"Whole life" prison term

[yorksrob]

However, unlike yours, it appears to be supported by the facts.


That's a rather important difference. As mentioned, it means that uniquely they do not have the right to challenge their detention, something that is regarded as a fundamental right of the imprisoned. We as a society are not entitled to decide that they don't deserve that right. That's why we call them "rights".

That is nonsense.

WTL prisoners have the same right to challenge their detention that other prisoners have whilst they are serving their tariff i.e in terms of appeals.

On matters of the law, if offered the choice between 17 legal professionals of long standing and experience, who have examined the facts in some considerable detail, and a nation of mouth-breathers who seemingly believe everything they read in the papers, I know whose opinion I'm going to trust. To ape the old saying, this many people can be wrong.

You seem to be extremely naive if you think that the judiciary is somehow immune from bias.

In my view, it is for society to make the law. If the Judiciary then interprets that law in a way which is detrimental to the interests of society, then it is the duty of society to change that law. There is no such thing as a just law that is not founded in the society it governs.

 

[cmjcf]

WTL prisoners have the same right to challenge their detention that other prisoners have whilst they are serving their tariff i.e in terms of appeals.

They don't, however, have the right to apply for release. Ever.

You seem to be extremely naive if you think that the judiciary is somehow immune from bias.

Oh, do go on. Do tell us about how the judiciary is apparently biased in favour of murderers and rapists.

In my view, it is for society to make the law. If the Judiciary then interprets that law in a way which is detrimental to the interests of society, then it is the duty of society to change that law.

Then your view is plainly wrong on its face. The whole point of an independent judiciary is to correct wrongs regardless of who has committed them, be that the individual, the state, or society as a whole. You are in fact extremely naive if you think society can do no wrong. One only has to look at Germany in the 1930s, or to Serbia or Rwanda in the 1990s, to see examples of society at large doing wrong.

 

[yorksrob]

They don't, however, have the right to apply for release. Ever.

Other prisoners don't have the right to apply for release during their tariff.

Oh, do go on. Do tell us about how the judiciary is apparently biased in favour of murderers and rapists.

Because they are human. Like all human beings they have opinions and views and the capacity to get things wrong.

Then your view is plainly wrong on its face. The whole point of an independent judiciary is to correct wrongs regardless of who has committed them, be that the individual, the state, or society as a whole. You are in fact extremely naive if you think society can do no wrong. One only has to look at Germany in the 1930s, or to Serbia or Rwanda in the 1990s, to see examples of society at large doing wrong.

Oh, it is you who are wrong.

The point of an independent judiciary is to apply the law. It is not the job of the judiciary to create the law, or to "correct wrongs" but to apply the law as created by society independently.

I am well aware of the risks of society doing wrong. To counter such risks requires vigilance by society, the engagement of society in the its own Government and most importantly healthy debate and discussion about what constitutes just law. I'm afraid contracting out all discussion to a group of unknown officials to impose what they see fit with no reference to the discourse in the territory concerned does nothing to foster a mature relationship between society and such issues.

 

[cmjcf]

Other prisoners don't have the right to apply for release during their tariff.

They are, however, allowed to apply once their tariff expires.

Because they are human. Like all human beings they have opinions and vies and the capacity to get things wrong.

Right. So ... what's your argument here? I could buy HURRR BUT DEY BIAS INNIT in the case of a decision falling 9-8. I can't buy it when the decision is 16-1.

The point of an independent judiciary is to apply the law.

The relevant law is the European Convention on Human Rights (which, incidentally, is about as close to a "British Bill of Rights" that exists). The Court applied the law, and found that imprisonment with no prospect of even applying for release fell foul of that law.

It is not the job of the judiciary to create the law, or to "correct wrongs" but to apply the law as created by society independently.

Society did not create whole-life tariffs. Politicians, shielded by an almost-tyrannical majority in Parliament, did that.

I am well aware of the risks of society doing wrong.

So why do you have such difficulty in accepting that it can happen here?

I'm afraid contracting out all discussion to a group of unknown officials to impose what they see fit with no reference to the discourse in the territory concerned does nothing to foster a mature relationship between society and such issues.

Exactly, and that's why the government, staffed by unknown officials making no reference to the discourse, making silly reactionary laws is a bad thing.

 

[455driver]

Well, I must admit, that is the phrase that springs to mind on the occasions when the ECtHR does churn out a decision that seems to make sense.

When I hear one I will start taking more water with my whiskey, I think I am safe for a while yet!

 

[cmjcf]

When I hear one I will start taking more water with my whiskey, I think I am safe for a while yet!

Can you provide us with solid examples of decisions it has handed down that don't make sense?

 

[455driver]

Cant be bothered, if you think all the criminals who hide behind "human rights" legislation is a good thing then nothing I can say will change your mind.

Look at Hooky and Abu and how long it took to get rid of them!

 

[yorksrob]

They are, however, allowed to apply once their tariff expires.


Right. So ... what's your argument here? I could buy HURRR BUT DEY BIAS INNIT in the case of a decision falling 9-8. I can't buy it when the decision is 16-1.


The relevant law is the European Convention on Human Rights (which, incidentally, is about as close to a "British Bill of Rights" that exists). The Court applied the law, and found that imprisonment with no prospect of even applying for release fell foul of that law.

The convention makes no mention of how long a tariff should be, therefore the decision is entirely down to the personal opinions and interpretations of the judges. In this situation, I feel that society is within its rights to clarify how that legislation should be interpreted.

Society did not create whole-life tariffs. Politicians, shielded by an almost-tyrannical majority in Parliament, did that.

Ooh, a tyrannical majority in parliament eh ? Politicians shielded from what ? accountability ? At least they have some accountability, as opposed to a group of unelected officials most of whom don't even have any grounding in the law here in the first place.

As it happens, I'm aware that parliament, whilst representative, isn't perfect. If this issue is particularly contentious, I have no difficulty with going to the country with it to ensure our "tyrannical" parliament doesn't run away with itself.

So why do you have such difficulty in accepting that it can happen here?


Exactly, and that's why the government, staffed by unknown officials making no reference to the discourse, making silly reactionary laws is a bad thing.

I'd rather have laws made by officials accountable to me through parliament than officials making up the law as they go along accountable to no one.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Can you provide us with solid examples of decisions it has handed down that don't make sense?

I could also mention the prisoners votes decision which overturned a decision which had been considered, confirmed and reaffirmed by our elected parliament.

My personal hope is that this will lead to a full reappraisal of Britain's constitutional position, particularly in relation to this Court. Hopefully this fiasco will lead to profound and long term change.

 

[bb21]

I find this a rather intriguing debate.

Perhaps the reason some of the general public are against parole board reviews after 25 years is their distrust in a system which seemingly does not punish criminals enough for their crimes. Can the parole boards be trusted to ensure that criminals do not reoffend when they are released?

I am on the whole against this ruling. Let's not forget that these sentences are only handed down to those who commit the most heinous crimes. What such a review means for the victims' family is that they have to relive the horror that the person who forced so much pain on them could be walking the streets again every time such a review takes place. While he may not be completely free, he is no longer locked up. Their life sentences mean life sentences, so it is only fair the person who forced it on them receives the same.

One's human rights should be relative. If you infringes another person's human rights, you suffer the consequences and rightfully expect yours to be taken away. You cannot hide behind your "human rights" and expect to be treated the same as other people who obeyed the laws of the society. Just like those people who kill others then hide behind Article 8 to prevent themselves from being deported. What about their victims' human rights under Article 8?

 

[SS4]

Cant be bothered, if you think all the criminals who hide behind "human rights" legislation is a good thing then nothing I can say will change your mind.

Look at Hooky and Abu and how long it took to get rid of them!

here's a few

I was quite shocked by how many there were yet also how many were thrown out. We only ever hear of the criminals who hide behind it but we hear very little where it upholds rights for common people. I wonder why...

Still, at least they [prisoners] can vote against it at the next election...oh silly me, they can't.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I find this a rather intriguing debate.

Perhaps the reason some of the general public are against parole board reviews after 25 years is their distrust in a system which seemingly does not punish criminals enough for their crimes. Can the parole boards be trusted to ensure that criminals do not reoffend when they are released?

And who fosters that distrust? I'll give you a clue. I would trust a trained parole board over a bunch of scaremongers any day.

I am on the whole against this ruling. Let's not forget that these sentences are only handed down to those who commit the most heinous crimes. What such a review means for the victims' family is that they have to relive the horror that the person who forced so much pain on them could be walking the streets again every time such a review takes place. While he may not be completely free, he is no longer locked up. Their life sentences mean life sentences, so it is only fair the person who forced it on them receives the same.

If the crime is that heinous they won't be walking the streets again. Life sentences should mean life and I'd agree that a distinction must be made between life and whole life to avoid this confusion. It's still only fair to review the sentence every so often.

One's human rights should be relative. If you infringes another person's human rights, you suffer the consequences and rightfully expect yours to be taken away. You cannot hide behind your "human rights" and expect to be treated the same as other people who obeyed the laws of the society. Just like those people who kill others then hide behind Article 8 to prevent themselves from being deported. What about their victims' human rights under Article 8?

Their victims' no longer have human rights in the case of murder. It sounds callous but you don't get human rights once you're dead. The family's human rights must be held and take priority over the prisoner's for sure but the prisoner is still a human and must still retain their rights including the not-very-controversial Article 3.

Ultimately this comes down to trust: do you believe a sensationalist Press, known to be against the EU or 17 trained judges? I know who I'd pick.

 

[bb21]

If life sentences should mean life sentences then the purpose of these reviews is?

I will answer your other points when I get home.

 

[michael769]

The relevant law is the European Convention on Human Rights (which, incidentally, is about as close to a "British Bill of Rights" that exists). The Court applied the law, and found that imprisonment with no prospect of even applying for release fell foul of that law.

That is not correct. The ruling was that it was unlawful for the Home Secretary (or any other politician) to make the decision that a prisoner should be denied the opportunity of parole. They did make clear that such a decision should only be made by the judiciary, hence the need for the WHT sentence.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

If life sentences should mean life sentences then the purpose of these reviews is?

The problem is that people seem to conflate "life sentence" with "sentenced to prison for life". The two are not the same thing. There are many sentencing options which do not involve prison (release on license being one ).

 

[ralphchadkirk]

If you infringes another person's human rights, you suffer the consequences and rightfully expect yours to be taken away.

That shows a complete misunderstanding of the whole premise of human rights. They are a set of basic rights that we have decided everyone should have, regardless of who they are or what they have done. Everyone has the same entitlement to basic rights.

 

[cmjcf]

That is not correct. The ruling was that it was unlawful for the Home Secretary (or any other politician) to make the decision that a prisoner should be denied the opportunity of parole. They did make clear that such a decision should only be made by the judiciary, hence the need for the WHT sentence.

I believe you're thinking of the House of Lords decision which led to the legislation for whole-life orders. I'm not seeing anything in the Grand Chamber judgment other than as background. The basis for this current judgment is the idea that any sentence should be reducible (para.119) or aat the least subject to review (para.121), and that a tariff that does not expire is effectively a violation at the point where it is handed down (para.122). One of the panel in his brief concurrence calls this a "right to hope" (and makes clear that it's no more than hope). Para.131 seems to have been widely ignored by the reactionary press (gee, what a surprise ...).

The problem is that people seem to conflate "life sentence" with "sentenced to prison for life". The two are not the same thing. There are many sentencing options which do not involve prison (release on license being one ).

Correct. A life sentence is one that, quite rightly, restricts one's liberty for life. Many lifers out on licence still have some restriction above and beyond the right of recall.

 

[bb21]

That shows a complete misunderstanding of the whole premise of human rights. They are a set of basic rights that we have decided everyone should have, regardless of who they are or what they have done. Everyone has the same entitlement to basic rights.

I don't think I ultimately disagree with the concept. I think this comes down to the fact that I do not fundamentally agree that a person serving his just sentence with no possibility for parole contravenes Article 3.

You cannot expect to have the same access to freedom (albeit limited) if you commit the most serious of crimes, but then again not everyone will agree on this. (This might be a better way to word things than my previous post, come to think of it.)

The problem is that people seem to conflate "life sentence" with "sentenced to prison for life". The two are not the same thing. There are many sentencing options which do not involve prison (release on license being one ).

Then that is not really a life sentence, is it? It is not in my opinion.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

And who fosters that distrust? I'll give you a clue. I would trust a trained parole board over a bunch of scaremongers any day.

The media probably has some sort of role in this, but it's not the whole picture.

Some of the pathetic sentences passed for certain crimes we hear about also play a significant part in allowing this distrust to grow. Newspapers and media may be sensationalist, but the hard facts of a case won't change just because of the reporting style.

Their victims' no longer have human rights in the case of murder.

But the victims did have their own human rights before they were murdered.

Ultimately this comes down to trust: do you believe a sensationalist Press, known to be against the EU or 17 trained judges? I know who I'd pick.

Do I trust the EU and its judges? Very difficult to say. Do I trust our own justice system? No.

 

[michael769]

Then that is not really a life sentence, is it? It is not in my opinion.

If a lifetime of monitoring, having to report every new address to the Parole Service and the ability of the state throw you in jail without a trial is not a sentence I need a new dictionary!

 

[cmjcf]

I think this comes down to the fact that I do not fundamentally agree that a person serving his just sentence with no possibility for parole contravenes Article 3.

The point is that it isn't a just sentence.

You cannot expect to have the same access to freedom (albeit limited) if you commit the most serious of crimes

And that's why we put them in prison and impose conditions upon them for the rest of their lives even if they're transferred to the "very open prison".

Then that is not really a life sentence, is it?

They may be released, but they are not at liberty.

Some of the pathetic sentences passed for certain crimes we hear about also play a significant part in allowing this distrust to grow.

Oh, do give it a rest with this nonsense again.

Newspapers and media may be sensationalist, but the hard facts of a case won't change just because of the reporting style.

You're assuming that you're in possession of the hard facts in the first place.

Do I trust the EU and its judges?

What's the EU got to do with this?

Do I trust our own justice system? No.

I suspect this is because you believe everything you read in the papers. That's a bad habit and a fundamental failure in critical thinking.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I am looking at the case of one of the three men who are the appellants and it appears that Douglas Vintner was convicted of the murder of Robert Eden in 1996 and served his sentence for nine years and was then released. However, after his release he then murdered his wife on 11th February 2008.

Has there been many cases in Britain of murderers committing another murder after their release from prison after serving their sentence for the original charge of murder.

 

[Johnuk123]

I am looking at the case of one of the three men who are the appellants and it appears that Douglas Vintner was convicted of the murder of Robert Eden in 1996 and served his sentence for nine years and was then released. However, after his release he then murdered his wife on 11th February 2008.

Has there been many cases in Britain of murderers committing another murder after their release from prison after serving their sentence for the original charge of murder.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16638227

Over 30 killers killed again after being freed from prison between 2000/1 and 2010/11, statistics show.

 

[cmjcf]

after serving their sentence for the original charge of murder.

No such thing. The original sentence still stands. They're merely serving it outside of prison.

 

[bb21]

If a lifetime of monitoring, having to report every new address to the Parole Service and the ability of the state throw you in jail without a trial is not a sentence I need a new dictionary!

Access to the outside world. Is it not limited access to freedom?

I think you and I have some fundamental differences in the definition of what access to freedom is and I don't expect any reconciliation in that respect.

The point is that it isn't a just sentence.

So our courts don't pass just sentences? I am afraid what is just and what is not will be different in different people's eyes. There is nothing wrong with being locked up for the rest of one's life for committing the most heinous of the crimes in my eyes.

They may be released, but they are not at liberty.

Limited access to freedom.

Oh, do give it a rest with this nonsense again.

Feel free not to respond to my nonsense in that case. :roll:

You're assuming that you're in possession of the hard facts in the first place.

Even the Daily Fail wouldn't stoop so low as to make up the sentences passed in their reporting. If they do, they would be challenged pretty quickly by those involved.

What's the EU got to do with this?

Fine. ECHR. Be pedantic.

I suspect this is because you believe everything you read in the papers. That's a bad habit and a fundamental failure in critical thinking.

Ha. Careful with your generalisation.

 

[cmjcf]

Access to the outside world. Is it not limited access to freedom?

"Access to freedom" is a nonsense concept. One either has freedom or one does not, and life licensees certainly do not.

So our courts don't pass just sentences?

In this instances, it appears they have not. Were they just, I doubt the court would have decided as they have.

There is nothing wrong with being locked up for the rest of one's life for committing the most heinous of the crimes in my eyes.

There you are believing everything you read in the papers again. The court hasn't found anything wrong with that.

Even the Daily Fail wouldn't stoop so low as to make up the sentences passed in their reporting.

That's usually the last relevant fact in any reporting. They do however frequently omit or downplay relevant facts where they don't fit with their narrative.

Fine. ECHR. Be pedantic.

Pointing out that the apples you're holding are in fact oranges is not pedantic. The EU and ECHR have nothing to do with one another.

 

[bb21]

"Access to freedom" is a nonsense concept. One either has freedom or one does not, and life licensees certainly do not.

You might think that limited access to freedom is a rubbish concept, but I am pretty sure that many people will think that having the ability to move about in the streets, albeit under surveillance, does class as freedom to some degree. It's not a black and white thing, regardless of what the legal profession would like to call it.

There you are believing everything you read in the papers again. The court hasn't found anything wrong with that.

What has that got to do with believing the papers?

If there is nothing wrong with locking them up for the rest of their lives, then leave it to be. The ECHR clearly found it wrong that they should just be locked up for the rest of their lives hence the requirement for periodic review.

That's usually the last relevant fact in any reporting. They do however frequently omit or downplay relevant facts where they don't fit with their narrative.

And that is the only thing I am interested in, in the rare case where I actually read a paper.

Pointing out that the apples you're holding are in fact oranges is not pedantic. The EU and ECHR have nothing to do with one another.

You clearly know exactly which organisation I was referring to.

We are not going to agree on some quite fundamental things I sense.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

No such thing. The original sentence still stands. They're merely serving it outside of prison.

I note your clarification, but in relation to your response to my original posting, I maintain it would have been impossible for him to have murdered his wife had he still had been incarcerated for the first crime of murder that he committed.

Incidentally, I do NOT wish to be embroiled in a long and acrimonious series of cross-purpose postings with you, as there seems to be no such shortage of these now appearing on this particular thread.

 

[bb21]

Incidentally, I do NOT wish to be embroiled in a long and acrimonious series of cross-purpose postings with you, as there seems to be no such shortage of these now appearing on this particular thread.

I hope you are not inferring that the discussion between cmjcf and I is acrimonious.

 

[cmjcf]

What has that got to do with believing the papers?

This bit:

The ECHR clearly found it wrong that they should just be locked up for the rest of their lives

They found no such thing. Which you'd know if you'd bothered to read the judgment, as opposed to merely believing what the tabloid press would tell you. Their objection was that subject of a whole-life order is effectively condemned upon sentencing, and that, as human beings, nobody deserves that, no matter how extreme their crimes. Several of the judges go on to say that they have no problem with someone being in jail for life, as long as the detention has been reviewed to ensure it's still appropriate. (None of which has stopped the gutter press running with NOW LIFE DOESN'T MEAN LIFE! and such like.)

You clearly know exactly which organisation I was referring to.

I don't know which organisation you intended to refer to, because it's not clear that even you know which organisation you're talking about. The ECHR was formed under the auspices of the Council of Europe, which has 47 members, as against the EU with its 28 as of last week (hello Croatia!).

 

[bb21]

They found no such thing. Which you'd know if you'd bothered to read the judgment, as opposed to merely believing what the tabloid press would tell you. Their objection was that subject of a whole-life order is effectively condemned upon sentencing, and that, as human beings, nobody deserves that, no matter how extreme their crimes. Several of the judges go on to say that they have no problem with someone being in jail for life, as long as the detention has been reviewed to ensure it's still appropriate. (None of which has stopped the gutter press running with NOW LIFE DOESN'T MEAN LIFE! and such like.)

Perhaps I am not making myself clear, or that you are deliberately missing my point.

They found that locking someone away for life without review is wrong, did they not?

What is the purpose of these reviews if it is not to determine whether they are suitable for an "alternative arrangement" than being locked away? If the decision goes in favour of something other than keeping them in a high-security prison then life indeed does not mean life in many people's eyes.

 

[yorksrob]

This bit:

They found no such thing. Which you'd know if you'd bothered to read the judgment, as opposed to merely believing what the tabloid press would tell you. Their objection was that subject of a whole-life order is effectively condemned upon sentencing, and that, as human beings, nobody deserves that, no matter how extreme their crimes. Several of the judges go on to say that they have no problem with someone being in jail for life, as long as the detention has been reviewed to ensure it's still appropriate. (None of which has stopped the gutter press running with NOW LIFE DOESN'T MEAN LIFE! and such like.)


I don't know which organisation you intended to refer to, because it's not clear that even you know which organisation you're talking about. The ECHR was formed under the auspices of the Council of Europe, which has 47 members, as against the EU with its 28 as of last week (hello Croatia!).

As I have explained before, the idea that the ECtHR has not banned whole life tariffs is clearly nonsense. The whole point of a whole life tariff is that the criminal has been sentenced to spend the rest of hise life in prison. By what possible mental contortion is an enforced right to review, with a possibility of release compatible with a whole life tariff where the criminal has been judged to deserve to spend the rest of his life in prison?

 

[cmjcf]

As I have explained before, the idea that the ECtHR has not banned whole life tariffs is clearly nonsense.

Where did I say they haven't banned whole life tariffs? Whole life tariffs and whole life imprisonment are two completely different things.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I am unsure if the point I wish to make has already been raised, but I note some comments made in the media (and elsewhere) that trained professionals can work with convicted murderers in prison to try to establish a line of consensus with the prisoner to understand the reason for the crime being committed.

If so, I ask if anyone has read of the responses made by Ian Brady recently which contained no remorse whatsoever for his actions all those years ago and his description of some of his young victims is unbelievable.