Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Killers' Life Terms 'breached Their Human Rights'  
User currently offlinenighthawk From UK - Scotland, joined Sep 2001, 5178 posts, RR: 33
Posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 2903 times:

Quote:

The European Court of Human Rights has ruled the whole life tariffs given to murderer Jeremy Bamber and two other killers breached their human rights.

The court ruled there had to be both a possibility of release and review to be compatible with their human rights.

However it said this did not mean there was "any prospect of imminent release".

Bamber, along with Peter Moore and Douglas Vinter, argued their sentences were "inhuman" and they should have the right to a review.

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

So now you can't even sentence someone to life without breaching their human rights! How long before locking someone in prison is ruled 'inhuman'?


That'll teach you
58 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineoffloaded From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2009, 904 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 2886 times:

Well here in Portugal the maximum "life" sentence is 25 years, even for multiple murders.

Foreign (i.e non-Brit) judges on the ECHR are likely to see things differently, and as the UK is a signatory to the ECHR, I'm guessing the UK will comply with ECHR judgements.



To no one will we sell, or deny, or delay, right or justice - Magna Carta, 1215
User currently offlinesabenapilot From Belgium, joined Feb 2000, 2728 posts, RR: 46
Reply 2, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 2868 times:

In Belgium too, the maximum sentence is "for life" (even for multiple murder, as sentences aren't added up) and this life sentence is automatically turned into a 30 year sentence which can be (and mostly is) cut short further during your stay in prison to something like 12 to 18 years, so unless you are a re-offending mass murderer, you're never going to serve more than say 20 years in a Belgian prison cel, no matter what you did.

[Edited 2013-07-09 03:40:21]

User currently offlineL410Turbolet From Czech Republic, joined May 2004, 5743 posts, RR: 19
Reply 3, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 2833 times:

Wouldn't it be nice to also have the European Court of Victims' Human Rights...??? You know to provide some desperately needed counterbalance to those bleeding hearts at the ECHR an their relentless care about human rights for criminals and terrorists.

Quoting offloaded (Reply 1):
Well here in Portugal the maximum "life" sentence is 25 years, even for multiple murders.
Quoting sabenapilot (Reply 2):
In Belgium too, the maximum sentence is "for life" (even for multiple murder, as sentences aren't added up) and this life sentence is automatically turned into a 30 year sentence

I am afraid it would be a depressing competition trying to find which European country has more pathetic sentences. Here, one is likely to end up with a more severe sentence for an insurance fraud than for a murder.


User currently offlineltbewr From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 13193 posts, RR: 15
Reply 4, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 2831 times:

With that standard, we have 20,000 or more serving 'life sentences' in the USA without parole and it could be cruel and unusual punishment per our Constitution and breaches international standards of human rights. Still, most in the USA think there are some criminals who deserve to spend the rest of their natural lives in jail for their crimes. It is also a far better choice than the death penalty and has become a common sentence in the USA and replacing the death penalty.

To me the real answer is to have some procedure of review of a person serving a long sentence (15 or more years) what is called in the USA parole to review any new evidence, if any false statements, if were violations of Constitutional rights, if the person has 'rehabilitated' themselves and obeyed jail rules. Unfortunately parole has become less used in the USA due to 'law and order' demanding politicians seeking votes.


User currently offlinealoges From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 8760 posts, RR: 42
Reply 5, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 2789 times:

Quoting nighthawk (Thread starter):
So now you can't even sentence someone to life without breaching their human rights!

Bollocks.    You can. All you have to do is make a review of the sentence and an eventual release POSSIBLE - but if the inmate is deemed unfit for release, (s)he will remain in custody. Even the article that you quoted - and hopefully read in its entirety - mentions that reviews of all sentences used to be possible:

Quote:
Up until 2003, all terms could be reviewed, including whole-life tariffs.

To top it off, you even quoted the very line:

Quote:
However it said this did not mean there was "any prospect of imminent release".

that renders your next Daily Mail-worthy line completely ridiculous:

Quoting nighthawk (Thread starter):
How long before locking someone in prison is ruled 'inhuman'?

Enjoy your outrage.    We in the real world would like to get on with our lives.



Walk together, talk together all ye peoples of the earth. Then, and only then, shall ye have peace.
User currently offlinePvjin From Finland, joined Mar 2012, 1399 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 2787 times:

O yea justice systems in most European countries just suck...

Around here you get worse sentences from economic crimes than from manslaughter. They care so much about human rights of all kinds of mass murderers and other evil scum, yet nobody seems to care about victims and their families as even the worst murderers rarely stay in jail much more than 10 years.

Dangerous criminals are increasingly often being put back into society even before they have properly finished their sentences in jail, our government apparently doesn't care about safety of ordinary citizen... Also mental health services seem to be inadequate which makes these problems worse.

I'm glad I live far away from the nearest major city and I intend to do so in the future too, less crazies around here.



"A rational army would run away"
User currently onlineWestJet747 From Canada, joined Aug 2011, 1931 posts, RR: 10
Reply 7, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 2684 times:

I think people are going to be mad about this just because they like to get mad about things. It's really a non-issue.

1) This ruling only says that there must be the possibility of release...nowhere does it stipulate what that possibility may be. Britain can easily just adjust their "life sentences" such that the case is reviewed after X number of years by a designated board. A strict criteria will be set out that certain conditions must objectively be met to even consider lowering a sentence. If the criteria are not met, the guilty party remains in jail the rest of their life. You have satisfied the court's mandate of "possibility".

2) Instead of always bitching about the ECHR all the time, why don't you guys just leave? So long as you are party to it, you have to abide by the rulings it hands down.

Quoting ltbewr (Reply 4):
It is also a far better choice than the death penalty and has become a common sentence in the USA and replacing the death penalty.

It's also far cheaper.

Quoting L410Turbolet (Reply 3):
Wouldn't it be nice to also have the European Court of Victims' Human Rights...???

Ah, the classic "victims rights" line.  

Tell me, L410Turbolet, how do you propose such a "European Court of Victims' Human Rights" would function? Is the sentencing of a perpetrator not in fact the response to the "victims rights"?



Flying refined.
User currently offlinealoges From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 8760 posts, RR: 42
Reply 8, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 2680 times:

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 7):
Instead of always bitching about the ECHR all the time, why don't you guys just leave?

I think you've already provided the answer to that question:

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 7):
people (...) like to get mad about things.

Many of us are fully aware that the bitching wouldn't end, it would merely find another target. So you might as well make that target a European court which is an almost perfect scapegoat, as opposed to something domestic.



Walk together, talk together all ye peoples of the earth. Then, and only then, shall ye have peace.
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21853 posts, RR: 55
Reply 9, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 2658 times:

Quoting ltbewr (Reply 4):
To me the real answer is to have some procedure of review of a person serving a long sentence (15 or more years) what is called in the USA parole to review any new evidence, if any false statements, if were violations of Constitutional rights, if the person has 'rehabilitated' themselves and obeyed jail rules.

Which is exactly what the ECHR is saying needs to happen.

Let's face it: if there's a criminal in jail who has taken steps to improve his life and is ready to be functioning member of society again, why go to the expense of keeping him in jail the rest of his life?

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlinePvjin From Finland, joined Mar 2012, 1399 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 2558 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 9):
Let's face it: if there's a criminal in jail who has taken steps to improve his life and is ready to be functioning member of society again, why go to the expense of keeping him in jail the rest of his life?

Who defines when an individual is ready to be a "functioning member of society"?

I can definitely see all kinds of crazies getting out to murder more people just because some clowns think they are ready for society because they have behaved well in jail...



"A rational army would run away"
User currently offlinestealthz From Australia, joined Feb 2005, 5743 posts, RR: 44
Reply 11, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 2553 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Message to ECHR..(and the UNHCR and many other orgs)

Killers crimes invalidated any claim to "their" human rights.

I am a bit over all these bleeding heart organisations and courts making the criminal into the victim.

I am not a huge supporter of the death penalty but .. you commit heinous crimes, you forfeit your rights to participate in human society.



If your camera sends text messages, that could explain why your photos are rubbish!
User currently onlineWestJet747 From Canada, joined Aug 2011, 1931 posts, RR: 10
Reply 12, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 2516 times:

Quoting Pvjin (Reply 10):
Who defines when an individual is ready to be a "functioning member of society"?

As I mentioned in my first reply, a board of experts would review the case and decide whether the guilty party objectively meets a defined set of criteria that would allow him/her to have their sentence reduced.

Quoting stealthz (Reply 11):
I am a bit over all these bleeding heart organisations and courts making the criminal into the victim.

How are they being made a victim? Where does it say that they're going to be let out? And the most important question: did you even read the article? This ruling is being so far blown out of proportion, it really is astonishing.

Quoting stealthz (Reply 11):
I am not a huge supporter of the death penalty but .. you commit heinous crimes, you forfeit your rights to participate in human society.

The United States have kindly shown us that the death penalty doesn't work.



Flying refined.
User currently offlinePPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8974 posts, RR: 39
Reply 13, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 2510 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 9):
Let's face it: if there's a criminal in jail who has taken steps to improve his life and is ready to be functioning member of society again, why go to the expense of keeping him in jail the rest of his life?

Because justice isn't just about the criminal, it's about the victim, too.

Look at the Nazis who have been found in places like Wisconsin over the past couple of years. No indication that they have committed crimes after they left Europe, at least to my knowledge. Does that mean they moved on from hurting people? Looks like, doesn't it? Does that mean they should avoid being sent to jail? Of course not.

There is very clearly a role for punishment in society. It should come as a form of restriction on the criminal's human rights, not in the form of barbaric punishments one can read from history.



"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8466 posts, RR: 9
Reply 14, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 2504 times:

Quoting aloges (Reply 5):
All you have to do is make a review of the sentence and an eventual release POSSIBLE - but if the inmate is deemed unfit for release, (s)he will remain in custody:

Best example of that is Charles Manson. Procedures require that he be given a Parole Hearing periodically - and he has been given those hearings. And he is still in prison and remain so until the undertaker comes to pick up his dead body.

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 7):
It's also far cheaper.

Is it? Keeping someone in prison had an annual cost of $25,000 several years ago. No telling where it is now. And, for people like Timmy McVey I believe that the death sentence is more than appropriate.

For violent criminals I have no problem with some long term sentences. For less dangerous criminals I believe we need to work out better ways of punishing them. Sadly we consider the whippings handed out in Singapore as "cruel" - sad because it would save a fortune in running jails. 30 Days, 3 to 5 lashes and home arrest is a lot cheaper than 3 to 5 years.

While a lot of people want to see long sentences for everyone we tend to forget that it costs money to build prisons, pay staff and all the other costs, such as food and medical care. There are some legal battles going on here because the state prisons are too full and the state isn't picking up inmates who have received their sentences - leaving the city/county jail over crowded. And, since out female Republican Governor (we have the one with the decent face lift) is cutting taxes instead of increasing funding for the prison system the problem is only going to get worse.


User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6920 posts, RR: 12
Reply 15, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 2501 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 9):
Let's face it: if there's a criminal in jail who has taken steps to improve his life and is ready to be functioning member of society again, why go to the expense of keeping him in jail the rest of his life?

I guess you're not a fan of the three strikes laws, then.

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 13):
Look at the Nazis who have been found in places like Wisconsin over the past couple of years. No indication that they have committed crimes after they left Europe, at least to my knowledge. Does that mean they moved on from hurting people? Looks like, doesn't it? Does that mean they should avoid being sent to jail? Of course not.

Personally I think that punishing them now for crimes committed in the 40's is pointless. If you want a trial or something to get remorse, admittance of guilt, whatever, fine, but jailing them is vengeance not justice.

That's why we have statute of limitations. Of course crimes against humanity are excluded, but I feel they shouldn't, just put a higher mark like 30 years.



New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently onlineWestJet747 From Canada, joined Aug 2011, 1931 posts, RR: 10
Reply 16, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 2493 times:

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 14):
Best example of that is Charles Manson. Procedures require that he be given a Parole Hearing periodically - and he has been given those hearings. And he is still in prison and remain so until the undertaker comes to pick up his dead body.

Exactly. I can't imagine those hearings take more than a few minutes before the panel dies his parole. The guy is never getting out of prison.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 14):
Is it? Keeping someone in prison had an annual cost of $25,000 several years ago. No telling where it is now. And, for people like Timmy McVey I believe that the death sentence is more than appropriate.

Due process guarantees appeals to those sentenced to death in most jurisdictions. This appeals process can climb to a 7-digit figure before the appeal falls. Also of note is that those sentenced to death sit on death row an average of 15 years until they are finally put to death, hence why about a quarter of all death row inmates die of natural causes before being put to death. Whether you sentence these folks to death, or life, chances are you're paying a similar amount for their rent...the only real difference being the millions in court costs for death row inmates.

Also, as a side argument, the privatization of prisons has made it cheaper to house these criminals.

Quoting Aesma (Reply 15):
Personally I think that punishing them now for crimes committed in the 40's is pointless. If you want a trial or something to get remorse, admittance of guilt, whatever, fine, but jailing them is vengeance not justice.

I tend to agree. Putting a 97-year old man in jail doesn't really accomplish anything. If people want retribution, they should go after their estate when they die (which shouldn't be long) and donate whatever they get to a relevant cause.



Flying refined.
User currently offlineRussianJet From Belgium, joined Jul 2007, 7718 posts, RR: 21
Reply 17, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 2456 times:

Quoting aloges (Reply 8):
Many of us are fully aware that the bitching wouldn't end, it would merely find another target. So you might as well make that target a European court which is an almost perfect scapegoat, as opposed to something domestic.

Aloges, I'm sorry, but no. I agree with you a hell of a lot, but it's a shame you leaped to such a stereotypical and facile assessment. This is not a scapegoat for anything. It is, however, part of a couple of wider debates, namely the wider European influence and the perceived softness of British justice. I actually think this is one is at least as much about the latter as the former, as many in Britain have long being sick of soft sentencing. The right to sentence somebody to life is absolutely one that any country should have if the crime is serious enough. It's not 'bollocks' (as another poster said) to say that it's no longer going to be possible to sentence someone for their whole life. This enforced 'possibility' of release, regardless of how realistic the prospect of success is, is precisely what the whole of life sentence is designed to achieve. The lack of hope is the punishment itself, and multiple planned murders deserve that. I really hope that this situation isn't hijacked for use in misguided campaigns about EU membership and so on, but it does pose valid questions about self-determination when our nation is prevented from imposing the prison sentences it sees fit for serious crimes. It is also not fair to simply dismiss at a stroke the legitimate concerns that many in the UK have over the fact that the ECHR all too often seems to rule against the interests of the law-abiding citizens of the UK, and instead takes the easy option of stretching the definition of human rights articles to cover every conceivable avenue of defence and argument a criminal comes up with.



✈ Every strike of the hammer is a blow against the enemy. ✈
User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8466 posts, RR: 9
Reply 18, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 2446 times:

Quoting Aesma (Reply 15):
I guess you're not a fan of the three strikes laws, then.

I recall reading about a shoplifter getting his third strike nicking a pair of jeans. At the time I thought that was going to cost the state (California) a bloody fortune. Overkill if there ever was.

Quoting Aesma (Reply 15):
Personally I think that punishing them now for crimes committed in the 40's is pointless.

I don't. That time was so obscenely horrid that anyone caught who participated in the crimes should face a judge and jury, regardless of how long ago it was.

Quoting Aesma (Reply 15):
but jailing them is vengeance not justice.

Being found guilty of participation in the Holocaust and sent to prison will be justice, not vengeance.

Letting the Nazi walk away laughing is afar greater concern.

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 16):
This appeals process can climb to a 7-digit figure before the appeal falls.
Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 16):
Whether you sentence these folks to death, or life, chances are you're paying a similar amount for their rent.

It's just how long the rent will be paid.

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 16):
Also, as a side argument, the privatization of prisons has made it cheaper to house these criminals.

I'm against privatization of jails & prisons. The only way it is going to be cheaper is by paying personnel a lot less in terms of wages and prison guards don't make that much any way. We don't need prison guards making minimum wage.

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 16):
Putting a 97-year old man in jail doesn't really accomplish anything.

It gets a Nazi arrested, put on trial and put in prison it accomplishes a lot. For those still alive with the horrors of the Holocaust it demonstrates that there is no escape from those crimes. For the rest of us it is a reminder of those horrors and maintains the "Never Forget" history of that time.

If there is anything that deserves a Zero Tolerance attitude it is the participation in the Holocaust


User currently offlineRussianJet From Belgium, joined Jul 2007, 7718 posts, RR: 21
Reply 19, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 2443 times:

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 18):
I'm against privatization of jails & prisons. The only way it is going to be cheaper is by paying personnel a lot less in terms of wages and prison guards don't make that much any way. We don't need prison guards making minimum wage.

Totally. Private jails exist in the UK, it's a complete disgrace. Justice is a business for the nation, not something to be outsourced to the lowest bidder.



✈ Every strike of the hammer is a blow against the enemy. ✈
User currently onlineWestJet747 From Canada, joined Aug 2011, 1931 posts, RR: 10
Reply 20, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 2432 times:

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 18):
I'm against privatization of jails & prisons.

What specifically are you against? I'm not particularly for or against them, but I think they can be effective if highly regulated and stripped of their ability to lobby.

They don't exist here though, so I haven't given it too much thought.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 18):
The only way it is going to be cheaper is by paying personnel a lot less in terms of wages and prison guards don't make that much any way.

My best friend is a prison guard at a correctional facility in Edmonton. He works about 10-12 hours of overtime every week and he's slated to make $100,000 this year. He's at the lowest pay rate as well.

The argument there I guess is that prison guards should make more than what American private prisons pay, but less than what the public-sector unions are gouging the province for.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 18):
It gets a Nazi arrested, put on trial and put in prison it accomplishes a lot. For those still alive with the horrors of the Holocaust it demonstrates that there is no escape from those crimes. For the rest of us it is a reminder of those horrors and maintains the "Never Forget" history of that time.

If there is anything that deserves a Zero Tolerance attitude it is the participation in the Holocaust

I appreciate the sentiment, and I fully agree that these men and women do not deserve any forgiveness, but I personally feel that it's a waste of taxpayer money to actively prosecute them at that age. It also depletes the accused's bank account such that their estate can't be sued civilly after death in order to recoup some money for Holocaust organizations.

Quoting RussianJet (Reply 19):
Justice is a business for the nation, not something to be outsourced to the lowest bidder.

Justice happens in the court room, not the prison cell. Justice can be meted out regardless where you stick the perpetrator after they're convicted.



Flying refined.
User currently offlineRussianJet From Belgium, joined Jul 2007, 7718 posts, RR: 21
Reply 21, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 2429 times:

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 20):
Justice happens in the court room, not the prison cell. Justice can be meted out regardless where you stick the perpetrator after they're convicted.

I don't agree. Justice includes the punishment, and the punishment meted out by the courts should be enforced directly by the state, belong to the state and be the sole business of the state. Private prisons are an abomination.



✈ Every strike of the hammer is a blow against the enemy. ✈
User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6920 posts, RR: 12
Reply 22, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 2422 times:

In the US we see judges bribed by private prisons to send more perps there...


New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently onlineWestJet747 From Canada, joined Aug 2011, 1931 posts, RR: 10
Reply 23, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 2421 times:

Quoting RussianJet (Reply 21):
I don't agree. Justice includes the punishment, and the punishment meted out by the courts should be enforced directly by the state, belong to the state and be the sole business of the state. Private prisons are an abomination.

If the state can regulate everything else, why can't they regulate how these private prisons operate? The problem isn't with free-wheeling private prisons, it's with the laziness of the government to regulate them effectively.



Flying refined.
User currently offlineRussianJet From Belgium, joined Jul 2007, 7718 posts, RR: 21
Reply 24, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 2420 times:

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 23):
If the state can regulate everything else, why can't they regulate how these private prisons operate? The problem isn't with free-wheeling private prisons, it's with the laziness of the government to regulate them effectively.

It's the principle of it. The state should be entirely responsible for all aspects of it. In any event, putting that aside, 'effective regulation' costs a fortune, as does the fact that time and time again these things are underquoted and cost more than claimed. That aside though, I just don't feel that the private sector should have a place in running prisons - no more than I want to see private Police pulling me over for speeding or executing search warrants on the cheap.



✈ Every strike of the hammer is a blow against the enemy. ✈
25 Post contains images L410Turbolet : It was a tongue-in-cheek suggestion... Not if the sentence is a complete joke considering the severity of the crime, which is sadly the case all over
26 WestJet747 : Again, that's an issue of regulation. It seems the government has taken somewhat of a blind eye to that issue, when they should really be punishing t
27 Ken777 : There is simply too much money for intrusive regulations. Costs, especially in the area of guards, will be cut to make them look "more efficient". Mo
28 WestJet747 : Well that's the definition of efficient, isn't it? Maximizing outputs given a certain level of inputs? Only in America is "scratch my back and I'll s
29 Mir : There's a difference between not sending someone to jail at all and not keeping them there their entire lives. No I'm not. There should always be a p
30 PanHAM : Not quite, some get life with prventive detention after they served their life sentence after 18 or 20 years. Preventive detention is much more comfo
31 L410Turbolet : There is no need for an alternative solution in terms of institutions. Perhaps if those lovely folks at ECHR got a reality check and instead of their
32 WestJet747 : You're mixing the two conversation happening in this thread. I've been arguing that private prisons aren't that bad, but when I was referring to an a
33 PPVRA : Statute of limitations on violent crimes? Definitely not on murder, highly controversial on other crimes, such as rape.
34 SmittyOne : Poor guy? Pawn? He either murdered two people or tried to use his diplomatic status to manipulate our legal system on behalf of a murderer (his girlf
35 PanHAM : well, such an asnwer leaves me speechless. Can you understand that the guy is innocent, did not kill anyone and just wanted to defend his girl friend
36 SmittyOne : I obviously haven't seen the actual evidence but based on a cursory review of what's available online I am not sure that this is a true statement. Hi
37 PanHAM : The point is, any legal system that takes prison inmates "to the grave" is cruel and inhuman. I would not want to live in a state that does not give p
38 Rara : That's it. End of story. Society has the right to defend itself against dangerous individuals, but that's a decision that has to be made based on fac
39 SmittyOne : I'm being totally serious here...it may be cruel and inhuman, but isn't that the point? If you murder someone, you forfeit the rest of YOUR life. You
40 PanHAM : No, revenge is not the base for justice. Revenge is injustice that is medieval and backwards. A person must have somehting to look forward for, rotti
41 SmittyOne : If someone murdered my wife or daughter I think they should spend the rest of their life sitting in a completely empty jail cell with absolutely no n
42 PanHAM : This is so far fetched that I had to read it twice. My apologies, but what state of mind are you in? Ever came to your mind that this is the reason f
43 SmittyOne : I read your post as suggesting that the US should not try or imprison Germans who murder people here - that we should just send them back to Germany
44 PanHAM : Well, I was not talking about "Germans" and "Americans" in general, I was talking about Jens Soering, who has served more than 25 years in prison for
45 SmittyOne : Fair enough, I was indeed speaking in general terms. I'm not a Christian so I can't help you there...personally I have no patience for those who cann
46 zckls04 : I think there should be no such thing as "life" in prison, so I agree with this ruling to some degree providing: 1) The maximum sentence for first-deg
47 SmittyOne : This is really intriguing, to be honest with you. Don't you feel like that is letting them get off 'easy'? 15 years is nothing compared to the finali
48 PanHAM : well, times and opinions change. It taks more times in some regions, as we can see and it sometimes taks a big catastrophe to change the laws and mak
49 SmittyOne : LOL and fortunately subject to my mood at the time. Which has improved.
50 Aesma : Well this varies from country to country, here in France it's ten years for the most serious crimes (including rape and murder). You couldn't accuse
51 KiwiRob : The US doesn't apply it correctly, it should be simple, get sentenced to death, get one appeal within a given (2-5 year) time period if you aren't fo
52 Post contains images WestJet747 : True, but what I meant was that it's not a deterrent at whatever wait times...and they also have a history of questioning sentencing people to death.
53 JoePatroni707 : This is exactly why the death penalty is better.. A bullet is cheap and effective. Only problem is it takes too long.
54 Post contains links Smittyone : Well sure, I guess that is what I'm saying. What holds society together is the idea that the way I treat others is what I should expect to receive in
55 PanHAM : Cute. But when the state failed, it is still alright to keep the perpetrator behind bars for life? little has changed in 700 years. can't happen if t
56 Smittyone : No, of course not...I have already agreed with you there. The challenge is establishing that the State failed, when people whose freedom is on the li
57 PanHAM : There is simply no question. The German basic law / constitution starts with the sentence "The human diginity is untouchable" . §§ 1 is an eternal
58 Smittyone : From a (German) legal standpoint, human dignity has been declared to be 'untouchable'; great. Based on history I can see why you have that in your Co
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Human Rights Law Is An Ass posted Fri Dec 17 2010 04:52:49 by skidmarks
Obama, AZ & The UN Human Rights Council posted Wed Sep 22 2010 22:54:08 by fr8mech
Does This Infringe On Human Rights? posted Tue Dec 8 2009 04:13:08 by EISHN
Human Rights Wimps Hate Predator Drones posted Fri May 29 2009 15:12:26 by AirTran737
US To Rejoin UN Human Rights Council posted Sat Apr 4 2009 10:28:11 by Aaron747
Democracy, Human Rights, The Origin posted Tue Sep 30 2008 18:08:11 by HapppyLandings
Situation Of Human Rights In North East China posted Thu Jan 10 2008 12:27:45 by LHStarAlliance
Fujimori Sets Tone At Peru Human Rights Trial posted Tue Dec 11 2007 14:20:50 by MaverickM11
Iran Accuses Canada Of Human Rights Violations posted Fri Sep 14 2007 22:04:50 by TheCol
N K Accuses Finland For Violating Human Rights posted Sun Feb 25 2007 13:47:18 by SK A340