And as such, it meets the standard for "reasonable".
And as such, it meets the standard for "reasonable".
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
It almost equates the life of the killed with the life of the killer. The lefty preference is to put the killer on a higher pedestal.Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro
Hope is the denial of reality
So "reasonable" is now "someone else wants this and I don't object strongly enough to scuttle the entire ICC over it"? You and I have different ideas on what "standards" are, I think.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
Our rights are part of a social compact, where the government agrees to protect us and our rights and we agree to obey the law. Your "rights" do not extend to violating the rights of others. By doing the latter, you are breaking the social compact, and therefore lose the government protection that you would otherwise be entitled to. Now, modern society believes that a punishment should be proportional to one's crime, which means that a minor violation of the social compact shouldn't lead to a total loss of your rights. But I could think of few violations that are more egregious than illegally taking someone else's life. As such, you lose all claims to protection of your life, liberty, or happiness. At this point, the government is no longer obligated to protect your rights. In fact, it's doing you a favor by taking you off the streets, because otherwise, society would be morally obligated to punish you for your transgressions. In countries with a weak government, that would mean a lynching. Thus, criminals should be happy that we're putting them in a relatively humane environment in a prison, even if we execute them at a later date, because society is doing this purely out of the goodness of its heart.
Hope is the denial of reality
Sorry, I meant that in reference to methods for determining what's legally right and wrong in these contexts, not in reference to any specific violations.
Apart from one or two instances, the UK has hitherto behaved--in its domestic legislation, its activities in the EU and in the global arena--as if it sortakinda is committed to rehabilitation, as if it accepts the ECHR and the authority of the ECtHR. I agree that signing a treaty doesn't necessary mean you agree with everything in the treaty but at the same time pacta sunt servanda or somethingThey're treaties, the results of multiparty negotiation. They are, by definition, COMPROMISES on what the parties involved think and believe. It's not an indication of what they think is right and wrong, it's what they think is not too wrong to tolerate.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Well yes that is certainly one view of rights and of justice. From what I can tell the consensus among western governments has for the past few decades been that some rights are inalienable and due to individuals by virtue of their humanity rather than being entirely contingent on their abiding by the social compact.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
If a right is truly inalienable, then it can never be taken. Do people have an inalienable right to life and liberty?
Hope is the denial of reality
Pacta sunt servanda certainly, the UK does have to adhere to its agreements. But the agreements it enters into, the things you are presumably referencing when referring to internationally accepted standards, are limited. The cited ICC treaty is an example. It plainly doesn't cover the UK's domestic penal system, so no pacta there. And all it tells us wrt "internationally accepted standards" is that one or more signatories insisted on such a provision and no signatory objected so strongly that it wouldn't sign. It serves as evidence of a trend but it doesn't serve as an accepted standard. CIL, for instance, tends to contradict it, quite a few countries retain life without parole (or worse, like the death penalty).Apart from one or two instances, the UK has hitherto behaved--in its domestic legislation, its activities in the EU and in the global arena--as if it sortakinda is committed to rehabilitation, as if it accepts the ECHR and the authority of the ECtHR. I agree that signing a treaty doesn't necessary mean you agree with everything in the treaty but at the same time pacta sunt servanda or something
The ECHR and the ECtHR aren't international. They're supranational, they're part of this maybe-confederal/maybe-federal project the UK has signed up for. They can perhaps be considered as representing standards internationally for countries outside the EU but they're something else for countries inside the EU.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
So is what we have here an intentional misreading of the international agreements?
Hope is the denial of reality
No. . .
The Court made its decision on the basis of EU requirements. Referencing international courts with similar standards doesn't change that, anymore than Justice Kennedy's reference to changing attitudes in other countries invalidates his majority opinion in Lawrence v Texas.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
And that achieves anything? I'm not asking for a justification, my dear, you seem to be confused.
But that's what reasonable means. Compromises have to be reasonable or you'd very rarely find a consensus between the parties involved.
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
Totally off topic, but you're using the word inalienable (the word I use as well).....so when did it become unalienable? I hear/read that used more often now. Anyone know why?
Hope is the denial of reality
That doesn't change the fact that inalienable was used in the original Declaration of Independence. I don't see the same routine replacement of "Men" with "People", even though that would make more sense.
But then, this is the first I've heard of wiktionary, so what do I know....
First time you've come across two words in the English language that are interchangeable?
Hope is the denial of reality
No, I love words and language. I was parsing the terms, and wondering how unalienable seeped into common usage.
I think it might be related to the root word alien, at least politically. Yeah, another word with interchangeable meanings. But like I said, it's totally off topic. Never mind?
Back on topic....I have no problem with Ariel Castro's plea agreement for a life sentence + 1,000 years to avoid the Death Penalty. That means his victims won't have to testify in court to multiple counts of kidnap, rape, assault and battery, or torture...and relive their horror.
He will spend the rest of his natural life behind bars, with no hope for parole.However, that doesn't mean he should be starved, beaten, or tortured during his incarceration. That also means he shouldn't be denied basic healthcare, like antibiotics.
You ma'am, are an evil blood-thirsty person, according to the ECHR. He should be let out in 25 years if he sees the errors of his ways. In fact, since he hasn't killed anyone, let's make that 5 years.
Hope is the denial of reality
Fritzl who was even worse than Castro could be out after 15You ma'am, are an evil blood-thirsty person, according to the ECHR. He should be let out in 25 years if he sees the errors of his ways. In fact, since he hasn't killed anyone, let's make that 5 years.
It seems the Austrians haven't fully learned their lesson on the need for rehabilitation. 5 years or bust.
On a serious note, I have some data at my disposal that shows that the death penalty in England reduced most forms of crime (i.e. each additional execution was responsible for lower rates of most major types of violent and non-violent crimes). The immediate effect of capital punishment's suspension was also a sharp and immediate increase in the murder rate (same is true for the US). Not sure if I'll have the time to do anything with the data.
More relevant to this case, I've come across a few studies showing that any time the maximum punishment for a specific crime falls, the amount of that crime committed spikes.
Hope is the denial of reality
It seems you're as good at reading these days as GGT is.You ma'am, are an evil blood-thirsty person, according to the ECHR. He should be let out in 25 years if he sees the errors of his ways. In fact, since he hasn't killed anyone, let's make that 5 years.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Um, why would the ECHR want reviews of sentences if not the prospect of releasing a "rehabilitated" prisoner?
Hope is the denial of reality
For starters the ECtHR does not demand that such a review take place after precisely 25 years, nor does it require that a person be released after such a review. Further, the ECtHR afaics does not demand that a man who kidnapped, raped, beat, starved and otherwise abused three women for a decade only serve 5 years in prison. Finally, "rehabilitation" does not have to mean "seeing the error of one's ways" where the implication is that you simply have to say "I was wrong" 100 times and presto you'll be rehabilitated.Um, why would the ECHR want reviews of sentences if not the prospect of releasing a "rehabilitated" prisoner?
Re. your data, if you happen to have high quality data and can produce a high-quality study--that can stand up to scrutiny--demonstrating a significant deterrant effect of capital punishment man I think you should publish that study and become a superstar.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
What I'm referring to wrt standards are the standards for interpretation, reasoning and decision making.
The most important agreement here is the agreement about the text of the ECHR and about the obligations and powers of the ECtHR, including its authority to decide its own decision-making process and its authority to interpret the ECHR as required. Next follow agreements such as the European Prison Rules recommendations. The references to other treaties and conventions aid the court in its interpretation and in its reasoning. I've gotten the impression that this kind of reasoning is an accepted standard in European law but I may be wrong. It has been standard for the ECtHR for a few decades, esp. the past decade.The cited ICC treaty is an example. It plainly doesn't cover the UK's domestic penal system, so no pacta there. And all it tells us wrt "internationally accepted standards" is that one or more signatories insisted on such a provision and no signatory objected so strongly that it wouldn't sign. It serves as evidence of a trend but it doesn't serve as an accepted standard.
CIL is just one source of law, and there's no indication that the court considers it to be the one source to trump them all (that would after all not be in keeping with the focus on a common European understanding). If a country is guilty of violating the ECHR and/or the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in many ways, giving its practices much weight in the court's reasoning would make little sense, whether some of its practices are in line with the court's understanding or not. That said, the ways in which the ECtHR goes about interpreting the ECHR strikes me as being similar to the way other courts may go about finding CIL, albeit applied to a subset of all countries (the subset that matters the most to the ECtHR).CIL, for instance, tends to contradict it, quite a few countries retain life without parole (or worse, like the death penalty).
Sorry, I used the word "international" carelesslyThe ECHR and the ECtHR aren't international. They're supranational, they're part of this maybe-confederal/maybe-federal project the UK has signed up for. They can perhaps be considered as representing standards internationally for countries outside the EU but they're something else for countries inside the EU.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
That's entirely inconsistent with the court ruling or your own posts here. There is absolutely no reason to require a sentence review and to push the rehabilitation angle unless there was some prospect of the criminal being released. Furthermore, if that logic applies to serial murderers, surely it also applies to these cases...
There are dozens of such studies already...Re. your data, if you happen to have high quality data and can produce a high-quality study--that can stand up to scrutiny--demonstrating a significant deterrant effect of capital punishment man I think you should publish that study and become a superstar.
Hope is the denial of reality
The ruling states that the court has no specific demands on when the review must take place. It only observes that there is precedent for having such a review no later than ca 25 years. Afaik the court has never made any specific demands on how many years a person can or must serve for a specific crime or set of crimes, so the claim about Castro only having to serve a 5 year prison sentence under the ECHR is nonsense. The court also states that the mere fact that a review must take place does not mean that a person must be released upon review. Release will be contingent on whether or not there remain any legitimate penological grounds for imprisonment, including safety concerns and the success of rehabilitation efforts. "Some prospect" may amount to "0.001%".
Rehabilitation in the context of criminal justice refers to planned and structured interventions for the purpose of reforming a criminal and changing him in such ways that he can eventually lead a useful life in regular society without a risk of recidivism. The ECHR prescribes no specific methods or sentence-lengths or risk level thresholds for enabling or assessing this reformation. I can think of several reasons why Castro for example might end up spending the rest of his natural life in prison on rehabilitation and safety grounds alone under the ECHR.
I wish there wereThere are dozens of such studies already...
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Strawman after strawman. I never claimed that the Court's position was that each prisoner must be released. The Court's position is that if certain steps are taken, they must be released. Given that the case was about serial killers, the Court's claim is that there must be conditions under which even serial killers must be released.
Read that piece before (along with another one in the same issue). Some reasonable criticisms there, but mostly the kind of economics-driven assumptions that can simply not be met in any other social science. They're effectively saying that 99% of the research in every quantitative social science is irrelevant.
Hope is the denial of reality
Not that I have any hope that you will read this, but the court doesn't say that 'even serial killers' must be released. The court said that the basis of the penal system is wider than a desire to punish somebody who's been found guilty and that you can't have a system that explicitly ONLY punishes. The idea that this is some slippery slope towards letting out serial-killers is one that only people with some serious lack of knowledge of how these things work could get. The Court is not, I repeat NOT, demanding a parole hearing. The court is demanding respect for the potential for rehabilitation in your penal system. The Brits fell short of that standard and now people like you think they were proscribed to grant prisoners with a life-term a parole hearing after 25 years.
Congratulations America
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
I generally follow the law so I should be allowed to break the lawYeah 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
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote