“Does this mean that if a prisoner has behaved well, shown remorse and demonstrates that he/she is rehabilitated that they have to let them out?”

In short no, but it does mean if someone posed no risk and had served an appropriate period of punishment the parole board would have to give reasons why they were being detained. I am currently working to try and get a lifetime preventative order removed from some one who offended as a child/young adult, is now living a stable and productive life and has done nothing wrong since his release from prison which was heavily supervised. The police are so far successfully opposing that even though they and the judge are frankly struggling to identify any real risk posed.

In cases of this magnitude no one wants to be in the Daily Mail as the person who freed a killer to kill again.

Does this mean that if a prisoner has behaved well, shown remorse and demonstrates that he/she is rehabilitated that they have to let them out?

NO and yet yes – the show they have been rehabilitated will be the hard bit as it cannot be “proved” in any real sense though the other two can

Personally I have no problem with whole life or it being given a tariff – either way , in the worst cases, they are never ever coming out

Not sure why we need to give them hope tbh or what right has been broken

It has been ruled on..

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23230419

In short no, but it does mean if someone posed no risk and had served an appropriate period of punishment the parole board would have to give reasons why they were being detained.

Thanks for this. I expected it to be something like this.
If the prisoner demonstrates the following;

behaved well, shown remorse and demonstrates that he/she is rehabilitated

And the parole boards still don’t let them out, are they then open to more ECHR action? Can the prisoners appeal?

I know a chap on a whole life sentence. It’s quite correct that he is; he’s a complete menace.

are they then open to more ECHR action

Wont really matter as the court can rule on whether the process is legit not the decision- it snot like they have to be released now.

ie they want us to have a review after 25 years so we will have whole life sentences that are reviewed for parole at 25 years and someone will then say it is still a whole life sentence but we will review it in say 10 years

I think there is some degree of fairness in removing sentencing form the political process tbh as the populus is often lustful for revenge and therefore put undue pressure on politicians

The review is pretty pointless tbh as, I assume, it will simply rubbber stamp the decision

The ECHC have merely used the convention which was drafted by the uk to take uk law back to where it was before Blunket chose to try and cross the divide between political power and the rule of law.

To be fair, the 1965 abolition of the death penalty act introduced a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment, there is only one sentence for murder, life, any comment from the judge is nothing more than a recommendation to the secretary of state of a minimum sentence before release under licence, so the exercise in discretion has always been one of political nature, rather than judicial, and the argument that Blunkett believed that parliament or he should fix sentences not judges and the parole board is, in the case of murder, a valid one, as parliament specifically laid down in statute that there was only one sentence for murder, and any attempt by a court to tie the hands of the secretary of state or limit this sentence would be ultra vires.

the exercise in discretion has always been one of political nature

have they not ruled that this is also unfair ?

Ie it should be out of the politicians hands

i am not sure why we let public opinion in as , for example, the Bulger killers would never see freedom if we did this.
it seems a charter for revenge rather than justice

i am not sure why we let public opinion in as , for example, the Bulger killers would never see freedom if we did this.

perhaps not the best example…..

perhaps not the best example…..

Depends if you agree with locking up children who are below the age of criminal responsibility for life without reveiw as a reasonable way for a civilised society to behave. Personally, my overwhelming feeling in respect of those two is what on earth have they been through to create a situation that results in that awful outcome, and what can we do to prevent the waste of one young life becoming the waste of three.

Depends if you agree with locking up children who are below the age of criminal responsibility for life without reveiw as a reasonable way for a civilised society to behave.

Apologies for not making it clear, I was referring (somewhat light heartedly) to Mr Venables more recent spot of bother (possession and distribution of child pornography) which, in hindsite does not indicate a fully rehabilitated individual.

Fair enough, but bear in mind the original offence had nothing to do with sexual abuse, and that the subsequent offences are very much related to those who have also been abused against. That immediately puts an entirely different perspective on the complexity of the whole problem. Lock em and throw away the key does nothing to improve the situation either directly or indirectly.

” Mr Venables more recent spot of bother (possession and distribution of child pornography) which, in hindsite does not indicate a fully rehabilitated individual.” not that I wish to condone kiddy porn but a) what shaped him to have that interest ?? he was unlikely to have developed it prior to sentence b) those offences would dependent on nature of image not normally lead to immediate custody. So not a pleasant example but a pertinent one. Does an offence by a person of previous bad character deserve to be treated more significantly than one by a person of good character who has had every advantage in life?

Wot crankboy said

Mr Venables more recent spot of bother (possession and distribution of child pornography) which, in hindsite does not indicate a fully rehabilitated individual.

he has just been re released FWIW
I think it is a good example – most folk would never release him prior to these offences and most folk would not release him now.
If it went to a public vote he would have no chance of release but that may have more to do with justice than revenge.

Allowing a politician to maintain control imparts on judicial neutrality and allows something other than the facts [ moral outrage , to look tough on crime whatever] to be factors in sentencing.
Allowing a neutral organisation to decide is far better [ and safer] than allowing a populist fool pandering for votes and an image to decide.

Well, its already being reported as “European Court of Human Rights wants to release our most dangerous murderers”.

Great.

How long before the 60+ million people in the UK demand to abandon their own Human Rights so we can convict a handful of serial killers more easily.

The actual change seems quite reasonable to me.

what the right wing press is spinning this story to discredit bloody human right and the bloody Europeans – well no one could have discussed predicted that

I think that there are certainly suggestions of sexual abuse in the Bulger case (without going into too much detail)
Crankboy makes some very pertinent points, it was discussed on the first page that some people are just “evil”, perhaps Venables is one of those, or perhaps (as you suggest) he is just a product of his environment. It’s interesting that the Thomson has not been in trouble though.

well no one could have discussed predicted that

Sorry junky, I just didn’t want a (IMO) interesting discussion descending into the usual left/right fighty borefest.

Please Do Not export such ruling to non-EU nations. Keep it in EU.

🙄

This will make me sound like I should be locked up, but here goes anyway………in cases like the three mentioned I would deem, because of the acts perpetrated, that they had acted in an inhuman way and therefore given up any human rights.

I would then replace animal testing with testing on them. Let scientists grow extra ears on the prisoners backs, test the toxicity of blusher, lipsticks etc. That, or the running man actually made real and replacing all other reality TV. This is why I am not in charge of anything and should never be I hasten to add.

Sorry guys but to me these people lost there human rights when they took the life off someone!

EU court of Human Rights for convicted murderers … 🙄

This happens when the fart smell sweet and soon pigs will fly … 😆