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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

Yeah because the British have a judicial system that ONLY punishes. Because Britain has only ever had 49 people alive convicted.

Try dealing with some facts and not hyperbole :rolleyes:

---

Hazir perhaps misworded but if so you still willfully followed the letter and not the plain spirit of what he wrote. What he (and the court) meant is that you can't ever have your penal system only punish someone (not everyone, but anyone). That there is no such thing as a sentence that is or can be justified purely on punishment grounds. If it doesn't have all the other components necessary (such as rehabilitation or protection of the public), then it is very much in the wrong.

And using that logic, I fail to see why the Court would object to a serial killer being let out once he atones for his mistakes and is judged highly unlikely to ever commit murder again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy

Hazir perhaps misworded but if so you still willfully followed the letter and not the plain spirit of what he wrote. What he (and the court) meant is that you can't ever have your penal system only punish someone (not everyone, but anyone). That there is no such thing as a sentence that is or can be justified purely on punishment grounds. If it doesn't have all the other components necessary (such as rehabilitation or protection of the public), then it is very much in the wrong.

---

Which is something I vehemently disagree with - and something never agreed in any form of law we have passed but rather invented by the judges and supported based on other nations laws. That'd be like SCOTUS determining your laws based solely on Canadian court decisions rather than your own Constitution.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ECtHR

111. It is axiomatic that a prisoner cannot be detained unless there are legitimate penological grounds for that detention. As was recognised by the Court of Appeal in Bieber and the Chamber in its judgment in the present case, these grounds will include punishment, deterrence, public protection and rehabilitation.

---

Punishment is in itself a legitimate grounds for incarceration. Certain crimes ought to be in themselves so beyond the pale that a sentence entirely consisting of punishment ought to be available.

Maybe we should switch to the US system of consecutive rather than concurrent sentences and let people serve 2/3rds of a 450 year sentence?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

Which is something I vehemently disagree with - and something never agreed in any form of law we have passed but rather invented by the judges and supported based on other nations laws. That'd be like SCOTUS determining your laws based solely on Canadian court decisions rather than your own Constitution.

---

No, it would be more like SCOTUS determining a territory's law based on jurisprudence by states. We are not in any sort joint supranational relationship with Canada. You guys are actively trying to harmonize your legal and judicial environments. Now that's general and this is specific but Rand, you really need to accept that so long as the UK is in the EU, Parliament is not supreme. Parliament can of course regain its supremacy by backing out of the project but the treaties it has signed have it acknowledging other "higher" authorities right now.

Quote:

---

Punishment is in itself a legitimate grounds for incarceration. Certain crimes ought to be in themselves so beyond the pale that a sentence entirely consisting of punishment ought to be available.

---

Include is in no way synonymous with "consists solely of." And you have repeatedly said in this thread that the sentences are justified if they do. You're free to your opinions of course, but they still won't matter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy

No, it would be more like SCOTUS determining a territory's law based on jurisprudence by states. We are not in any sort joint supranational relationship with Canada. You guys are actively trying to harmonize your legal and judicial environments. Now that's general and this is specific but Rand, you really need to accept that so long as the UK is in the EU, Parliament is not supreme. Parliament can of course regain its supremacy by backing out of the project but the treaties it has signed have it acknowledging other "higher" authorities right now.

---

This is simply incorrect as the ECtHR != EU. The European Court of Human Rights is for not simply the nations of the EU (which has the wholy separate and unrelated European Court of Justice as its court) and its judgements ought not to bear any relation whatsoever to the EU which isn't even a signatory to the ECHR in its own right. The European Court of Justice was created at a similar time to the United Nations and has 47 member nations including the likes of Turkey, Russia, Ukraine, Azerbaijan and many more. It is not and never intended to be a federal body.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

This is simply incorrect as the ECtHR != EU. The European Court of Human Rights is for not simply the nations of the EU (which has the wholy separate and unrelated European Court of Justice as its court) and its judgements ought not to bear any relation whatsoever to the EU which isn't even a signatory to the ECHR in its own right. The European Court of Justice was created at a similar time to the United Nations and has 47 member nations including the likes of Turkey, Russia, Ukraine, Azerbaijan and many more. It is not and never intended to be a federal body.

---

Well now I'm even more confused than before. The ECHR isn't just for the EU (that's apparently the ECJ) but the ECJ was created around the UN and includes countries like Azerbaikan?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

This is simply incorrect as the ECtHR != EU. The European Court of Human Rights is for not simply the nations of the EU (which has the wholy separate and unrelated European Court of Justice as its court) and its judgements ought not to bear any relation whatsoever to the EU which isn't even a signatory to the ECHR in its own right.

---

http://hub.coe.int/what-we-do/human-...the-convention

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy

Well now I'm even more confused than before. The ECHR isn't just for the EU (that's apparently the ECJ) but the ECJ was created around the UN and includes countries like Azerbaikan?

---

ECJ = EU's highest Court.
ECtHR = 47 nations. From the European Convention of Human Rights (1948). Nothing to do with EU, Azerbaijan, Russia etc are in this one and it is this one which ruled on this case.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

http://hub.coe.int/what-we-do/human-...the-convention

---

Exactly, the EU is seeking to acceed to the ECHR. It is not currently a member. Nor is the EU the source of the ECtHR's obligations, that's the ECHR (Convention).

How is the membership of the EU itself relevant to this discussion? The membership of the COE and thus adhering to the Convention is a membership requirement as far as the EU is concerned. That means that even when LF got lost in the maze of supra-national bodies we have in Europe, what he said still holds true. The only way you can maintain the fiction of parliaments sovereignty is by ignoring the internation obligations of the UK.

It's the consistent problem people outside the UK have with the UK; you people don't understand international relations and the obligations that come with them for some odd reason. We don't give a flying fuck for the rights of your parliament to legislate if it does so in violation of the treaties it has signed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

ECJ = EU's highest Court.
ECtHR = 47 nations. From the European Convention of Human Rights (1948). Nothing to do with EU, Azerbaijan, Russia etc

---

Now you've said three different things about the role and jurisdiction of the courts, all of them contradicting each other.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hazir

How is the membership of the EU itself relevant to this discussion? The membership of the COE and thus adhering to the Convention is a membership requirement as far as the EU is concerned. That means that even when LF got lost in the maze of supra-national bodies we have in Europe, what he said still holds true. The only way you can maintain the fiction of parliaments sovereignty is by ignoring the internation obligations of the UK.

It's the consistent problem people outside the UK have with the UK; you people don't understand international relations and the obligations that come with them for some odd reason. We don't give a flying fuck for the rights of your parliament to legislate if it does so in violation of the treaties it has signed.

---

Except it doesn't. No treaty is violated, hence sourcing the decision on German sensibilities etc

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy

Now you've said three different things about the role and jurisdiction of the courts, all of them contradicting each other.

---

No I've not. Please explain what you're confused about?

EDIT: I see I made a typo before which may have caused the confusion. The sentence was meant to read "The European Court of Human Rights was created at a similar time to the United Nations and has 47 member nations including the likes of Turkey, Russia, Ukraine, Azerbaijan and many more. It is not and never intended to be a federal body." Sorry for the confusion, it was a typo.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy

Now you've said three different things about the role and jurisdiction of the courts, all of them contradicting each other.

---

He's just trying to say that the ECtHR mostly only has to do with the ECHR which in turn mostly only has to do with the members of the Council of Europe. The CoE and the EU are separate and different entities in many ways. However, every single member of the EU is also a member of the CoE and party to the ECHR as well as other agreements. Moreover, EU laws are required to comply with the ECHR wrt the text as well as the ECtHR's case law. Finally, the EU will accede to the ECHR soon, now that the ECHR has been amended to allow it and now that the Lisbon treaty has called for it. I don't think the loopholes here are big enough to fit an entire kingdom's ego

Yes the ECtHR is nothing to do with the EU and even if the EU accedes it'd be another member like Russia and Azerbaijan. Now when LF said we were "harmonizing our legal and judicial environments" I would if he meant we were harmonizing it with Russia etc - somehow I doubt that was what was in mind.

And I wonder why the German court is relevant when there are 46 other nations in the CoE.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

Yes the ECtHR is nothing to do with the EU and even if the EU accedes it'd be another member like Russia and Azerbaijan. Now when LF said we were "harmonizing our legal and judicial environments" I would if he meant we were harmonizing it with Russia etc - somehow I doubt that was what was in mind.

---

You'd be correct. If there's any harmonising to be done it's to be guided by the ECHR. The fact that Russia is still in violation of the ECHR on numerous issues should tell you that any "harmonising" efforts by the ECtHR will not be directed towards turning the UK into Russia as it is today.

Quote:

---

And I wonder why the German court is relevant when there are 46 other nations in the CoE.

---

This is because you keep misunderstanding the case, the ruling and the ECtHR's practice. The German and the Italian courts were relevant because they ruled on cases relevant to the present case against the UK and they were referenced in acknowledgement of the reasoning they used in those cases. I'm fairly sure reasoning as a human practice and skill has existed for longer than there have been states such as Germany or the UK.

They were referenced as it suited the agenda of those writing new legislation as it was not in the treaty as passed 65 years ago or in any amendment Protocol ever passed and there was no other grounds for the decision.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

They were referenced as it suited the agenda of those writing new legislation as it was not in the treaty as passed 65 years ago or in any amendment Protocol ever passed and there was no other grounds for the decision.

---

I'd like to refer you once again to the ruling itself :confused:

Yes the ruling first states there are multiple facets for incarceration (including punishment) and then proceeds to use a Tautology to say that life without parole is wrong because people must always have the option for parole :bulb:. Tautologies make strange arguments, hence grasping at other nations.

As I've said repeatedly I've yet to see a non-tautological argument as to why no crime can ever be horrific enough to have a whole life sentence. And you just keep pointing back to the original tautology without expanding it at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

Yes the ruling first states there are multiple facets for incarceration (including punishment) and then proceeds to use a Tautology to say that life without parole is wrong because people must always have the option for parole :bulb:.

---

*shrugs* That's not what they did.

Quote:

---

As I've said repeatedly I've yet to see a non-tautological argument as to why no crime can ever be horrific enough to have a whole life sentence. And you just keep pointing back to the original tautology without expanding it at all.

---

Actually no I keep pointing to the original references to agreements the UK has made to make rehabilitation a focus of its penal system.

A focus. Not sole and exclusive focus. If you can point where we agreed to make 100% of cases solely include rehabilitation without a possibility than in the most extreme cases non-rehabilitiation focuses might come into play then I'll concede you're correct and I was wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

A focus. Not sole and exclusive focus. If you can point where we agreed to make 100% of cases solely include rehabilitation without a possibility than in the most extreme cases non-rehabilitiation focuses might come into play then I'll concede you're correct and I was wrong.

---

Why should I point out something that no-one has said? The court has not said that rehabilitation must be the only focus, nor has anyone here said that it must be. The court has said that you may not disregard aspects other than punishment and in support of that it has both reasoned (like eg. the German constitutional court) about what it means to act in accordance with a stated respect for human dignity as well as referred to agreements and policy recommendations to which the UK is a party. I refer you once again back to er the previous page.

But if rehabilitation is not the sole purpose then it ought to be possible for punishment to outweigh rehabilitation in the most extreme cases thus justifying a whole life in prison. Which was the UK's system - that only the most extreme cases judicially measured would have that. The only counter to that posited so far is that rehabilitation must always be an option which pushes rehabilitation first and foremost.

By guaranteeing there is always a possibility of parole you are valuing one strand over and above all others. It is equivalent to guaranteeing parole is never a possibility. It is a position of extreme inflexibility.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

But if rehabilitation is not the sole purpose then it ought to be possible for punishment to outweigh rehabilitation in the most extreme cases thus justifying a whole life in prison. Which was the UK's system - that only the most extreme cases judicially measured would have that. The only counter to that posited so far is that rehabilitation must always be an option which pushes rehabilitation first and foremost.

---

It does put it, if not first and foremost, then certainly ahead of punishment. So? No one has claimed, when it says that a functional and non-abusive penal system must balance rehabilitation, punishment, public safety and. . . I forget what the fourth interest was, that it must weigh them all equally. Anyway, punishment is not merely outweighing rehabilitation in a whole life sentence, it is replacing it entirely. That sentence makes punishment the sole and exclusive focus of the state action. And that violates the Court's understanding of human rights.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy

It does put it, if not first and foremost, then certainly ahead of punishment. So? No one has claimed, when it says that a functional and non-abusive penal system must balance rehabilitation, punishment, public safety and. . . I forget what the fourth interest was, that it must weigh them all equally. Anyway, punishment is not merely outweighing rehabilitation in a whole life sentence, it is replacing it entirely. That sentence makes punishment the sole and exclusive focus of the state action. And that violates the Court's understanding of human rights.

---

Why is it ahead of punishment? If it was then as Loki said a thief might get a longer sentence than a murderer as they could have a higher rate of recidivism. I refer again to the American concept of eg 350 year sentences. A UK sentence of a whole life punishment is our equivalent of this. It is a statement that the crime is so severe that the punishment exceeds the entire lifespan - and yes thus rehabilitiation (in that extraordinairily rare instance) is impossible. Would you be content for us to replace whole-life sentences with 350 year sentences with parole after 2/3rds time served?

A requirement for one of 4 reasons to apply does not mean that all 4 must be active simultaneously, it means at least 1 must be. If it is possible to grant a sentence that contains no punishment (eg the guy who was convicted of breaking into my and 19 other homes got a suspended sentence) then why is it not equally possible to contain a sentence that has no rehabilitation?

Which do you think is more common: Sentencing someone with no punishment, or sentencing someone with no possibility of parole?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

A requirement for one of 4 reasons to apply does not mean that all 4 must be active simultaneously, it means at least 1 must be.

---

Who required only one reason? Let me rephrase that: what entity not found to be in violation of the ECHR required only one reason--punishment--for life in prison?

Quote:

---

If it is possible to grant a sentence that contains no punishment (eg the guy who was convicted of breaking into my and 19 other homes got a suspended sentence) then why is it not equally possible to contain a sentence that has no rehabilitation?

---

No doubt it could be possible; however it isn't permitted by the agreements into which you've entered, both explicitly and as interpreted by the ECtHR, to exclude all other aspects of incarceration apart from punishment.

You keep bringing up this burglar. It would be helpful to know what the ruling really said, in that case.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

Let me rephrase that: what entity not found to be in violation of the ECHR required only one reason--punishment--for life in prison?

---

Do you even know the meaning to the word tautology?

Quote:

---

You keep bringing up this burglar. It would be helpful to know what the ruling really said, in that case.

---

Its just a personal experience. I wasn't there in court though the Police liason officer had assured me they expected incarceration based on the severity (20 offences) and the fact that this guy had previous for it - he had been convicted on multiple occassions in the past for the same offence and had served time for it in the past. I then got a very humble call from the officer to inform me the outcome of the case and then a letter in the post explaining it, since binned.

So who said the following:

Quote:

---

A requirement for one of 4 reasons to apply does not mean that all 4 must be active simultaneously, it means at least 1 must be.

---

Was it the ECtHR? Was it the UK?

I'd like to point out at this point in the debate that Randblade:

1. doesn't understand the role of the ECHR in relation to the EU (which relation exists due to the Lisbon Treaty); you can't be a member of the EU without recognizing the Court's jurisdiction.
2. doesn't understand the role of the ECHR as the Court of the COE and as sole interpretor of the Convention; a national government can have opinions on matters concerning the stipulations of the Convention, those opinions are NEVER of the same importance as the rulings of the Court on anything concerning the Convention.
3. doesn't understand the long history of penal law in the civilised world (including the UK) which for a long time has left the notion that the only purpose of a sentence should be punishing the convict.
4. doesn't understand that even if you entirely disregard all international and/or supra-national jurisprudence life term sentencing in the UK is an anomaly in the UK's own penal system.

Basically what we're dealing with is a version of Lewkowski that believes that 'frying them' is also bad so they should rot in prison.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

Why is it ahead of punishment? If it was then as Loki said a thief might get a longer sentence than a murderer as they could have a higher rate of recidivism.

---

Because numerous governance entities, including your own Parliament, have already decreed that standard for most cases.

Quote:

---

I refer again to the American concept of eg 350 year sentences. A UK sentence of a whole life punishment is our equivalent of this.

---

No it's not. Our equivalent of that is "life without parole." There may be some states which don't have a life without parole option and instead use the above but it's a meaningless construct because they still go up for parole. The subsequent sentences thing is pure showmanship, a way for politicians to appear harder on crime.

Quote:

---

A requirement for one of 4 reasons to apply does not mean that all 4 must be active simultaneously, it means at least 1 must be. If it is possible to grant a sentence that contains no punishment (eg the guy who was convicted of breaking into my and 19 other homes got a suspended sentence) then why is it not equally possible to contain a sentence that has no rehabilitation?

---

The court laid those four interests as the valid penological grounds for detention. It said any sentence has to balance how well it serves those interests. Extended detention does not serve the punishment interest. It becomes not a weight they have to deal with but just part of a prisoner's life. Are you sure you're recognizing the difference between punishment and retribution?

As for a sentence not having rehabilitation. . . do you think that guy was rehabilitated? Did his suspended sentence have any component to help him exist in society without causing further harm? No? Then I think you provided your own answer.

Quote:

---

Which do you think is more common: Sentencing someone with no punishment, or sentencing someone with no possibility of parole?

---

Doesn't matter. One of those has a human rights impact, the other does not.

Actually, all legalese aside; I prefer a penal system that leaves an opening for 'yes, this guy once was guilty of a attrocious crime, but he still doesn't belong in prison any longer'.

I'd prefer a system where someone couldn't permanently deprive innocent people of their life, liberty, and happiness, just to be allowed back into society at a later point. I fail to see why considerations for the well-being of a felon should take precedence over that of his victims.