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

[Hazir]

I am not and have never claimed to be a lawyer and I am even less familiar with the EU legal system but. . . I do find it odd/hard to understand how it is a violation of human rights to not have guaranteed judicial commutation hearings. I am aware that commutation (indeed, clemency of almost any kind, though not parole) has been primarily judicial in the UK for some time, but are there no countries in the EU that primarily exercise that power via a different branch of government?

I don't think I claimed the review should necessarily be done by a judge, that's also not what the Court demands. They demand a review mechanism be in place, without going as far as defining it.

[Hazir]

Ruled by exclusively? No.
Should they be taken into account significantly? Yes.

Sentencing the likes of these 49 worst-case offenders to life in prison without parole is the justice these families deserve. Giving the option of parole denies that justice and serves no just purpose for the punishment they deserve and have been sentenced for, for the crimes they're guilty of. I again ask for a reason why these serial murderers deserve a parole hearing? Why should the victims be tormented by it?

I think it's a given that their victims are actually beyond suffering. So who you are really talking about are third parties, who tend to be extremely vengeful. Very often to the point that they want the perp put to death. Their sense of justice can't be the justice we mete out as society. As society we have chosen a criminal justice system that not only punishes but that also rehabilitates where possible. If you contend that rehabilitation should be rejected in the sentencing then I say what's wrong with you that you want to base your justice on maintaining a permanent state of rage against a particular individual.

If you don't want to rehabilitate a criminal at all, then man up to the real choice and have them killed. That would be the humane punishment and would give the closure you put such great value on.

And just in case you forgot; I am one of those people who believe that if you don't think a criminal can be rehabilitated capital punishment should be available.

[Dreadnaught]

Which pretty much is exactly the opposite from what they said. What they say can be summed up as; society can't lock someone up, throw away the keys and forget about it.

Read! In the name of your lord, who created don't make me drag you by your lying sinful forelock just read what they actually said instead of making up fantasy rulings

You both keep using the word "whole life sentence". I am not sure you understand what this means.

Parole is not a human right. I would argue you have a human right to appeal your case on discovery of new evidence that exonerates you. But the ruling as I've read seems to be a pretty clear shot against the idea that someone can be locked-up for the rest of their lives, which is a legitimate sentencing and is surely more humane than executing them.

What, are EU courts now going to mandate that murderers must retire from their "jobs" attending prison at 80 and then be given a pension for their remaining days? What exactly is their goal here?

[Hazir]

You both keep using the word "whole life sentence". I am not sure you understand what this means.

Parole is not a human right. I would argue you have a human right to appeal your case on discovery of new evidence that exonerates you. But the ruling as I've read seems to be a pretty clear shot against the idea that someone can be locked-up for the rest of their lives, which is a legitimate sentencing and is surely more humane than executing them.

What, are EU courts now going to mandate that murderers must retire from their "jobs" attending prison at 80 and then be given a pension for their remaining days? What exactly is their goal here?

You clearly don't even try to look at what actually was ruled, don't expect a serious answer.

[Aimless]

Parole is not a human right. I would argue you have a human right to appeal your case on discovery of new evidence that exonerates you. But the ruling as I've read seems to be a pretty clear shot against the idea that someone can be locked-up for the rest of their lives

This is why I urged you to read. The court believes every EU citizen is entitled to have his life sentence reviewed from time to time to establish whether or not a life sentence is still warranted. The court does not state that you can't keep a person in jail for the rest of their natural lives.

The following statement is a summary of the court's position:

"Whole life orders should include the possibility of review but this should not be understood as giving the prospect of imminent release.

[...]

The finding of a violation in the applicants' cases should not be understood as giving them any prospect of imminent release. Whether or not they should be released would depend, for example, on whether there were still legitimate penological grounds for their continued detention and whether they should continue to be detained on grounds of dangerousness. These questions were not in issue."

[Aimless]

Further:

http://untreaty.un.org/cod/icc/statute/99_corr/10.htm

Article 110
Review by the Court concerning reduction of sentence

1. The State of enforcement shall not release the person before expiry of the sentence pronounced by the Court.

2. The Court alone shall have the right to decide any reduction of sentence, and shall rule on the matter after having heard the person.

3. When the person has served two thirds of the sentence, or 25 years in the case of life imprisonment, the Court shall review the sentence to determine whether it should be reduced. Such a review shall not be conducted before that time.

[Dreadnaught]

You clearly don't even try to look at what actually was ruled, don't expect a serious answer.

This is why I urged you to read. The court believes every EU citizen is entitled to have his life sentence reviewed from time to time to establish whether or not a life sentence is still warranted. The court does not state that you can't keep a person in jail for the rest of their natural lives.

The following statement is a summary of the court's position:

"Whole life orders should include the possibility of review but this should not be understood as giving the prospect of imminent release.

[...]

The finding of a violation in the applicants' cases should not be understood as giving them any prospect of imminent release. Whether or not they should be released would depend, for example, on whether there were still legitimate penological grounds for their continued detention and whether they should continue to be detained on grounds of dangerousness. These questions were not in issue."

I know. It's a sign of the disconnect here that I (and Rand) find the notion ridiculous, and that you two insist it must be because of a misunderstanding.

Why should sentences be re-reviewed in hindsight? The implication is that life sentencing is inherently immoral.

[Flixy]

Err, no, that's not the implication.

[Ominous Gamer]

Being incarcerated != Abused.

In theory, but not in practice, at least from what I understand concerning UK and US prisons. Crowding, gangs, etc. Even the kid who got locked up over a LoL joke got beat up in prison. and Cali is fighting a case right now about how the courts have ruled its overcrowding is abuse.

But Minx and OG seem to be arguing that rapists being in prison means that rapists need to be released from prison onto the streets to prevent prisoners from rape which is a bit

I'm still waiting for an explanation behind this train of thought
How correcting someone's fairytale misconceptions about prisons somehow makes me someone who wants rapists to go un-addressed.
Especially considering my examples involved a teen's facebook comment, and those locked up under minor drug offenses.

[Flixy]

Nobody has any issues with appelate courts etc reviewing the case that already happens but we should be able to forget about parole reviews for some people. That is their punishment and you're abolishing that punishment. Please give one reason why Vinter should get a parole review.

Review isn't equal to release, you know. So let's reverse, why not give him a hearing, is he's such a monster he won't get released anyway. But maybe in other cases it can have value.

I agree you should only consider release if you have a very good reason, and usually just keep them locked up - that was their sentence after all. However, there are cases where release can be granted, since prisoners with life sentences are already occasionally released. And I do think it would be more just to have an institutionalised system of review instead of arbitrary, unilateral actions by the government under shady circumstances (al-Megrahi, anyone?). And you could give relatives of victims speaking rights, to make sure they get heard.

[RandBlade]

I'm still waiting for an explanation behind this train of thought
How correcting someone's fairytale misconceptions about prisons somehow makes me someone who wants rapists to go un-addressed.
Especially considering my examples involved a teen's facebook comment, and those locked up under minor drug offenses.

If I've made a mistake in understanding what you were arguing then I apologise I thought that's what you were saying.

Review isn't equal to release, you know. So let's reverse, why not give him a hearing, is he's such a monster he won't get released anyway. But maybe in other cases it can have value.

I'll answer your question: We should not have a hearing as the crime in itself deserves the punishment of life without the possibility of parole. He doesn't need to be a monster: Monster or angel is utterly irrelevant. The sentence is due based on the crime committed not the individual behind it.

The person may change but the crime can not. I don't want to imply that someone is a monster for life, talk of monsters is absurd. What matters is what was done. The sentence is deserved based on the crime at the time. Opening up the possibility of parole diminishes the seriousness of the sentence, says that the crime committed doesn't in its own right justifiy life without parole.

I agree you should only consider release if you have a very good reason, and usually just keep them locked up - that was their sentence after all. However, there are cases where release can be granted, since prisoners with life sentences are already occasionally released. And I do think it would be more just to have an institutionalised system of review instead of arbitrary, unilateral actions by the government under shady circumstances (al-Megrahi, anyone?). And you could give relatives of victims speaking rights, to make sure they get heard.

I agree that governments shouldn't be involved. Nobody should be involved, although I agree with the exception in extreme medical circumstances (which are not related to 25 years).

[EyeKhan]

Yes it is just to punish someone.

There is an insanity plea that can be made in the court of law. If that plea did not succeed then the sentence is punishment and remains valid.

I'm surprised how impractically you approach this. As the advancement of science expands understanding and the ability to treat mental illness, life sentences laid down decades ago can literally become obsolete/ shown to be in error. What is the purpose/ benefit/ gain of adhering to those obsolete sentences so rigidly?

[RandBlade]

The punishment is deserved by the crime. There is an appeals process if errors are involved. The only reason to deny the ability to have a Whole Life sentence is if you are of the opinion that no crime, no matter how awful, can ever possibly justify life in prison. Parole is about the individual, sentencing is about the crime. To add parole reviews changes the focus from the crime to the criminal and that is not appropriate.

[Aimless]

Why not compromise and just torture them physically every day for 25 years? Maybe throw in some gang-rapes and stuff?

[RandBlade]

[Aimless]

Well why not? I mean, if you really want to show how horrible you think a crime is, what better way is there?

[Veldan Rath]

Not helpful Aimless.

Rand, appeals are limited in scope, and at least over here, the courts don't have the best history of hearing new evidence...especially based upon science.

Having a regular review every 25 years is not hurting anyone, nor, would there be that many per prisoner...3 at the most?

[Aimless]

Not helpful Aimless.

Why, because torture and gang-rapes amount to inhumane and degrading punishment?

[Veldan Rath]

Just thinking over the top BS is not proving your point, and closes off avenues of discussion.

[Aimless]

Just thinking over the top BS is not proving your point, and closes off avenues of discussion.

This to me seemed like one of those times when going "over the top" is the only way to demonstrate the point: the court ruled that sentencing someone to life in prison without even the HOPE of review and parole or clemency goes against Article 3 of the ECHR, which states that "No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment." There is no "unless the crime is severe enough to warrant it" clause in there and specific methods are not enumerated in a list that forbids tooth-pulling and gang-raping but permits the UK's recently-implemented practice of sentencing people to life in prison without any hope of having their sentences reviewed after a couple of decades.

Some people may disagree with the court on the definitions of "torture" and "inhuman or degrading treatment" and they're free to do so. I certainly don't think that life in prison is as bad as being gang-raped. But I do think that it is misguided to defend an act that has been ruled to be a violation of a human right with the argument that "some crimes are so heinous that they warrant the violation of the perpetrator's human rights". That leaves the door wide open to many creative ways of matching crime and punishment based on severity and traditional eye-for-an-eye takes on justice.

[Aimless]

And if you don't agree with the court then there's also another document the UK signed, wherein you find the following:

Article 110
Review by the Court concerning reduction of sentence

1. The State of enforcement shall not release the person before expiry of the sentence pronounced by the Court.

2. The Court alone shall have the right to decide any reduction of sentence, and shall rule on the matter after having heard the person.

3. When the person has served two thirds of the sentence, or 25 years in the case of life imprisonment, the Court shall review the sentence to determine whether it should be reduced. Such a review shall not be conducted before that time.

4. In its review under paragraph 3, the Court may reduce the sentence if it finds that one or more of the following factors are present:

(a) The early and continuing willingness of the person to cooperate with the Court in its investigations and prosecutions;

(b) The voluntary assistance of the person in enabling the enforcement of the judgements and orders of the Court in other cases, and in particular providing assistance in locating assets subject to orders of fine, forfeiture or reparation which may be used for the benefit of victims; or

(c) Other factors establishing a clear and significant change of circumstances sufficient to justify the reduction of sentence, as provided in the Rules of Procedure and Evidence.

5. If the Court determines in its initial review under paragraph 3 that it is not appropriate to reduce the sentence, it shall thereafter review the question of reduction of sentence at such intervals and applying such criteria as provided for in the Rules of Procedure and Evidence.

Although admittedly some may argue that there's no way that can be applied to UK citizens and their domestic shenanigans.

[Veldan Rath]

Dude, I'm agreeing with you, but after the 3rd or so, OtT post...it's not sinking in to Rand

[Aimless]

I have every hope that he can be rehabilitated

[Aimless]

http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/...x?i=001-122664

[Veldan Rath]

Most likely not, he was a victim of a nasty assault, and a break in in a country that has a bit of a catch and release program for chavs.

Tends to embitter one.

I've only been the victim of an assault the ended with no injury to me...but the rage/fear stuck with me for a while

[GGT]

Rand was replying as a victim of physical violence. Parole for the guy who nearly caused the loss of one eye, and visual impairments, seems preposterous, given the context.

Rand, how would you prefer your assailant be treated? An eye for an eye?

[RandBlade]

Rand was replying as a victim of physical violence. Parole for the guy who nearly caused the loss of one eye, and visual impairments, seems preposterous, given the context.

Rand, how would you prefer your assailant be treated? An eye for an eye?

Well I was referring to murderers who've been released to kill again (post 2). Once a dog attacks a person the law says they must be put down as they're far more likely to do it again, but a person who viciously murders can be released after 9 years? And then after beating up a woman twice before murdering her that crime is still not enough to say that the crimes alone justify life in prison?

But maybe I am bitter. The vast, vast majority of crimes are committed by a tiny, tiny minority of individuals who flaunt the and and get away with it. In my two cases the person who shattered my eyesocket had "a list of convictions as long as his arm" (quote from Police Officer) and was convicted for Gross Bodily Harm (GBH) and the sentence was 6 months jail. Would have been out under our system in no more than 6 weeks.For convictions under 2 years (I think) you really serve essentially 1 week per month of the official sentence. For convictions over, you typically serve half of it. I don't think life without parole is appropriate for GBH (though the law does permit life sentences), but nor do I think that 6 weeks of time served is appropriate either.

The person who broke into my house was caught the following week red handed inside another's property. He confessed to 18 other break-ins since his last sentence for breaking and entering. He got ... a suspended sentence. No jail term at all.

We have a revolving doors criminal justice system.

[Flixy]

That may be true, but it's not really connected to the issue of a 25 year review.

[Veldan Rath]

True, but I think Rand's worry is as his country's prison system is a revolving door on the lower end, this type of system will then bleed into the upper end. A legit concern based upon what is already going on in the UK prison/sentencing system.

[RandBlade]

True, but I think Rand's worry is as his country's prison system is a revolving door on the lower end, this type of system will then bleed into the upper end. A legit concern based upon what is already going on in the UK prison/sentencing system.

Exactly.

Take the case I keep referring to of Vinter. Brutally murdered a work colleague aged 26. Was released 9 years later only to be convicted then of beating up and brutally murdering a woman when he was aged 38. Why should we be believe if given the opportunity after 35 aged 63 he'll kill and need convicting of murdering for a third time. Surely at some stage you say enough is enough we're not going to keep releasing him to murder yet another person?

The fact he was released after just 9 years for murder aged 35 then murdered again sums it up for me. Why would you possibly want that scenario?