I have never understood the point of a concurrent sentence when a criminal is convicted of two or more crimes and the judge sentences him/her to a certain period of time for each crime but the sentences may all be served at the same time.
So if someone murders four people he/she gets a life sentence for each but instead of four 25 years sentences so he/she serves 100 years, he/she gets one 25 year sentence for all of them.
The judge can designate a whole-life sentence which will see the criminal behind bars for the rest of his/her life and Jeremy Barber was one of three prisoners challenging his whole life sentence which he received in 1985 and the European court of Human Rights today decided that whole-life jail sentences, without any prospect of release, amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment of prisoners.
The judgement said: 'For a life sentence to remain compatible with article 3 there had to be both a possibility of release and a possibility of review' which means that the sentence must be reviewed after 25 years.
As uncomfortable as it is, i agree with the Prime Minister and his colleagues who have come to say that they 'profoundly disagree' with the verdict.
There are 50 prisoners on whole-life sentences including Ian Brady, Dennis Neilson, Steve Wright, Peter Tobin, Dale Cregan, Rose West, Peter Sutcliffe, Mark Bridger, Peter Tobin and Robert Black and it is beyond me how anyone can argue that these abominations should ever be released and shouldn't rot in prison until they die.
If the UK is forced to comply then i sincerely hope it will just be lip survice and it will be a parole hearing after so many years for lifers, an inevitable ruling that they are unfit for release and pencil in the next parole hearing in 20 years and repeated until death.
The EUCHR has got this one very wrong.
5 comments:
we are 100% alinged on this one...
q
At last, wwe found something we agree 1005 on
Well I guess I'm going to be the odd one out and side with the EUCHR. What's the difference between executing someone and locking them up for ever?
I haven't read the opinion, but your summary indicates that they don't mind keeping crazies in for as long as they're crazy.
And if someone is truly reformed after 25 years, how does it serve society to keep them locked up? Garnish their wages to repay the people and families they hurt, but let those who have reformed get out and contribute to the world.
Well one is paying a debt to society and the other is doing to him what he is being punished for doing.
The test would be would you be happy to have someone like Ian Brady who killed lot's of children 25 years ago move in next door to you and your family? He could even babysit for you as way of contributing to the world.
nog,
i just don't like the gov killing citizens. smacks of kings and queens...
q
Post a Comment