Human bloody rights and convicted murderers

[shinyhappytonks]

Makes me so mad

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/6955071.stm

and since when does 'a life sentence' mean you get out when you are 26

11 paltry years for taking someones life, and altering an entire family

This may turn into a biggie mate, just so you know.

A neighbour of mine was stabbed 6 times recently. He is 73 and the man who allegedly stabbed him was a Kosovan who he took in. Very kind man, my friend.

I think this man should be incarcerated for life and I mean until he dies. The victim has two young children and two older ones, was caring for his 90 odd year old mum and this happens. It's crap.

The fact that the perpetrator of this crime was from Eastern Europe, may sadly get him off a few years. Total bollox.

another way of looking at it is that it is almost half his life for a crime commited during childhood.

But actually if you bothered to read the article, he isn't out, and the earliest he will be out is next year, after having served his 12 year minimum term.

But as we are part of the European Union, we must abide by their rules.

ucm, this guy getting out of prison is nothing to do with the EU.

A life sentence does not mean life imprisonment. that is two different things. Life sentence means that the person will be on license for life, so will be checked and moniotored, and if they break the conditions of that license they can be taken back into prison immediately, without a further court case for example.

Also when determining his sentence the court would have had to take into account he was a minor/child when he committed the crime, therefore the imprisonment term would generally be lower for various reasons.

Partly it would be that there is more chance of a child changing and becoming a more responsible and safer bet on release than if he had been an adult at the time of the crime, as people change a vast amount between the ages of 15 and 26.

Whilst is does seem very unfair to the memory of Mr Lawrence and to his family, the parole board will consider many factors before releasing this man. It is in not an autimatic right, and just because he is elgible for release does not necessarily mean he will be granted it straight away. Much will depend on how he had been in prison and whether the parole board believe him to have undergone significant rehabilitation. They will also set appropriate license conditions at the time, so he will not simply be freed to live life freely and normally.

The man is Italian by birth but has lived in the UK from the age of six. He will reamin inthe UK because of how long he has lived in the country, particualry as he has lived her since eing a young child.

It made me laugh when they said that he couldn't be deported as it would fringe his human rights - he has already breached Mr Lawrence's human rights. What about his right to life which is the first and really only right that matters - all others are otiose if that one is denied!

Having said that, I suspect that the Lawrence family will not be drawn into a debate or criticism of this issue since they had the courage and faith to forgive this man some years ago.

You know why thsi sort of case 9and many like them) really pee's me of? Because I have studied human rights, and they are good. Theya re about security of person, for example- (ie, the victim) but sadly these parts tend to get forgotten for the twisted applications (I presume this one was about a person's entitlement to a state).

I could never argue that human rights legislation is wrong, because when you study it, really it isn't, its full of wisdom. Sadly though, these cases make a mockery of what exists,a nd takes the more minor 'loopholes' to inflict pain on an already grieving family. Its nto about the legislation, its about the dodgy lawyers who twist it to suit cases which should be clear cut

but I don't understand what the "loophole" is. It would be wrong to treat an Italian who's lived in the uk since he was 6 as a foreigner. end of. it's not twisted. and it's nothing to do with how long his sentence was.

ACtually have reread and noticed the 6 thing [blsuh] so would agree

however, the genral feeling towards these things still stands- human rights, as a good thing, so often seems to get hijacked by people with the wrong intentions

Senora - perhaps some people feel that unless you've got a British Passport then you can't be considered to "belong" here???

Well I've been in Britain for 40 years and I've got an Irish passport.

I'd be really pissed off if someone tried to deport me.

senora i think i'll leave you to this one.

sigh.

actually peachy, human rights often just gets blamed by the right for genuine errors or "leniency" in complex cases. the failure of humberside police to pass on info about ian Huntley and that rooftop protester in London are examples of this (hey were errors, they were not sancyioned by human rights law).

god, I was listening to Jeremy Vine the other day (really really must stop doing that) and they were talking about human rights re holding "terrorist suspects" without trial. someone phoned in to say "well, if 60% of the suspects detained were innocent, then 40% must be guilty so keep up the good work" or words to that effect. I had to brake hard.

I think it's more the idea that Chindamo is having his human rights upheld but he destroyed another's human rights. Well, that is the way I see it.

I agree Peachy - human rights legislation is well-intentioned but it has impacted on the UK legal system much more than was envisaged back in the 1950s. It doesn't help that a lot of the cases brought seem fairly trivial in comparison to the reasons (mainly the atrocities committed in WW2) we now have 'EU law' and human rights laid out in law.

I have just read the whole story and I DO understand that he was a child when he committed this crime, lets see if he can become a man after it. The likelyhood of this is in the hands of the Gods.

To deport him would be wrong after all, he only murdered a man who was, trying to teach him

My EU thingy was that the UK cannot decide on any sort of corporal or capital punishment whilst we are part of it.

If he came here at six, I'm really surprised he still ahss an Italian passport tbh, I suppose he was incarcerated all the time he could have become naturalised.

If he hasn't fgot a British pssprt, then ultiamely he is the responsibility of the Italian satte surely, as the reverse woudl be the responsibility of the Bristish state? I presume that anyone ( I don't know) applying for a Bristish passport if born overseas would ahve to ecalre a criminal record, and would be refused if they had one this serious? Why should this differ for one person?

Thanks for your replies, and kerry for the link.

I did read the article and do realise that he is not yet out, it is only the outcome of an appeal. However, he is a foreign national and therefore is supposed to be deported at the end of his sentence.

I agree with the comments on the Human Rights bill, it is fundamentally a good thing and that some lawyers will always try to find a loophole to exploit, especially on high profile/media cases. It doesn't make it right though.

Am in the wings, supporting Senora.

Sorry, didn't type that correctly, yes it's wrong to deport, but also wrong to let this man live in society as he murdered someone. Maybe let him out when he is 70 or something. If I was Mr Lawrences daughter I would be thinking like this.

No UCM it can't, but capital punishment was abolished before the EU came into existence and there is no reason to believe (in my view thankfully,) that this would ever change.

Anyone with an EU passport has the right to reside in any EU country without needing to apply to be naturalised into that country.

"we can't decide on corporal or capital punishment whilst part of the EU".

but we would not bring those back anyway. if we did I'd leave the country, and since I've just had a very traumatic move back from Spain, that's saying something.