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

[UCM]

I also remember visiting someone in Pentonville with 2 friends, one of which chucked his dope on the tray ............Durrrrrrrrrrr

[snowleopard]

Human rights are rights that are supposed, by definition, to be applied to humans. By being human, you are (according to their definition) entitled to them. That is what civilisation is about. Even if you are a muderer, even if you're Sadddam Hussein, your still human and you still have human rights. When people say "well as far as I'm concerned he lost his human rights when he murdered so-and-so - he took away their human rights, didn't he" etc. they're completely missing the point. If you could just lose your human rights by being a killer, so that you somehow became an animal and could be locked up in solitary forever, or just put to death willynilly, then we'd be no better than savages. It would just tit for tat. Human rights exist to give every human a basic dignity and chance of rehabilitation (even if they can never be released for safety's sake) whatever they have done - and also to protect people, because the fact is that many are wrongly arrested and wrongly convicted. Human rights are meant to keep them safe in the hope that the truth will out.

That's why it infuriates me that the US think they can shit all over the human rights of peole in Guantanamo Bay, who haven't even been convicted - they're just suspects! And it is pathetic that we think we can just lock people up instead of attempting proper rehabilitation - and by that I don't mean tellies and brandy, I mean full, dedicated education and medication and help that so many criminals unfortunately missed out on to begin with. (Not to mention that about a 3rd of them are mentally ill.) Call me a bleeding heart liberal if you like, but prison as it is does not work, and wanting to demean and deprave people because you think the fact that they're convicted of a crime means they should lose their human rights is also short-sighted and fruitless.

[expatinscotland]

'wanting to demean and deprave people because you think the fact that they're convicted of a crime means they should lose their human rights is also short-sighted and fruitless. '

I don't think it's fair to assume that everyone who believes in putting people in prison is evil and vengeful.

Because there is the approach that government has an obligation to protect law-abiding society from criminals. And yes, that means imprisoning some law breakers.

And I thought we were discussing the prison system in the UK and in particular the case sited in the OP, no?

[welliemum]

Ah, but snowleopard, we live in a throwaway society.

It doesn't matter that some criminals could be turned round and experience remorse and insight and go on to do valuable things - far simpler just to throw them all away. We can always get more people.

[expatinscotland]

Again, it's not that simple, wellie.

Because of course, it costs money to rehab criminals.

So it may not be that people want to 'throw them away' but that they are unwilling to see more of their tax money going for prisoners.

Short-sighted? In some cases, yes.

[welliemum]

Oh, I agree, expat - it's very complicated.

My disagreement is with anyone who thinks it's a simple problem with a simple solution.

[McEdam]

Um, may I just point out, Myra Hindley died in prison. And there is no chance of Ian Brady ever being allowed out of Ashworth.

And the European Convention on Human Rights is nothing to do with the EU. It was drawn up by a separate body, the Council of Europe, in (I think) 1950. We've been signatories for half a century, it's just that aggrieved citizens used to have to go through the entire UK legal process and then go to the European Court (again, nothing to do with the EU) to enforce their rights, which got public bodies out of a lot of bother because very few people had the time, energy or funds to prove their case.

[snowleopard]

No no expat, I never said no one should go to prison - obviously some criminals have to be locked up because they are a danger. But then they should be receiving treatment and rehabilitation. The fact is, 2/3 of people who have been in prison in the UK re-offend, so it's not working. And how can it, when drugs can freely move in out and less hardened prisoners are left at the mercy of the hardest. If we could solve this problem it would cost less money, because prisons just churn out even harder criminals than the ones who went in, and then we spend tons of money pursuing them. And yes I think vengeance is at the heart of a lot of people's "lock them up and throw away the key" attitude. I can understand it, if you are a victim of crime - but that's why we have a legal justice system, so that the victim doesn't get to carry out the sentence, which would just lead to endless mob feuding.

[paulaplumpbottom]

There are some people who can't be rehabilitated

[expatinscotland]

By the same token, some will argue that it's better to spend money on children in an effort to prevent the factors that may contribute to their becoming criminals, before spending it on prisoners.

It's a complicated issue.

[snowleopard]

Of course, and they should be locked away in a treatment centre for life - like Ian Brady. That doesn't make rehabilitation a pointless exercise in general. And IMO if someone is so far gone that they can't be rehabilitated, they have a medical or mental failing, not a moral one, and prison isn't the place for them.

[snowleopard]

Well that's a good point expat but are we doing it? No. When another tragic and awful case of "feral teenagers" attacking someone happens, like that poor man last weekend, all we hear about is more bobbies on the beat and stiffer penalties, not why kids are ending up like that. In fact it was really ironic on the news, one reporter said "And the tragic thing is that young families live in this street, they don't feel safe " etc etc. Yes and what happens in 5 or 10 years' time? Some of THEIR kids are going to be the next lot of feral teenagers. Otherwise where are they coming from? And why the hell aren't we looking into that?

[expatinscotland]

'And IMO if someone is so far gone that they can't be rehabilitated, they have a medical or mental failing, not a moral one, and prison isn't the place for them. '

I would love to have grown up in your world . . . .

[snowleopard]

This isn't about me being naive. Prison doesn't work. It makes poeple like that worse, and even if they're inside, they can hurt other prisoners - like that Asian lad who was killed by a racist thug, when he was only on remand for a minor offence.

[expatinscotland]

'And why the hell aren't we looking into that? '

Because it costs money.

[snowleopard]

yes but it costs more money to keep putting the same people back in prison over and over, keep trying to police yobbish behaviour and drug crime etc etc - there isn't an answer, except starting at the beginning.

[snowleopard]

I do realise politics means policy will be geared towards appeasing an angry revenge-hungry public on a short-term electoral basis. Still think there's room for long-term change though - especially since other countries in Eurpe do far better than us.

[unknownrebelbang]

If prison doesn't work, and I'm not saying that it does in its present format (other than to protect the public for the time period that offenders are imprisoned) what would be your alternative?

[mumxx]

you have to judge ever case on its own merits..........Prison can be a terrible place for some, and a breeding ground for others. Us on the outside seeing our loved ones in there are the ones who can stop this.

And take every murder story with a pinch of salt..........not excusing what has happened but the way the media dramatise and glamourise everything. it is sick.

These people who are judged in court are done so in the fairest possible way, a system that has developed and evolved over hundreds of years, dont say a life for a life, or life means they should stay there for ever.

Picture your own child in there behind bars and then say that.

[expatinscotland]

'And take every murder story with a pinch of salt..........not excusing what has happened but the way the media dramatise and glamourise everything. it is sick.'


I cannot see how the heinous crime of murder is in any way dramatised or glamourised by the media.

Are you joking??

Picture my own child behind bars? If they went and killed someone they'd better stay behind bars before I get to them.

[mumxx]

No im not joking

[ScummyMummy]

I strongly agree with Hula's and Senora's posts.

Learco Chindamo did a terrible, evil thing. I can only imagine that Frances Lawrence is devastated at the prospect of his rights being considered at all, ever, when he robbed her husband of his right to life and needlessly, tragically made her a widow and left their children fatherless. I cannot comprehend what she is going through, contemplating his release. It must be a dreadful, difficult time for the family, who have had enough suffering to last a lifetime already.

However, I don't really understand the wider furore over the decision not to deport Chindamo. If he had been a British national there would have been no question that he would be released into the community here. He has been here since the age of 6 and speaks only English. Britain, not Italy, is the country that arguably contributorily failed him to the extent that he ended up embracing gang culture, murdering an innocent man, devastating that man's family, devastating his own family and spending his entire adult life so far in (British) prisons. He is, in everything but passport, British. If and when he is considered, by a British parole board, to be capable of rehabilitation and no danger to the community, then release in Britain should follow, imo. I would not expect the Lawrence family to be happy about that, having hoped he would be deported, but I think the law is right, despite their understandable and inevitable sadness and anger. Learco Chindamo is Britain's problem, not Italy's. It is up to Britain to try and help Chindamo move on from his horrendous action as a child 11 years ago, which has irrevocably blighted his own life as surely as it killed Philip Lawrence and left his family to deal with an unthinkable and tragic loss.

[noddyholder]

His lawyer seems to confirm that he is a changed man and so to punish him further would send the wrong message about remorse and forgiveness which although it is hard for the bereaved family it is the bigger picture that is being addressed

[Kathyis6incheshigh]

Interview with Frances Lawrence here.

She's very thoughtful and articulate - really worth reading this interview, I thought.

[Heathcliffscathy]

kathy i've read the interview, she comes across as a humane, intelligent woman.

i know i'm being obtuse, but i dont' understand her objection to the fact that he isn't being deported....in case she bumps into him?