Because not everybody is like him - it's a review, not a release. Some people do change.
Because not everybody is like him - it's a review, not a release. Some people do change.
No not everyone is like him which is why this is not the default sentence but rather a special reserved sentence for the most extreme cases (which can be appealed). For the 49 most extreme individuals the courts have deemed to be like him.Originally Posted by Flixy
The justice system has already categorically failed by deeming him to be "changed" and releasing him only for it to be revealed he hadn't changed after all. Now an innocent woman is dead because he'd "changed".
So 2 questions:
1: How do you 100% guarantee he's changed and it won't be like last time?
2: So what if he has changed? The sentence is for the crimes committed, even if he has changed so what? Does that diminish his crime? If not why should the sentence be diminished?
Will reply more later, but quick question: do you guys have any sentences between 25 years and life?
No. Sentences are normally along lines of "life with a minimum of x years".
But that's not how the US criminal justice system works. A 20 year minimum sentence can be given for shooting a warning bullet into your own kitchen ceiling, to scare away an abusive spouse with a restraining order, who's trespassed and made physical threats on your life. For 60 year-olds, that's practically a life sentence. For poor, younger people who rely on public defenders, and budget cuts slash that funding, that can be a life sentence.
Dude, we have female prisoners doing "life sentences" for killing their abusive husbands during acts of battery, assault, rape. Some were convicted during an era when spousal rape wasn't even recognized by the legal system. We have non-violent felons serving 20 year sentences that become "life sentences" for internal prison infractions (like having too much toilet paper or reading the wrong books). Those 'infractions' can be used to extend their parole review. That can add another five years to their time and is extra-judicial punishment.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.
Wait, what? Governments are inextricably linked to crime and punishment.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).
You could always read the ruling for an answer to all these questions. Just sayin'
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Many long court sentences allow for parole under the assumption that there is room for this kind of review. But if a person's crime is so heinous that a court determines a person should never be eligible for a re-review of their sentence/potential release, why should future generations (who are removed from the crime) have the "right" to stand in judgement of someone all over again?
In some sense, this kind of idea also forces victims of criminals to basically re-litigate why the criminal was so bad in the first place.
I don't think any of us are against parole, but against this transnationalist-imposed idea that there's no such thing as a crime so heinous a that a criminal can truly never be released.
I doubt that either is answered. Especially since there's no reference to answer either on the media reports or by any of you guys.
If it is though, feel free to quote it.
For starters
110. There are a number of reasons why, for a life sentence to remain compatible with Article 3, there must be both a prospect of release and a possibility of review.
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. Many of these grounds will be present at the time when a life sentence is imposed. However, the balance between these justifications for detention is not necessarily static and may shift in the course of the sentence. What may be the primary justification for detention at the start of the sentence may not be so after a lengthy period into the service of the sentence. It is only by carrying out a review of the justification for continued detention at an appropriate point in the sentence that these factors or shifts can be properly evaluated.
112. Moreover, if such a prisoner is incarcerated without any prospect of release and without the possibility of having his life sentence reviewed, there is the risk that he can never atone for his offence: whatever the prisoner does in prison, however exceptional his progress towards rehabilitation, his punishment remains fixed and unreviewable. If anything, the punishment becomes greater with time: the longer the prisoner lives, the longer his sentence. Thus, even when a whole life sentence is condign punishment at the time of its imposition, with the passage of time it becomes – to paraphrase Lord Justice Laws in Wellington – a poor guarantee of just and proportionate punishment (see paragraph 54 above).
113. Furthermore, as the German Federal Constitutional Court recognised in the Life Imprisonment case (see paragraph 69 above), it would be incompatible with the provision on human dignity in the Basic Law for the State forcefully to deprive a person of his freedom without at least providing him with the chance to someday regain that freedom. It was that conclusion which led the Constitutional Court to find that the prison authorities had the duty to strive towards a life sentenced prisoner’s rehabilitation and that rehabilitation was constitutionally required in any community that established human dignity as its centrepiece. Indeed, the Constitutional Court went on to make clear in the subsequent War Criminal case that this applied to all life prisoners, whatever the nature of their crimes, and that release only for those who were infirm or close to death was not sufficient (see paragraph 70 above).
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Neither of my questions are answered in that quote.
Don't you see? Because the German Constitutional Court felt this way, the UK courts now have to do the same thing.
Have you been drinking retard-juice?
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Have you?
There was none left after dread was done drinking. He shoulda spent that time reading and understanding instead. The ruling addresses your questions where necessary and explains why some of your objections are irrelevant to the ruling. If you have a problem with accepting the rule of law and with honoring your agreements and with consistency in legal reasoning And with accepting whatever reasoning was used BY THE UK to justify the previous system with 25 year reviews well then i don't know what to say other than that you may have a problem
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
The ruling has no relation whatsoever to the questions. I will repeat once again the questions asked.
1: How do you 100% guarantee he's changed and it won't be like last time?
Please show me anywhere in this ruling (or the 3 points) anything that shows how you can 100% guarantee he's changed and won't be released to kill yet again like he was released to kill yet again last time?
2: So what if he has changed? The sentence is for the crimes committed, even if he has changed so what? Does that diminish his crime? If not why should the sentence be diminished?
Please show me anywhere in this ruling (or the 3 points) that answer so what if he has changed? Does any change diminish his crime, which is what the sentence is for? If not, why should the sentence be diminished?
Feel free to quit being obnoxious and show the key words you're claiming answer this question? Or are you just not understanding so playing a game of "look squirrel" distraction?
As for Dread's point, unlike my concerns which were not remotely addressed in this section the German Constitutional Court was mentioned not once, not twice but three times. The German Constitutional Court has no authority, jurisdiction or right to precedence in this case. What is relevant is Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights which was passed by the same people who executed German War Criminals in Nurenburg.
I've gone through the opinion Minx and. . . Dread does kind of have a bit of a point. Rand's position ultimately boils down to that some crimes or the criminals that did them are so heinous that the life without parole is completely justified purely on punishment grounds. And the court has basically asserted that the German Constitutional Court (and the Italian one) had it right when they threw punishment out as a valid penalogical grounds for long-term detention and insisted that such lengthy imprisonment that doesn't have its focus on rehabilitating and reintegrating the prisoner back into society was a violation of human dignity. It supported this by pointing out that the movement in the collected EU penal systems for general prisoners, including that of the UK, was shifting more toward rehabilitation.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
Funny when I go to the forum overview it alway says:
"Life sentences for..."
USERNAME
if this thread was the latest with a post.
http://www.theworldforgotten.com/forumdisplay.php?f=4
"Wer Visionen hat, sollte zum Arzt gehen." - Helmut Schmidt
LOL that's very funny hadn't noticed it
Fuzzy has it right. Paragraph 113 does not address the concern but rather combined with paragraph 110 provides nothing more than a Tautology.
"There must be a prospect of release" ... because ... "must provide with the chance to regain that freedom". That's a tautology not evidence. Punishment is acknowledge in Para 111 as a reason in itself to allow incarceration but then there is no reason provided why there is no possible crime so heinous that punishment alone doesn't justify life incarceration for itself. Punishment alone ought to be sufficient to justify it.
The whole thing should just be scrapped and replaced with a free trade agreement + mutual defense treaty.
Otherwise the Brits will get their revenge by making the rest of the EU impose mandatory Online porn filtering because it protects the human rights of children.
I fully understand the logic of the judges, because at its root, it's the exact same logic that was used to ban capital punishment. The problem with the logic is not so much that serial killers will ever face the prospect of being allowed out of jail, but the fact that there's yet another precedent in undermining existing punishments on the basis of the "progressive" policies of a handful of states. This made it all the easier for a future idiotic "progressive" judge to rule that 25 years for murder is too harsh, or that 5 years for rape is too harsh, etc. All that needs to happen for the entire EU to be forced to adopt this idiocy is a handful of European governments to pass such laws and for one ECHR tribunal to agree with them (morally).
How anyone thinks this isn't going to lead to a massive backlash is beyond me. You can only poke people in the eye so long before they punch you in the face.
Hope is the denial of reality
Paragraph 112 refers to British case law. Just saying.
Any ruling of the ECHR of course would cite from national cases from the entire continent as a ruling sets the rule for all countries that are members of the CoE, not just for the country the case originates in.
Congratulations America
Selective citation at its best. Just because there might or might not be a British trend toward rehabilitation is hardly a reason to force the type of rehabilitation that is not permitted by British law.
The problem is they only cite the national cases they agree with. Last I checked, there were 47 countries that are party to the ECHR, not the handful of cases the judges cited to support their ridiculous ruling.
Hope is the denial of reality
117. This commitment to both the rehabilitation of life sentence prisoners and to the prospect of their eventual release is further reflected in the practice of the Contracting States. This is shown in the judgments of the German and Italian Constitutional Courts on rehabilitation and life sentences (set out in paragraphs 69–71 and 72 above) and in the other comparative law materials before the Court. These show that a large majority of Contracting States either do not impose life sentences at all or, if they do impose life sentences, provide some dedicated mechanism, integrated within the sentencing legislation, guaranteeing a review of those life sentences after a set period, usually after twenty-five years’ imprisonment (see paragraph 68 above).
118. The same commitment to the rehabilitation of life sentence prisoners and to the prospect of their eventual release can be found in international law.
The United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners direct prison authorities to use all available resources to ensure the return of offenders to society (see Rules 58–61, 65 and 66, quoted at paragraph 78 above) Additional, express references to rehabilitation run through the Rules (see paragraph 79 above).
Equally, Article 10 § 3 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights specifically provides that the essential aim of the penitentiary system shall be the reformation and social rehabilitation of prisoners. This is emphasised in the Human Rights Committee’s General Comment on Article 10, which stresses that no penitentiary system should be only retributory (see paragraphs 80 and 81 above).
Finally, the Court notes the relevant provisions of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, to which 121 States, including the vast majority of Council of Europe member States, are parties. Article 110(3) of the Statute provides for review of a life sentence after twenty-five years, followed by periodic reviews thereafter. The significance of Article 110(3) is underscored by the fact that Article 110(4) and (5) of the Statute and Rules 223 and 224 of the ICC’s Rules of Procedure and Evidence set out detailed procedural and substantives guarantees which should govern that review. The criteria for reduction include, inter alia, whether the sentenced person’s conduct in detention shows a genuine dissociation from his or her crime and his or her prospect of resocialisation (see Rule 223(a) and (b), set out at paragraph 65 above).
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
117 - A large majority is not all. That is a decision for them. The ECHR was written to prevent Nazi Holocaust style abuses, not create uniformity in law by taking some nations laws and imposing them on everyone undemocratically.
118 - Our system isn't only retributory, eg that killer had already been relased once as so-called rehabilitated but he acted as a criminal and just killed another person. Gee whiz. Not only retributory does not mean can't at all be.
So once again not providing any answer to any questions or objections raised.
Minx, you could cite that bit mentioning how the law in England and Wales used to require a review at 25 years but that such a passage was "inexplicably" absent (the court's wording) in the more recent 2003 Act. The Court made the deliberate assumption that they really wanted to have such a rule but they just forgot to include it. That struck me as rather high-handed.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
Pure and utter bullshit. They're citing selectively, and using incredibly vague language to buttress their position.
Hope is the denial of reality
The court pointed out that the govt. never gave a motivation for removing the 25-year-review and that, without such reasons, the stated motivation for the new law (removing the influence of the executive) would be more consistent with the inclusion of some other form of review. The change is, from the court's POV, a substantial one. I suspect that expecting a country's lawmaking to be well-reasoned and internally consistent esp. when it comes to substantial changes that may raise human rights issues isn't a new and crazy idea.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
That's a matter for our Parliament and not a 70 year old parchment.
Like don't sign parchments you don't intend to follow
If it bothers you this much you should never have agreed to the ECHR, never submitted to the authority of the court and certainly not continued to abide by its rulings (although I note you've been dragging your feet eg. in the case of prisoner voting rights), never agreed to the European Prison Rules and other relevant resolutions, never signed the Rome Statute, never guaranteed your prisoners a review of their life sentences after 25 years, never given the Secretary of State the power to commute sentences after such reviews, etc etc. I assume the UK has continued to play because it's worth more to be in than to be out and because it values the rule of law.
Last edited by Aimless; 07-24-2013 at 11:02 AM.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
I looked at the ECHR the other day and, to my surprise, found that it does not say, "Section I: 1. Eat vegetables 2. Get plenty of exercise 3. Don't holocaust the Jews. Section II: 1. Except you, UK."
Instead, it goes something like this:
THE EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS AND ITS FIVE PROTOCOLS
The European Convention on Human Rights
The Governments signatory hereto, being Members of the Council of Europe,
Considering the Universal Declaration of Human Rights proclaimed by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 10 December 1948;
Considering that this Declaration aims at securing the universal and effective recognition and observance of the Rights therein declared;
Considering that the aim of the Council of Europe is the achievement of greater unity between its Members and that one of the methods by which the aim is to be pursued is the maintenance and further realization of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;
Reaffirming their profound belief in those Fundamental Freedoms which are the foundation of justice and peace in the world and are best maintained on the one hand by an effective political democracy and on the other by a common understanding and observance of the Human Rights upon which they depend;
Being resolved, as the Governments of European countries which are like-minded and have a common heritage of political traditions, ideals, freedom and the rule of law to take the first steps for the collective enforcement of certain of the Rights stated in the Universal Declaration;
Have agreed as follows:
[66 original articles and 5 later protocols of which none include phrases to the effect of "except the UK" or "unless the UK feels like it" and where several affirm the authority and powers of the ECtHR]
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote