European Union Calls for Scraping Life Term Sentences
EUROPEAN UNION CALLS FOR SCRAPING LIFE TERM SENTENCES – David Cameron again finds himself on the short end of public opinion as they accuse him to ‘kow-towing’ to European human rights judges who want to scrap the UK’s ability to impose a life term sentence on criminals such as Mark Bridger, the man responsible for raping and murdering 5 year old April Jones.
The European judges feel that such a sentence is inhumane in that it condemns a person to the reality that they will die behind bars.
The answer to this, according to the European judges, is to install a U.S style system that allows for a maximum term of 100 years.
As with most suggestions within the EU this comes with a twist for whereas the U.S system does not provide for automatic reviews at predetermined terms the EU is insisting this be the case with the UK and so effectively could allow the likes of Mark Bridger to one day walk free.
It will come as little or no surprise that many Tory backbenchers are infuriated at such a suggestion and once again accused the European Court of interfering in the British justice system.
“The trouble with 100-year sentences is they can be reviewed and reduced and people could be let out. For certain people, life should mean life – in prison for the rest of their lives.
We should ignore the ruling of this Mickey Mouse court in Strasbourg and do what the British people want.” Peter Bone, Tory Backbencher
As usual, and despite public outrage, Mr. Cameron is set to change yet another law in order to further comply with the European Court of Human Rights; in which its judges recently ruled that a sentence without the prospect of parole is a breach of an individual’s (murderer’s) human rights.
In July 2012 the European Court of Human Rights ruled that all prisoners, regardless to the length of their sentences, should have the opportunity to display a change of character and therefore be considered no longer a risk to the general public.
Judges went further in their summation to note that refusing such amounts to ‘inhuman and degrading’ treatment that breaches Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights – see Wikipedia.
It may come as a bit of a shock to learn that when the ruling first came to light Mr. Cameron ‘profoundly disagreed’ and a ‘strong supporter of whole-life tariffs’, according to spokesman and yet just six months later Mr. Cameron does a complete U-turn and is now ready to accept Strasbourg’s ruling; basically once again caving into the demands.
It appears too many that Human Rights legislation is driving justice in completely the wrong direction. We no longer have the ability to punish a criminal, instead we attempt to ‘rehabilitate’ of which continues to fail at every turn; this is backed up by the facts that levels of reoffending have never been so high and that criminals are consistently allowed to offend a dozen times of more before being sentenced to imprisonment where again councilors attempt to rehabilitate them.
Peter Cuthbertson, of the Centre for Crime Prevention, really hit the nail on the head when he asked; what was the point of having elections if the government simply ends up kow-towing to the European Court of Human Rights?
Of course Mr. Cuthbertson does have a clear point but look back to 1964 when the then Labour Government took it upon themselves to ban the death penalty for a period of 5 years and then subsequently abolished it in 1969 regardless such a move being opposed by over 60% of the population.
Such a notion only leads us to suspect that democracy only provides the public with the ability to vote in the next set of dictators for it remains crystal clear that Government refuses to listen or provide referendums on critical aspects governing our lives.
Come 2015 the public needs to make a stand and demand that whichever political party is elected they must create and provide an electronic referendum system whereby all critical areas, such as reinstating the death penalty, pulling out of the EU, the ability to deport criminals and numerous other issues can be ruled by the public’s democratic demands and not a few wishy-washy politicians so wrapped up in liberalised political correctness that they no longer have the spine or will to resolve such issues.
It is almost a certainty that if a referendum on the reinstatement of the death penalty for the likes of Mark Bridger, Jeremy Bamber, Douglas Vinter, Peter Moore, Michael Adebolajo and Michael Adebowale, but to name a few, was given the public would overwhelmingly vote for the rope.
We now clearly have a lawless society for the Human Rights Act and the European Convention on Human Rights continues to protect and favour the issues of the criminals over the rights and safety of the general public; its time the public demanded change so that punishment over rehabilitation can once again take precedence in society and finally give the public justice.