Skip to comments.Locking up Prisoners for Life Does Not Breach Human Rights, Judges Rule
Posted on 11/21/2012 10:47:50 PM PST by nickcarraway
Locking up Britain's most dangerous prisoners for life does not breach their human rights, appeal court judges ruled today.
The Court of Appeal made the judgement in cases bought by two murders and a rapist who claimed whole-life orders were inappropriate.
Although the judges overturned the whole-life tariff for murderer Danilo Restivo and rapist Michael Roberts, they upheld the sentence for killer David Oakes. Oakes ''sadistically tortured'' his former partner before shooting her and their two-year-old daughter.
His appeal against a whole life tariff was rejected with Lord Judge saying he had been "utterly merciless" in putting his former partner through "the most terrifying and agonising ordeal that he could envisage."
The judges ruled the imposition of whole-life terms was not incompatible with Article 3 of the European Convention of Human Rights, which prohibits torture and inhuman or degrading treatment and punishment.
(Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk ...
Since common sense is clearly dead, this might come off sounding like news to some. “We need to understand these torturer-killer-rapists instead of knee-jerk imprisonment. Maybe socity makes them that way, and it’s not their fault.” Have you noticed how liberal good intentions always have the opposite result? You can’t end crime by being nicer to the criminals—it just makes crime worse.
“...they upheld the sentence for killer David Oakes...”
My prediction...it’s just a matter of time before they let him out as well.
Back at univ during one of my useless prerequisite courses required for my major, one my lib classmates started spouting off to the prof about how jailed criminals are mostly innocent and that the justice system is broken.
Well, I was pissed off there were no hot chicks in class, I just blurted out “if you love these criminals so much, I would love to get your address so I can pass it off to a rapist on parole, and you can offer your place to him for awhile.” That shut her up but my commie prof gave me a C. He found out I think, I wasn’t one of these mush-brained sheep he can manipulate into a liberal..
I disagree slightly there. Some crimes and criminals are motivated by being brought up in bad circumstances and being corrupted by their environment, and can be reformed by efforts to treat them with dignity and give them the means to break the cycle. Many criminals have been reformed this way.
However, the kinds of people I’m talking about have been far less serious criminals than this.
When if comes to prisoners such as the people discussed here, I’m not even interested in reforming them. What they have done is too appalling for anyone except God to forgive, and reform or rehabilitation is a moot point. They don’t deserve to ever be free and society needs protecting from them. Ideally using a rope and a scaffold, but in the absence of that, banging them up until they die is a somewhat acceptable alternative.
What constitutes the above should be measured by the nature of the crime perpetrated, on a sliding scale.