I guess that it was always inevitable. Given that justice has been getting softer and softer for decades, and that the rights of convicted offenders have increased so dramatically and disproportionately when compared to those of the victim.
The European Court of Human Rights has found (by a 16 to 1 majority) that the rights of three prisoners currently serving a whole-life tariff have been breached as they will have no chance of atonement for their crimes.
Jeremy Bamber, who murdered five members of his family, in conjunction with double murderer Douglas Vinter and serial killer Peter Moore won the right to a review of their sentences (which includes a potential for early or immediate release) after judges found their term of imprisonment might breach Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights – protecting them from inhuman or degrading treatment.
Since 2003 there has been no automatic review of whole-life sentences which used to be re-examined after the first 25 years. This lack of review, as well as the fact that exceptional evidence of rehabilitation could have no influence on the term and the fact that the longer a prisoner lived, the longer their sentence would be, were two of the main reasons why the court found the current system incompatible with Article 3.
Now, I am going to stick my neck out here and speak honestly. I do not believe that any person who takes the life of another should expect to have any right to protection afforded to them under some parts of the Human Rights Convention when it comes to their punishment. They have taken the life of another, and spending the rest of their life in confinement is a small price to pay when considering the nature of that confinement. In many cases, where there is clear evidence supporting an admission of guilt and therefore no likelihood of appeal, I cannot see many reasons why the punishment should not be MORE severe.
Once a person demonstrates a propensity for murder then this will always be part of their psychological makeup. You cannot change the way a person’s brain works on such a deep level in the same way that you cannot force a person to change their sexual orientation or an instinctive primal reaction. I believe these things are set from birth and no punishment or rehabilitation can alter the wiring.
This is appropriately demonstrated by one of the three prisoners involved in the appeal. Douglas Vinter was imprisoned for nine years after he murdered a colleague, then in 2008, three years after his release, he committed a further offense – this time murdering his wife.
In a small way, however, this case has further highlighted the fact that the ECHR is being used more and more as an escape route rather than a protective measure, and that it may in fact be the convention itself that needs a review rather than the sentences of some of the country’s most violent offenders.
I wait with interest to see the response of Government to this ruling…
