counter to the principle that punishing should be done under judicial scrutiny. If these cases had originated in The Netherlands, then most likely the ruling would have concluded that a life sentence under our system is in accordance with article 3. For the simple reason that a court has weighed the severity of the necessary sentence rather than imposing a set sentence.

Outside of the UK this ruling is a non-event.

Apparently judges should be free to determine sentences without public oversight. Great way to create a judicial dictatorship.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

Apparently judges should be free to determine sentences without public oversight. Great way to create a judicial dictatorship.

---

Why have judges in the criminal system at all? Or any judges? Legislators obviously can make such perfect laws that their application without any human intervention should be entirely possible. Come to think of it, we don't need an executive either.

Okay so who sentenced these people to life in prison without review and hope of parole in the first place?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hazir

After skimming through the ruling I come to the conclusion the court doesn't say life sentences are in violation per se. They say they are in violation if the court sentencing is obliged to it. I am pretty certain that people who serve a life sentence in Holland (where we don't have a mandatory life sentence) will not benefit from this ruling.

The ruling is a blow for mandatory sentencing, not for life sentences.

---

That is categorically not my understanding and does not appear in any news article. Whole life sentences are already applied by judicial review only and are not set automatically. I personally think it should be automatic for all killers but there are more than 49 murderers in this country. There are more than 49 serial killers in this country. It is only currently the 49 most extreme and vicious killers who have had these sentences imposed by judges. The most recent being Dale Cregan who murdered 2 other people then made a hoax call to the Police and murdered the two female Police Officers who'd arrived to investigate his call. He also tried to murder 3 other people. The judge sentenced him two a whole-life tariff but many others have been convicted of one or more people and not been sentenced to whole life tariffs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

Okay so who sentenced these people to life in prison without review and hope of parole in the first place?

---

The judges who sentenced them. Read as an example the quote from the judge in the second post I made. Or this article on Dale Cregan's sentencing with a quote from the judge who sentenced that tariff.

In the ruling they clarify that one way the UK can comply with the ECHR is to reinstate the 25-year review and let that review be conducted within the judicial process.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

The judges who sentenced them. Read as an example the quote from the judge in the second post I made. Or this article on Dale Cregan's sentencing with a quote from the judge who sentenced that tariff.

---

So basically they were free to determine sentences that would last for ever without oversight?

You are right that I missed something in my first reading, the Court also says there must be a system (they don't define this) in place to review after a period (they tend to, after 25 years of the punishment served) if the sentence is still necessary. Again, the ruling is a non-event in Holland as somebody who serves a life sentence has no right of parole nor pardon (not even the limited right they could have under the UK law), but can address a civil court in order to test if his sentence is still justifiable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

In the ruling they clarify that one way the UK can comply with the ECHR is to reinstate the 25-year review and let that review be conducted within the judicial process.

---

Why should there be a 25-year review in the punishment for such crimes? If the facts change the case can be appealed.

Quote:

---

So basically they were free to determine sentences that would last for ever without oversight?

---

No, there's the legal framework the judges acted within, plus there's an Appeals process for oversight if they think the sentence is too harsh. Those who brought this case had already had the oversight of both the law and making Appeals (which they'd lost).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hazir

You are right that I missed something in my first reading, the Court also says there must be a system (they don't define this) in place to review after a period (they tend to, after 25 years of the punishment served) if the sentence is still necessary. Again, the ruling is a non-event in Holland as somebody who serves a life sentence has no right of parole nor pardon (not even the limited right they could have under the UK law), but can address a civil court in order to test if his sentence is still justifiable.

---

So after 25 years will the victim's no longer be dead? :confused: No facts are going to change between now and 25 year's time but if any new facts do appear then there can be an immediate appeal rather than a meaningless 25-year review that just causes heartache to the victims families (or risks them being released).

But seriously though why not just execute people who're sentenced to "life for reals"?

Because they lose the ability to prove themselves innocent and thus be released if the facts change in the future. Otherwise I'd be OK with executing these people and "life for reals" as you call it is a prison alternative to the death penalty.

Do you believe in life for reals for rape and other forms of assault?

Personally I believe in much longer sentences yes than for just the 49 most heinous serial killers our courts have sentenced yes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

Personally I believe in much longer sentences yes than for just the 49 most heinous serial killers our courts have sentenced yes.

---

Yes I realise that but do you believe all rapists and thugs should be sentenced to life in prison without hope of parole or even review?

I find it amusing that the same people who were arguing against the death penalty by saying that there's an alternative punishment for keeping criminals in prison for life are now arguing against that alternative punishment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

Yes I realise that but do you believe all rapists and thugs should be sentenced to life in prison without hope of parole or even review?

---

I believe courts should be able to impose a whole life tariff for the worst rapists and child abusers etc yes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

I find it amusing that the same people who were arguing against the death penalty by saying that there's an alternative punishment for keeping criminals in prison for life are now arguing against that alternative punishment.

---

This. Exactly.

Next it'll be that minimum sentences (25 years or whatever) are inhumane and that it should be possible to have a parole review at any stage.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

I believe courts should be able to impose a whole life tariff for the worst rapists and child abusers etc yes.

---

That's not an answer to the question I asked. If someone beats you up, do you think he SHOULD be sentenced to life in prison without hope of parole or review?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

I find it amusing that the same people who were arguing against the death penalty by saying that there's an alternative punishment for keeping criminals in prison for life are now arguing against that alternative punishment.

---

I find it amusing that you as usual don't know what you're talking about :o

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

Why should there be a 25-year review in the punishment for such crimes? If the facts change the case can be appealed.
No, there's the legal framework the judges acted within, plus there's an Appeals process for oversight if they think the sentence is too harsh. Those who brought this case had already had the oversight of both the law and making Appeals (which they'd lost).
So after 25 years will the victim's no longer be dead? :confused: No facts are going to change between now and 25 year's time but if any new facts do appear then there can be an immediate appeal rather than a meaningless 25-year review that just causes heartache to the victims families (or risks them being released).

---

A sentence balances retribution and protection of society. Where the facts concerning the crime do not change, the facts concerning protection of society indeed can change. You can of course join the kind of idiots that saddled America with millions of sex offenders who very often didn't do much more than take a leak outside, but I prefer a more intelligent system of justice. If somebody has served the part of his sentence that punishes then it should be considered if he still poses a threath to society.

And FYI; I am not an opponent of the Death penalty. I have some reservations about it in the hands of the legal system of the USA, not about capital punishment itself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

I believe courts should be able to impose a whole life tariff for the worst rapists and child abusers etc yes.

.

---

So what's your problem with this ruling? Because judges will be able to impose those. The only thing the ruling demands is that after some time another judge has a look at whether it is still just that a person stays in prison.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

That's not an answer to the question I asked. If someone beats you up, do you think he SHOULD be sentenced to life in prison without hope of parole or review?

---

No. I view there as being a difference between murder and beating someone up.

Quote:

---

I find it amusing that you as usual don't know what you're talking about :o

---

He's right. Life without parole was the alternative to the Death Penalty and now its being removed. Which has nothing to do with the European Convention of Human Rights, the same people who wrote the ECHR are the ones who not just ran Death Penalty societies but also organised the Nuremberg Trials to execute those who commited the atrocities that inspired it. So why would they think it was being written to ban life sentences let alone the Death Penalty?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hazir

A sentence balances retribution and protection of society. Where the facts concerning the crime do not change, the facts concerning protection of society indeed can change. You can of course join the kind of idiots that saddled America with millions of sex offenders who very often didn't do much more than take a leak outside, but I prefer a more intelligent system of justice. If somebody has served the part of his sentence that punishes then it should be considered if he still poses a threath to society.

---

For some people the punishment part of the sentence will be imprisonment for the rest of their life. People like those who've stabbed to death and beaten up multiple people, or those who've tortured then murdered five children, or someone who murdered multiple people then lured two Police Officers to then kill them etc

It is not possible for Dale Cregan to ever finish the punishment part and still be alive. His punishment will be until he dies, that's what the Judge sentenced.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hazir

So what's your problem with this ruling? Because judges will be able to impose those. The only thing the ruling demands is that after some time another judge has a look at whether it is still just that a person stays in prison.

---

No the judges won't be able to impose those. If someone is reviewing parole in the future then its not life without parole.

I'm not even going to try; the inconsistencies in your own ideas about what constitutes justice are to big to expect a reasonable debate with you.

You don't even see that what you vehemently defend in the case of capital punishment is what you just as vehemently attack in this ruling.

I've been quiet because I more or less agree with the things you've said Hazir, but I'm not seeing what you claim in that last line. Appeals on matters of fact remain either way but this hearing the European Court is mandating is not in any way an evidentiary hearing, it's a hearing on whether the remainder of the sentence should be carried out provided there aren't any successful future appeals. What Rand is defending in his opposition to the death penalty is the ability to reverse a judgement to real (as opposed to posthumous) effect. What the Court wants are commutation hearings. Which would be even better than being paroled. Or am I misunderstanding something?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hazir

I'm not even going to try; the inconsistencies in your own ideas about what constitutes justice are to big to expect a reasonable debate with you.

You don't even see that what you vehemently defend in the case of capital punishment is what you just as vehemently attack in this ruling.

---

I believe that capital punishment if it could safely be known wouldn't execute an innocent is appropriate. But that can never be guaranteed so I believe in life without parole as the appropriate equivalent alternative. Because you can release an innocent man after evidentiary hearings prove him innocent, you can't unexecute them.

The ruling and your argument is based in part on the notion of rehabilitation. There can be no rehabilitation for these people. Even if they're rehabilitated the punishment is for their whole life - like those lives they brutally ended. There is no need to hold a parole hearing unless you're open to the idea of them being released on parole if supposedly rehabilitated (like one of them already was released only to kill again).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy

I've been quiet because I more or less agree with the things you've said Hazir, but I'm not seeing what you claim in that last line. Appeals on matters of fact remain either way but this hearing the European Court is mandating is not in any way an evidentiary hearing, it's a hearing on whether the remainder of the sentence should be carried out provided there aren't any successful future appeals. What Rand is defending in his opposition to the death penalty is the ability to reverse a judgement to real (as opposed to posthumous) effect. What the Court wants are commutation hearings. Which would be even better than being paroled. Or am I misunderstanding something?

---

Surely the seriousness of a crime is based on the time when the crime is committed, not 25 years down the line? Even if society 25 years from now decides that serial killers shouldn't serve life in prison, why should that effect legal decisions made at a time when society (including the judiciary) thought otherwise?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

Surely the seriousness of a crime is based on the time when the crime is committed, not 25 years down the line? Even if society 25 years from now decides that serial killers shouldn't serve life in prison, why should that effect legal decisions made at a time when society (including the judiciary) thought otherwise?

---

If society does think that then they can change the law themselves democratically at the time and implement it retrospectively. There's no need to pre-empt that though. This decision is about nothing more than divorcing punishment from justice and pushing the notion of rehabilitation into all cases. Rehabilitation has no business here.