STRASBOURG RULES IT IS INHUMAN FOR A PRISONER TO DIE IN PRISON – Arthur Hutchinson is now 73 years of age and nearly 30 years ago in 1983 he was give a life sentence without parole.
His crime involved the brutal murder of three innocent victims after breaking into their home on the night of their daughter’s wedding. Hutchinson murdered the father, mother and son and brutally and continuously raped a teenage guest at the house.
On sentencing Hutchinson the judge ordered that he remain in prison for life ‘life means life’ and that Hutchinson would remain behind bars until the day he died.
30 years later and with the indoctrination of political correctness and human rights Hutchinson has now appealed to the European Court of Human Rights in order to be allowed a parole hearing as he, and his lawyers, feel that it is inhuman to let any person die behind bars.
Regardless to the British Justice system the Strasbourg court has ruled that it is in fact ‘degrading’ for a person to die behind bars and therefore under Human Rights laws Hutchinson must be allowed a parole hearing.
There are currently 49 prisoners in Britain being held on ‘whole life tariffs’ such is the severity of their crimes and this recent ruling in Strasbourg now puts the public in jeopardy if they are allowed back into society.
While human rights are a good thing in order prevent abuse the question has to be asked; ‘Is this ruling not an abuse on the human rights of the victims, their families and of course the general public?’
The initial case brought to Strasbourg was by Jeremy Bamber who is serving life without the possibility of parole after murdering five members of his own family in 1985.
Chris Grayling, Justice Secretary, came out to say that he profoundly disagrees with the ruling from Strasbourg and that British justice should be allowed to determine whether the punishment fits the crime.
Chris Grayling went on to say that the very idea of ‘life without parole’ being a human rights violation is simply absurd and an insult to the victims and their families.
Chris Grayling is among those Government Ministers who feel that the Human Rights Act 1998 and the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) desperately needs reform if we are to stem the tide of criminals being able to abuse the rule of law.
Hutchinson’s lawyers are now planning to go back to Strasbourg in order to have his sentence overruled under a breach of his human rights.
The public needs to stop and consider exactly what this latest round of interference into the British justice system means.
Earlier this year Mark Bridger was sentenced to ‘life without parole’ after raping and murdering 5 year old April Jones; the question is how comfortable would we feel if he was released; might it not be a good idea to ask the judges in Strasbourg if they would consider giving him or any of those with life tariffs room and board in their own homes.
I honestly feel that the rulings that come out of Strasbourg are ill conceived; even boarding on flippancy of the British publics safety.
While I appreciate Chris Grayling’s sentiments it is not sentiment that is going to resolve the continued abuse from Brussels. Surely we must therefore ask the question; ‘What does Chris Grayling actually do for the salary we provide him with?’
If the Justice Secretary has no powers to stop the European Courts from abusing the British public is there any need for a Justice Secretary?
Once again this is just another clear example as to why more people may vote UKIP in the next General Election for they appear the only ones with the spine to show Brussels the door and firmly shut it behind them.
Just stop and think for one moment if we pulled out of the EU. Such a feat would then allow Britain to reinstate our own justice system without interference; could I even venture to say that a referendum could be held with the purpose of reinstating the death penalty?
With the likes of Hutchinson, Bamber and Bridger and I doubt many people would be oppose to bringing back the death penalty and this would allow us to ensure that they never harm another human being and not have to continuously fork out vast sums each year in keeping them locked up.
You may or may not agree with the death penalty but I doubt anyone would argue that the Strasbourg Court is of no use to British justice and the more it interferes the more ludicrous their rulings appear.
Do you think that Britain should pull out of the ECHR and allow once again British justice to rule supreme in Britain? Please leave your comments below.