Life sentences without parole/review breaches human rights?

[Arrowhead]

The article is here.

What it says is that the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has decided that sentencing offenders to life in jail will breach their human rights if they don't have at least a possibility of being released (review). No matter how heinous the crime committed, there has to be some chance for the prisoner to be released.

Sound off below.

EDIT: Just to be clear, they aren't being granted the right to review on the basis of new evidence or some such. No these people have confessed that they have committed these crimes, or it has been proven beyond all doubt that they have and they're not appealing this decision.

The review is being given to release them on grounds of, for example, very good behaviour and if the prison psychologists believe that they can be reentered into society, or if they're terminally ill, etc. There's no question of their innocence being proven here.

Edited September 20, 2013 by Arrowhead

[Sandwich]

It seems reasonable to me that everybody should have a right to a review of the evidence - it's not unheard of for people to be released on the basis of new evidence, or a review that old evidence is retrospectively a load of rubbish. So for once I guess I agree with the EUCHR. The only real downside is that it costs public money, but I think in the interests of ensuri g justice it's not a waste of cash.

Provided it remains just a review and guilty persons CAN still be imprisoned for life (I half expected to read that in their wisdom the ECHR might have done a Norway!) then I don't find a real problem with it.

[flinquinnster]

I'm inclined to agree with Sandwich here - whatever the cost may be of a review, I think that all individuals should have that opportunity of possibly, possibly gaining release. In the small number of cases being discussed of heinous crimes, one would seriously hope that the legal system could and should use the review process to keep dangerous prisoners incarcerated. Really, in terms of rehabilitation, the hopes of that in the kinds of individuals who would be given whole-life sentences is pretty bleak already, but this may make a marginal difference. But I think that given the fallibility that can occur in sentencing and whatnot, that a review process should be in place to prevent these kinds of irreversible decisions. I guess that also tallies with my own view on the death penalty as well.

[Arrowhead]

It seems reasonable to me that everybody should have a right to a review of the evidence - it's not unheard of for people to be released on the basis of new evidence, or a review that old evidence is retrospectively a load of rubbish. So for once I guess I agree with the EUCHR. The only real downside is that it costs public money, but I think in the interests of ensuri g justice it's not a waste of cash.

Provided it remains just a review and guilty persons CAN still be imprisoned for life (I half expected to read that in their wisdom the ECHR might have done a Norway!) then I don't find a real problem with it.

I'm inclined to agree with Sandwich here - whatever the cost may be of a review, I think that all individuals should have that opportunity of possibly, possibly gaining release. In the small number of cases being discussed of heinous crimes, one would seriously hope that the legal system could and should use the review process to keep dangerous prisoners incarcerated. Really, in terms of rehabilitation, the hopes of that in the kinds of individuals who would be given whole-life sentences is pretty bleak already, but this may make a marginal difference. But I think that given the fallibility that can occur in sentencing and whatnot, that a review process should be in place to prevent these kinds of irreversible decisions. I guess that also tallies with my own view on the death penalty as well.

But that's not the point of the controversy. They're not getting released if new evidence is introduced or such, they're convicted felons who do not appeal the fact that they actually did commit their crimes. We're talking about release on good behaviour, or if they've been sufficiently rehabilitated and be reentered into society despite having committed these crimes and having confessed and agreed to having committed them.

[Sandwich]

Well apparently I didn't understand the article properly at all in that case! Review to me meant review of the evidence not some sort of behavioural assessment. Personally I think that if you've murdered people and confessed to it then you ought to be away for good - letting people like that out totally defeats the point of what's going on. 'Rehabilitation' is not an issue for murderers. Most murders are of specific people or to solve specific circumstances, it's not like that person just needs to learn that murder is bad and wrong or they'll indiscriminately murder somebody else. Prison has a role in helping to get people into better circumstances such that they're less likely to commit a crime when they leave (rehabilitation) but it IS also a type of punishment in my opinion. If you've murdered somebody then you've taken away the ultimate thing from that other person. In exchange you are punished by removal of your liberty.

The article is a little confusing though with that guy saying that because he maintains his innocence his case cannot be reviewed as a review requires a confession: that doesn't sound right to me either! Review in the sense of review of evidence after a certain period, in his case, seems reasonable. I think that's why I understood it as an evidential review rather than some sort of reward system for good behaviour.

[~Lc~]

I would agree to it being violating human rights if the review was not allowed where new evidence was presented. I don't think it is a violation of a human right for a person who's taking power into their hands to decide whether another person can live or not (for example), or lead a country in injustice (I'd put Mubarak and Al-Assad in jail for life).

I haven't read the article yet, but I'd be interested to know the cases they are using to back up this motion.

EDIT: after reading the article:

"The judges awarded Vinter €40,000 (£34,500) for his legal costs." brilliant!

[Luka Petrovic]

It depends how their spending their time in Jail. If they have anything more than three square meals a day, basic cell and at least 8 hours of service to their country be it through labour or some other means, then I say it doesn't matter if they are released or not, they are not paying what they owe society either way. I'm all for evidence to be reviewed as a few unfortunate souls do get falsely accused, but someone who commits particularly damaging or evil crimes and has no desire to learn a skill and become a functioning member of society should be kept in jail and worked.

[flinquinnster]

Whilst I am skeptical that some of these criminals being discussed can be 'rehabilitated', I don't think it's such an impossibility that they should never be given the chance for parole. So for the cases where it's toughest to justify a review - so where the guilt of a person is not in doubt because the evidence still stands - I still think there should be the chance of release based on good behaviour. But this evidence of rehabilitation should also be balanced against the pain of victims and/or their families - so even in the case where a war criminal might seem to be reasonably rehabilitated and thus suitable for release, it might not be appropriate. So on the grounds of good behaviour, since the possibility of reintegration is there - however remote it may be - the process of reviewing behaviour for potential release should be available.

In the case of those who are terminally ill, in the most pragmatic of interpretations, since they are so ill and likely to die soon their release is less of an issue in terms of committing more crimes. Although I don't really see how releasing a prisoner at that stage of their life would be that much of an improvement for them, and it would not be thrilling for those who were hurt by the criminal to see them released, even when in such a state of illness.

[Arrowhead]

Whilst I am skeptical that some of these criminals being discussed can be 'rehabilitated', I don't think it's such an impossibility that they should never be given the chance for parole. So for the cases where it's toughest to justify a review - so where the guilt of a person is not in doubt because the evidence still stands - I still think there should be the chance of release based on good behaviour. But this evidence of rehabilitation should also be balanced against the pain of victims and/or their families - so even in the case where a war criminal might seem to be reasonably rehabilitated and thus suitable for release, it might not be appropriate. So on the grounds of good behaviour, since the possibility of reintegration is there - however remote it may be - the process of reviewing behaviour for potential release should be available.

In the case of those who are terminally ill, in the most pragmatic of interpretations, since they are so ill and likely to die soon their release is less of an issue in terms of committing more crimes. Although I don't really see how releasing a prisoner at that stage of their life would be that much of an improvement for them, and it would not be thrilling for those who were hurt by the criminal to see them released, even when in such a state of illness.

But that's just the thing, you cannot balance, 'good behaviour' with 'the pain that the relatives and victim went through'. The idea is that the criminal has atoned for his crimes and is now 'rehabilitated', and everything bad that he did is in the past. Saying, 'yes' let him out for good behaviour, but balance it out with victims' pain, is oxymoronic. After all, the reformed criminal, for all his good intentions, no matter how much ever he tries can do nothing for the victims' and their families' pains.

That's how the 'terminally ill' thing is explained. The State has forgiven the criminal, so the victim and his/her family's pain is not considered at all. This is about the reformed offender alone.

The man could have butchered a school full of children and danced naked covered in 5-year-olds' blood, but that is irrelevant. (An extreme scenario, but it gets the idea across.)

Knowing this, do you still stand by your conviction for a review?

Edited September 21, 2013 by Arrowhead

[Luka Petrovic]

Whilst I am skeptical that some of these criminals being discussed can be 'rehabilitated', I don't think it's such an impossibility that they should never be given the chance for parole. So for the cases where it's toughest to justify a review - so where the guilt of a person is not in doubt because the evidence still stands - I still think there should be the chance of release based on good behaviour. But this evidence of rehabilitation should also be balanced against the pain of victims and/or their families - so even in the case where a war criminal might seem to be reasonably rehabilitated and thus suitable for release, it might not be appropriate. So on the grounds of good behaviour, since the possibility of reintegration is there - however remote it may be - the process of reviewing behaviour for potential release should be available.

In the case of those who are terminally ill, in the most pragmatic of interpretations, since they are so ill and likely to die soon their release is less of an issue in terms of committing more crimes. Although I don't really see how releasing a prisoner at that stage of their life would be that much of an improvement for them, and it would not be thrilling for those who were hurt by the criminal to see them released, even when in such a state of illness.

But that's just the thing, you cannot balance, 'good behaviour' with 'the pain that the relatives and victim went through'. The idea is that the criminal has atoned for his crimes and is now 'rehabilitated', and everything bad that he did is in the past. Saying, 'yes' let him out for good behaviour, but balance it out with victims' pain, is oxymoronic. After all, the reformed criminal, for all his good intentions, no matter how much ever he tries can do nothing for the victims' and their families' pains.

That's how the 'terminally ill' thing is explained. The State has forgiven the criminal, so the victim and his/her family's pain is not considered at all. This is about the reformed offender alone.

The man could have butchered a school full of children and danced naked covered in 5-year-olds' blood, but that is irrelevant. (An extreme scenario, but it gets the idea across.)

Knowing this, do you still stand by your conviction for a review?

Well of course you cannot rehabilitate those who committed horrible crimes, but what about those who are not criminals by nature, but those who are criminal by nature and have committed non violent crimes or at least non lethal. Should they be given a chance after a humbling, but educational sentence to reintergrate into society?

[Arrowhead]

Well of course you cannot rehabilitate those who committed horrible crimes, but what about those who are not criminals by nature, but those who are criminal by nature and have committed non violent crimes or at least non lethal. Should they be given a chance after a humbling, but educational sentence to reintergrate into society?

Criminals who've committed non-violent crimes would not have been sentenced to life imprisonment. That is not a sentence that is given out unless the offender in question has committed heinous crimes of this sort. That makes the ECtHR decision controversial because it is targeted at offeners with life sentences i.e. offenders who've committed violent, heinous crimes.