You forfeit your human rights when you took away those rights from those you slaughtered.
Rot in jail.
I wouldnt say they forfeit ALL of their human rights. For example, I would not endorse torture of them in prison.
However, a lengthy (including where appropriate full life) sentence to protect the public is an important tool in the armoury of the courts in tackling dangerous offenders – which these people clearly are.
Human rights are inalienable. I don’t believe life imprisonment contravenes any of those inalienable rights, however.
n o – send the phobe to the tower of london. Didnt you brits use it as an execution chamber in the past.
I’ll be glad to buy the govt an ax – a dull one
Life means life in my book.
It would set a terrible precedent if these people are successful..
There’s no way the court will allow it~
It would set an atrocious precedent.
I doubt the appeal will succeed, I sincerely hope not – as it would lead to serious issues of risk to public safety.
if the article is correct and this is the ECtHR then it is not a binding precedent only ‘presuasive’ BUT I doubt Judges will appreciate being implicitly told what sentences they can and cannot give and dismiss it.
I am from north Wales where Peter Moore committed his dreadful crimes. I remember the time well, it was very frightening. Whilst he killed 4 men it was thought he had been undertaking violent hammer attacks for some time before. He will always be a threat.
As extra punishment for having the cheek to appeal i would give them, especially Moore solitary confinement for the rest of their lives. Oh and put them in the oldest prison in Britain……plenty of slopping out and hard labour.
Is it a little perverse that a murder four people, who callously snuffed out the life of another, is demanding human rights? Perhaps first they should be made answer as to why they were so flippant in denying the very existence of others before they insist on leniency and rights.
In the case of Jeremy Bamber however the case against him is now incredibly shaky (although to be fair it was never cast iron). As the years have rolled on through his imprisonment more and more evidence has arisen to show that his account at the trial was much more honest and accurate than that of the prosecution.
Those people in prison are VERY lucky they don’t live in the USA. The one who murdered 4 people could very well be sitting on Death Row awaiting his execution.
Maybe if executions were allowed in Europe, it might reduce murders but then again, maybe not.
“Maybe if executions were allowed in Europe,…… there would be a lot of innocent people dead, mespecially in Britain with it record of unsafe convictions
There are lots of concerns about a wide variety of nations judicial systems (including some in England & Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland).
Other countries where a number of concerns have been raised include the Netherlands, Norway, Spain, USA, Canada, Australia, Argentina, Mexico
and this does not even begin to consider places such as:
Kenya, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Ethiopia etc etc
I think your focus on Britain was perhaps grounded in your own prejudices?
Absolutely not prejudice. Bitter experience is what made me mention Britain and also the fact that these crims are British. I am sure you are being snippy about my mention of Britain in particular as I am Irish, but you will also be well aware that the Irish experience of British injustice is long and bitter… For example, the Birmingham Six, Guildford four, Bloody Sunday to name but three and all of whom would now be dead if the British had had the death penalty at the time of their convictions..
How many Prime Ministers around the world have had to go on National television to apologise for miscarriages of justice to the Irish people as David Cameron did recently. So think again Stu. It is really frustrating when Brits accuse me of being prejudiced just because I am Irish, as if one couldn’t hold a valid opinjion otherwise.
It isn’t that you can’t hold a valid opinion because you are Irish – nor would I ever suggest there was any such correlation. Indeed, you have made fairly frequent contributions that are both valid and constructive on a range of issues on PN.
However, I do perceive your comments about “especially British” to be rooted in prejudice.
The cases that are being taken to the European Court are all British (but there are many other cases from all signatory nations of the European court). These cases are not about miscarriages of justice – these are not appeals on the basis of wrongly found guilt.
As for Heads of State or senior ministers apologising such as David Cameron, try Australia re the Aborigines, or Canada re the Canadian Chinese Community, or Japan re abuses of British POWs, or Norway re deporting Jews in WWII, or Turkey re Dersim massacre, or Zambia re supporting Angolan rebels, or Croatia re the Bosnian War and I could go on and on.
Britain may have a place in your mind that
makes it worse that most (or indeed perhaps all) other states. However, Britain is not the only state to have make enormous errors of judgement and commited acts that are grossly unjust. Indeed, some similar acts have been carried out towards Britain (as the Japanese apology indicates). However, Britain is one of the nations who have had courage to stand up and recognise their errors (probably not early enough – but many other states have not recognised their own failures or responsibilities).
Thats why I felt your comment isolating Britain as an example of badness was targetted and rooted in prejudice.
Nothing in my comments should be taken as any attempt to justify the acts re Bloody Sunday etc – they can not, nor should they be justified.
When there is a story about non Brit crims then I will comment appropriately but until lets try staying on topic….
If you really want to stay “on topic” then declaring these crimes to be a manifestation of British miscarriages of Justice is hardly on topic – as this is about sentencing not whether the verdict was fair or not.
… I am doing no such thing as I thought I made clear in my original post. Rather what I am saying is that the law being the law we cannot ever bring back capitol punishment because there would just be too many innocent people murdered by the State as takes place in that tower of understanding the USA……and indeed other countries that murder their citizens on a whim and false evidence. Clearly the crims in question have been convicted without any question of miscarriage..
We may blame the BBC for its lack of reporting these stories but as I said before the comments are in relation to the story current….
Miguel – a posthumous pardon doesn’t really help a person who has been murdered by the state. There have been enough “watertight” convictions that have subsequently been found to be unsafe that demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt our justice system isn’t perfect. In any case, if you believe people murdering people is wrong, then surely the state murdering people is also wrong?
For me it boils down to why we imprison people. Do we do it for revenge, or to protect society from people who would harm others?
Hopefully a mix of protection, rehabilitation (where possible and demonstrable) and an element of punishment (not revenge) and deterrent.
you cant fix these type of people any more then you can fix the ghost of hitler to love the Jews, gays, and gypsies.
If you kill four people for your own sexual gratification, 1) you forfeit your humanity, so I don’t care what you think your human rights are. You’re not even a dog. I like dogs. You’re a cockroach. 2) They shouldn’t let you sit and reflect in jail, since part of the purpose for jail is to rehabilitate, and the other part is to get you out of society where you were a threat. These sadists will always be a threat, so forget rehabilitation. Take them out back and shoot them. That’s a violation of human rights you say? Refer to point #1.
Let the others rot but Jeremy Bamber is innocent.
This case is not an arena to discuss guilt or innocence – it is to discuss the appropriateness of whole life terms. The European Court will not be making a ruling of the validity of the guilty verdicts – merely whether the sentence is correct, humane and proportionate.
Bamber has had numerous appeals – all upheld, at least three CCRC reviews which have been unsuccessful and vast media coverage. Despite this both the courts and the CCRC have not identified evidence that demonstrates that his conviction is unsafe. What do you base you view that he is innocent on?
lebleb = name sounds like it might be islamic. Need I say more about how many of those people are also religions haters of gay people
It is relevant in relation to a comment posted by Paddyswurds though, when he suggested extra sentence for having the cheek to appeal.
The majority verdict conviction of Jeremy Bamber was increased to full life term when he appealed his sentence. He is the only full life term prisoner in this country who still maintains his innocence, and the more we learn about the case, the evidence that was not examined, or kept from the jury, the evidence tampering from one of the prime beneficiaries from Bamber’s conviction, the lost record of the 999 phone call from Bamber’s father to police asking them to come quickly as his schizophrenic daughter has gone berserk and got hold of his shotgun … now found after 25 years, the recently developed crime scene photographs that suggest further serious evidence tampering, quite possibly by the same person who tampered with other evidence.
Couple all of this with the fact that the pathology evidence never (even at the time of the trial) supported the prosecution case), it all goes to make this one of the most shoddy and unsafe convictions of recent time.
Jeremy Bamber has spent more than half his life in prison, over 25 years. The British justice system has got a lot to lose when his conviction is deemed unsafe. Clearly the British courts have got a problem with what they need to do, so if there is anyway a court in Europe can look at it and confirm how utterly unsafe his conviction is and how appallingly he has been let down, all the better.
My understanding is that all of the evidence you refer to has been either tested in the appeal court or reviewed by the CCRC who have either upheld the conviction or stated that the evidence would not endanger the verdict.
He may claim his innocence – other life prisoners do too, including those for whom there is no repeated attempts to appeal. His maintaining that he is innocent does not mean he is.
The new evidence from the police forensic photographs that were not developed until 25 years after the original trial was reviewed by the CCRC. However it is my understanding that much of the other evidence has not.
At the moment the ‘missing’ 999 record was discovered that stated quite clearly that Bamber’s father had dialed 999 as his father reported on the telephone because his schizophrenic daughter had gone berserk and got hold of one of his shotguns, it added weight (quite a lot of weight) to the statement Bamber made that was not believed, where he reported his father calling him directly after the police call giving the same information.
Even though the log of the call disappeared at some point, a car was still dispatched to the farm house, and when Bamber was giving his account the officer that dispatched the car and the two officers in the car remained silent and failed to confirm Bamber’s version of events when they knew it to be true.
One of many questions Essex police need to answer.
They also need to answer why they destroyed files and evidence relating to the case – and in so doing broke the law.
In relation to the article, I actually have no problem with life meaning life, but that wasn’t the sentence of the court in Bamber’s case, and when things go wrong, there needs to be a avenue for that wrong to be corrected
What do you base you view that he is innocent on?
The recently uncovered forensic photographs that show further evidence tampering (probably by the person who tampered with previous evidence known at the time of the trial)
I do not have the opinion that he is innocent.
That was the question you directed to lebaleb – I didn’t say it was your opinion he was innocent
the ECtHR is not binding on the UK though even if they win the case the UK can choose to stick 2 fingers up at them and say “guess what? they took people’s lives were taking their freedom for the rest of their life”.
This hearing will change nothing
A life for a life, 15 years is the sentance for life in this country, therefor 4 lifes = 60 years, in other countrys this debate would not be happening because they would alread be DEAD!!!!!,