X

Cookies

Continue We want you to get the most out of using this website, which is why we and our partners use cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to receive these cookies. You can find out more about how we use cookies here.

Monday, 01 September 2014

Subscriptions  |  evouchers  |  Jobs  |  Property  |  Motors  |  Travel  |  Dating  |  Family Notices

Evil killers won’t be free to roam streets

It’s the end of life as we know it! The streets will be flooded with mass murderers, multiple rapists and crazed criminals.

af prison 107 1
Still safe: A guard patrols a prison corridor

No one will be safe.

All because of those evil Euro bureaucrats!

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has ruled that whole-life tariffs breach a prisoner’s human rights, following an appeal by mass murderer Jeremy Bamber and two other killers.

The judges said such sentences had to be reviewed at some point.

It was inhuman and degrading to never have any possibility of parole, they ruled.

The news sparked an instant volcano of opposition and abuse of the ECHR from government ministers and the usual yapping political commentators who also pointed to the fuss and expense of the eventual deportation of Abu Qatada to consider. A case that has been appallingly handled for years after becoming mired in human rights considerations.

There’s no doubt that areas of the ECHR need revision. But we would lose more if we did not stick with it.

The thing is, nothing really changes.

In case you didn’t realise, Ian Brady was up for a parole board hearing of sorts a week ago.

He tried to convince a tribunal he was sane. He didn’t. He isn’t. People fear that Jeremy Bamber, or Rose West could be released the instant they ask for a parole board hearing. They won’t.

The Government used to have the power to review whole life terms after 25 years – but that was abolished in 2003.

Brady, Bamber, West and others weren’t released before then, so why should they be released now?

Right-wing politicians are using this ruling as another reason to excuse us from agreeing to follow the European Human Rights.

People have complained that it is another example of us being ruled by Europe, of being powerless, of showing a disregard to the victims and their families. The ruling is upholding the ideal that a person can change, could be rehabilitated and might, just might prove to be of some value to society. This isn’t going to apply to people such as Dennis Nilsen or Brady or West.

But if you don’t think there’s any possibility of someone being rehabilitated, why bother with jailing them?

Why spend hundreds of thousands of pounds a year on their health and welfare in a top-security prison or mental hospital? Shouldn’t they be executed to put them out of their misery and save us money?

Ignore the fuss and bluster. The ruling is likely to be completely irrelevant.

The European court has simply stated that everyone has a right to a parole tribunal, to try to prove that they are reformed characters. After their hearing the tribunal can disagree and determine to keep them locked up. No one is ever going to agree to free Ian Brady, or Nilsen, or West.

Have your say

Be the first to comment on this article!

Make your comment

Your name

Your Email

Your Town/City

Your comment


SHARE THIS ARTICLE

News & Star What's On search





Vote

Are Community Resolutions a good idea?

Yes, it helps to relieve pressure on the over-stretched justice system

No, it's another case of society being soft on criminals

I've never heard of the scheme

Show Result

Hot jobs
Scan for our iPhone and Android apps
Search for:
NEWS & STAR ON: