Upload your photos, chat, win prizes and much more
Can't Access your Account?
New to ePHOTOzine? Join ePHOTOzine for free!
Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more for free!
There was a news item about a recent European Court ruling whereby it's considered a breach of human rights when a murderer is given a whole-life sentence. Should a potential victim's human rights be considered when a killer, known to be dangerous, is released?
What do readers feel about this?
Ian Brady is still receiving treatment in a hospital for alleged insanity, so is it appropriate to keep him in custody? Now that he's been in prison for half a century, does continued custody contravene his human rights?
Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.
The ruling only said that it is contravenes human rights to say up front they will never be considered for parole. The judges were very careful to add that the ruling should not be interpreted to mean that they should, at some point, be released.
Ian Brady's case was different. In the recent hearing he was trying to prove he was sane, not that he should be released (something he has never wanted) and by being sane he could be sent to a 'normal' prison (where, incidentally, he could then go on hunger strike with no fear of being force fed and so commit suicide). So yes, it is appropriate for him to remain in prison because he continues to be a danger to society.
murderers bankers and mps lock em all up
I am more concerned with the victims human rights and their families who then live a life sentence without their loved ones, these murderers do not deserve to have human rights. Another example of Europe poking their noses into our business.
Quote: Should a murderer get a whole-life sentence?
Next question please.
Trouble is, has this Government got the balls to do some thing about it. Forget any Liberal support.
UKIP said some time ago about the European Court of human rights that they would simply ignore any ruling and de select from the charter. Nothing is impossible in this day and age. Thank Blair for this one, he simply sold his soul to the EU human rights act without any thought or regard for problems that might occur down the line like this ruling from the EU non elected judges.
As I read it, this is (or could become) a bit of a storm in a teacup.
All the ruling specifies, as far as I can see, is that whole-life prisoners are given the hope that their case "may" be reviewed - and no more than that - in many years time. In other words, revert to what was in place until the previous government scrapped it with no replacement in 2003.
It's not saying that the UK judicial system cannot use whole-life tariff sentences, nor that those prisoners already on them should be released.
I always thought Jeremy Bamber was innocent...............and I still think that to this day..............but that is my opinion and many may disagree but there has always been en element of doubt........he was the only survivor so he must of been the murderer...........case closed, key thrown away.............forget it........
Brady is insane and should stay where he is and die in the hospital, same for Sutcliffe...........the Yorkshire Ripper..........mad and dangerous as hatters..........
Controversial ruling, is this another reason for leaving the EU............that is another issue entirely.............
How many times does it need to be said: it is not the EU Human rights, it is the European Court of Human rights which is absolutely sod all to do with the EU. Leaving one institution will not result in departure from the other.
I don't know if people know the difference and refer to 'EU' because they can't be bothered to type ECHR but at the very least it perpetuates this ridiculous myth for many others who don't know the difference.
[pedantic rant mode: off]
Should a murderer get whole life ? .... Are we talking 1st and 2nd degree murder and manslaughter? Murder isn't a black and white thing. There are lots of factors, passion, vengeance, grief, excessive force in self defence, spousal murder, terminal illness murder etc etc .. We can get all Daily Mail and say whole life for everything but I bet all those shouting for whole life on everything quickly find unique cases where they reasonably contemplate this to be excessive. It's always the way .. The public say there should be rules and regulations governing everything when something goes wrong and they then moan about beaurocracy, rules and regs ... They ask for laws against this and that and demand more powers for the police then they moan about too many laws, excessive powers etc, they cry out for draconian sentencing and zero tolerance then moan when the law comes down heavy on a particular thing ... they become litigious at the drop of a hat then moan about insurance, H&S and risk assessments etc etc etc we don't know what we want.
(can we have a 'good posting' smilie?)
I just object to them being kept alive on 3 meals a day and Sky TV....sorry!
In Canada, there is what is called The faint hope clause in the law, which allows any prisoner to have periodical hearings, supposedly to discuss parole for the prisoner. Everybody knows that this one prisoner, Osman, who was convicted of torturing and killing something like 26 children, will never be free in this lifetime. However, the argument comes from the families of his victims that every time he gets a hearing, they undergo tremendous stress. Are their human rights being breached? This man has confessed to the murders and shown authorities where he buried the bodies; and then wrote a book about it all, for which his wife received $100,000.00.
Quote: ersial ruling, is this another reason for leaving the EU............that is another issue entirely
I am astonished, like Mikehit, at the sheer ignorance about the EU.
The European Court of Human Rights has nothing to do whatsoever with the European Union.
The court was suggested and supported by Churchill and the UK government along with many other European Nations after the war and set up in 1959.
We can leave the European Union but that would have no effect on our subscription to the court. Why would it? They are not connected.
It tells you how bad education is now when facts stated over and over again can still not be understood by so many people. I guess we are ruled by our emotions and individuality now. It doesn't matter what is, only what I want to believe to justify my opinion.
What the hell has this got to do with photography?!
ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.
Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.
You must be a member to leave a comment
Get the latest photography news straight from ePHOTOzine in your email every month and win prizes!
1st October 2014 - 31st October 2014
Check out ePHOTOzine's inspirational photo month calendar! Each day click on a window to unveil new photography tips, treats and techniques.
View October's Photo Month Calendar