I see the European court has once again ruled that the UK is in breach of the European human rights act.
Surely some crimes are so heinous that the perpetrator should be locked up forever for public safety?
From the cited site -
"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 judges ruled by 16 to one there had to be a review of the sentence and the possibility of a release.
But they said this did not mean there was "any prospect of imminent release".
If there is no prospect of release imminent or otherwise why bother with the process and the huge amount of money spent on it? There is always a possibility of release when these things are set in motion, to believe otherwise is foolish.
Oh I agree with you John, many would say the death sentence would be far to expensive but I think we shouldn't put a price on justice.
Expensive in terms of innocent lives lost?
Not really John when you consider how many innocent lives are lost each year to murderers.
Or are you of the Stalinist view " the death of one man is a tragedy, the death of a million is a statistic."
So you see no harm in increasing the number of innocent lives lost!!
Come on John evidence gathering is so good now that DNA tells where our ancestors come from. And science says everything they do reveals the truth. There have been mistakes in the past and there will always be mistakes but not doing something because there may be mistakes is possibly the worst reason not to do it.
Letting some of these individuals out who would have definitely been removed for good has led to many more innocents being killed.
You like statistics John so do you know how many times innocent people have been jailed compared to guilty ones?
So you don't hold with that mainstay of English law that says it is better that ten guilty men go free than one innocent man should be convicted?
No John I don't. And do you know why?
10 free murderers don't make a right. And as you know the law is an ass.
I would rather evidence gathering become more robust.
And I am not advocating convicted murderers be taken from the courts and hung within the hour, there will always have to be a system of checks and balances. Something that never happened in the past.
No, the law is a ass, get it right. And anyway do you think an ass should have the power of life or death over a man?
We aren't talking about ten murders going free, we are talking about one innocent man being killed for a crime he didn't commit.
With all the checks and balances there will always be corrupt policemen and DNA will always be fallible and only ever as reliable as the technician analysing it.
That's why I said there would have to be more robust evidence gathering. And a system of checks and balances to stop abuse.
It seems you are tarring all police, judges, lawyers with the same brush John.
I asked you the percentage of innocent to guilty and you came up with the inference that you would rather let all the guilty go than do wrong by one. However you forgot the wrong done to the innocent victims.
No, I am not inferring that all police, judges, lawyers are all corrupt but it only needs one bad apple to spoil the whole barrel.
No, I'm not forgetting the wrong done to the innocent victim convicted for a crime he didn't commit. Percentages matter not a jot. One innocent man convicted is far too many. Ask yourself how you would feel locked up for a crime you knew you had not committed, and all the time knowing that the guilty man walked free - using your freedom and your life?
But it's not about one man is it John? And I know I would feel pretty shit about it but it wouldn't change my mind about either the death penalty or the locking up of criminals.
So you'd be quite happy to know that as they pulled the lever that results in your death that the real murderer walks free and able to kill again?
It is exactly about one man otherwise you are no better than the killer.
Of course I wouldn't be happy John, but I still wouldn't change my mind about the death penalty even if I was one of the mistakes.
It seems you are suggesting that it is better to have many murderers taking the lives of innocent people than maybe making one mistake.
It seems there are many mistakes made when killers are let free yet nobody remembers the innocent victims because they wouldn't continue on the same course of action each and every time.
I think you are getting a little carried away. Most killers kill once and even without any imprisonment never do it again. That's not to say they shouldn't be punished but ending the life of another innocent victim to fulfil societies blood lust, no, I'm not having it.
You speak as if every killer killed many times - few do and the few that do are not going to be deterred by innocent men being put to death.
I am not looking at it as a deterrent John I am looking at it as a punishment, that's the problem with liberal views on punishment,, since the 60's things have got worse and yet we still continue along the same path.
It doesn't matter how many kill again John but I bet its still more than the innocent men convicted of murder.
And it seems you are of the thought that evidence is always tainted and always will be. No hope for any of us then!
But if you are happy to see innocent men die for crimes that they have not committed you are worse than the killers!
No, I don't think evidence is always tainted but just occasionally it is and if that occasional taint ends up in one innocent man losing his life then that is one time to many.
No I would never be happy about it but unfortunately sometimes things have to be done for the good of society.
As I said it must be coupled with better evidence gathering and checks. It all to easy to dismiss it because of the mistakes when we should be striving to eradicate those mistakes anyway.
Tyranny john is what you get when those who cant be removed by society go on to kill millions.
If after WW2 there was no death penalty do you think that the 200 Nazi's they hung would have reformed and become upright citizens? Do you think there were any innocent Nazi's?
Its not tyranny to remove permanently those who kill with no regard to their victim.
No, the tyranny is in saying "no harm done if a few innocent people get killed" or "it's for the good of society".
1. arbitrary or unrestrained exercise of power; despotic abuse of authority. Synonyms: despotism, absolutism, dictatorship.
2. the government or rule of a tyrant or absolute ruler.
3. a state ruled by a tyrant or absolute ruler.
4. oppressive or unjustly severe government on the part of any ruler.
5. undue severity or harshness.
I see nothing there about advocating that mistakes happen and anyone who says they do should be treated as advocates of tyranny.
If you have a system that arbitrarily incarcerates people for crimes that they haven't committed then that is an unrestrained exercise of power,oppressive and unjustly severe and undue severity. Sounds like tyranny to me.
Thanks for confirming my suggestion.
No John if you have a system that doesn't lock up those who would seek to kill innocent people because they could make a mistake then it lays the way open to the most heinous of human kind oppressing those unable to defend themselves, that's when it becomes tyranny.
But you are arguing for a system that locks up innocent people, in fact rather than just lock them up so that they might be released when their innocence is discovered, kill them so that they can never be released.
I am advocating a system that punishes offenders, you are saying we shouldn't punish anyone because we could be making a mistake.
I am advocating making the system of evidence collection foolproof with checks and balances in place, you are saying it can never be done.
I am saying if we keep being liberal reformists it will make the streets unsafe, you are saying letting criminals roam the streets makes it safer for society because we won't make any mistakes.
On the whole John i bet there are more guilty killers in prison than there are innocent men accused of murder.
No, I am saying that you should never do anything irrevocable which the death sentence is and so is locking somebody up for life without any opportunity of parole or release.
How do you make a system so fool proof that it can never make a mistake?
And stop arguing that there are more guilty men in prison, of course there are, but that does not excuse one innocent man in prison.
The failings are with those who would rather not improve the system and strive to see those who abuse it have more opportunity to do so.
What is? The fact that murderers can walk free after as little as 10 years, or the fact that the country is experiencing more murders than it ever had before, or the fact that they are still letting murderers out to kill again.
I'll tell you what is utter rubbish.
Left wing liberal humanitarianism.
Murder in the UK carries a mandatory life sentence, therefore nobody ever walks free, they might be paroled but they are still serving their sentence.
The murder rate in the UK is dropping considerably being 14.4 per million in 2001 and dropping consistently to 9.8 per million in 2012.
Do facts rather than knee jerk reactions based on tabloid scare stories.
Tell that to the victims John, they couldn't give a toss about percentages.
That's an amazing story--a mass murder with his own website, arguing that his rights are being denied by his getting a life sentence.
That's one thing (among others) I like about Texas. They'd have cut this guy's throat by now.
Much like capital punishment, if you view jail as a "punishment" then it makes at least some sense. If you view it as public protection then it does not.
by karl3 years ago
Britain has lost a staggering 202 European human rights cases involving murderers, terrorists, paedophiles and rapists, it emerged yesterday.Judges in Strasbourg handed the criminals taxpayer-funded payouts of...
by Deforest3 years ago
Is it a "terrorist" who attacked him? Or is it a covered operation?Now that we know that the horrors committed in Syria are signed indirectly by the US, now that we know that the "rebels" are...
by TruthDebater6 years ago
How does a government and society expect people to value all life including themselves and each other, while at the same time, the government can influence and enforce the death penalty and abortion? If people see...
by theirishobserver.6 years ago
The European Court of Human Rights has ruled that countries are not obliged to allow gay marriage, rejecting a bid by an Austrian couple to force the state to let them wed.
by mandybeau7 years ago
Big fan of the Guillotine for these Guys, Happy to operate it, I personally don;t see why we need to keep this pondscum alive, costing our Governments a fortune in food med. exps, dentistry.New zealand has quite a few...
by Ralph Deeds7 years ago
Do you agree with Lynn Cheney and Bill Kristol's criticism of 7 Justice Department lawyers who provided legal representation to accused terrorists, calling them "The Al Qaeda Seven"? Here's a link to the...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.