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 [i]always[/i] 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 [s]discussed[/s] 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 [s]discussed[/s] 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 ... 😆
