ECHR ..... now - Killers' life terms 'breached their human rights'

[petey]

In reality the decision reached today makes v v little difference at all, if any to JB.

The ECHR has long accepted that national courts have the right to lock up certain prisoners for whole life terms.

All that today's decision means is that JB now has the opportunity to be granted parole IF he can successfully argue that he has been rehabilitated.

Let's get in the real world. Do people honestly think that JB has a chance of showing he has been successfully rehabilitated when he continues to show no remorse and plead innocence (obviously I appreciate that there is a chance he is a moj, so why would he admit guilt), coupled with the fact that politically Cameron is against the decision.

[lookout]

So far as I can see,,and " partly understand " the law,,it obviously would have been in everyones' interest,including Jeremys',if he'd have pleaded guilty.
This,of course is against his better judgement ( if you can call it better ) because Jeremy knows himself that he's innocent and isn't going to be moved from his own belief. Jeremy knows himself that it would have proved better all round if he'd have held his hands up. So why does the law accept a liar instead of the honest truth in such a case. Is this where it becomes an " ass ".?

[Patti]

In reality the decision reached today makes v v little difference at all, if any to JB.

The ECHR has long accepted that national courts have the right to lock up certain prisoners for whole life terms.

All that today's decision means is that JB now has the opportunity to be granted parole IF he can successfully argue that he has been rehabilitated.

Let's get in the real world. Do people honestly think that JB has a chance of showing he has been successfully rehabilitated when he continues to show no remorse and plead innocence (obviously I appreciate that there is a chance he is a moj, so why would he admit guilt), coupled with the fact that politically Cameron is against the decision.

Hi Petey

I would like to argue the point on parole. I am of the belief that:

A large majority of the Contracting States of the European Convention either do not
impose life sentences at all or, if they do, provide some mechanism, guaranteeing a
review of the life sentence after a set period, usually after 25 years’ imprisonment.
Furthermore, the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, to which 121 States
(including the vast majority of Council of Europe member States) are parties, provides
for review of a life sentence after 25 years, followed by periodic reviews thereafter.

In England and Wales that right was taken away in 2003 and no other mechanism was put in place.  All the ECHR is doing is putting back what was originally in place...giving Jeremy the right of a review on his sentence not a parole hearing......or is that the same thing?  The ruling is that a review should consider their dangerousness. 

[petey]

So far as I can see,,and " partly understand " the law,,it obviously would have been in everyones' interest,including Jeremys',if he'd have pleaded guilty.
This,of course is against his better judgement ( if you can call it better ) because Jeremy knows himself that he's innocent and isn't going to be moved from his own belief. Jeremy knows himself that it would have proved better all round if he'd have held his hands up. So why does the law accept a liar instead of the honest truth in such a case. Is this where it becomes an " ass ".?

If JB had pleaded guilty before trial and shown remorse he would have been released years and years ago.

[petey]

Hi Petey

I would like to argue the point on parole. I am of the belief that:

A large majority of the Contracting States of the European Convention either do not
impose life sentences at all or, if they do, provide some mechanism, guaranteeing a
review of the life sentence after a set period, usually after 25 years’ imprisonment.
Furthermore, the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, to which 121 States
(including the vast majority of Council of Europe member States) are parties, provides
for review of a life sentence after 25 years, followed by periodic reviews thereafter.

In England and Wales that right was taken away in 2003 and no other mechanism was put in place.  All the ECHR is doing is putting back what was originally in place...giving Jeremy the right of a review on his sentence not a parole hearing......or is that the same thing?  The ruling is that a review should consider their dangerousness. 

The decision with regards what happens now is down to parliament. They could create a power for either the Parole Board, or government ministers to review whole life terms.  In my opinion today's decision makes it no more likely that JB will be released largely due to the stumbling block of no remorse / no admission of guilt / much harder (not impossible) to show rehabilitation.

[Patti]

If JB had pleaded guilty before trial and shown remorse he would have been released years and years ago.

Yes he would, but he chose a different path and he is intelligent enough to know that if he had done this he would possibly be a free man today....He has sustained his innocence and what if he is? What if he isn't...do we still incarcerate?

I know he was found guilty in a court of law and at this moment he is a murderer...but what if he isn't? who makes it right? 

[Jane]

In reality the decision reached today makes v v little difference at all, if any to JB.

The ECHR has long accepted that national courts have the right to lock up certain prisoners for whole life terms.

All that today's decision means is that JB now has the opportunity to be granted parole IF he can successfully argue that he has been rehabilitated.

Let's get in the real world. Do people honestly think that JB has a chance of showing he has been successfully rehabilitated when he continues to show no remorse and plead innocence (obviously I appreciate that there is a chance he is a moj, so why would he admit guilt), coupled with the fact that politically Cameron is against the decision.

I believe he spends his time in useful occupation. He appears to be a model prisoner. He was deemed worthy, by the prison authorities, of a downgrade in status, subsequently recinded because the rellies "lived in fear of their lives" but it hasn't appeared to have effected his behaviour pattern, he just goes on quietly maintaining his innocence.

[lookout]

If JB had pleaded guilty before trial and shown remorse he would have been released years and years ago.

That's right,petey,,,and it's this that I can't understand. Jeremy will have been,and is fully aware of this,I'm sure. I admire his determination in wanting the truth to come out,,and I'd expect others too, to be the same. It just doesn't make sense at all.

[Patti]

The decision with regards what happens now is down to parliament. They could create a power for either the Parole Board, or government ministers to review whole life terms.  In my opinion today's decision makes it no more likely that JB will be released largely due to the stumbling block of no remorse / no admission of guilt / much harder (not impossible) to show rehabilitation.

I'm no sure if I am right here, but he has had no opportunity to show rehabilitation due to being a Cat A prisoner.  I might be wrong about that, if so someone will put me right.   I'm not sure about him not showing any remorse, for something he may not have done....I suppose his time has been taken up fighting his own case...Plus we don't know how he feels do we...

[Caroline R]

I'm no sure if I am right here, but he has had no opportunity to show rehabilitation due to being a Cat A prisoner.  I might be wrong about that, if so someone will put me right.   I'm not sure about him no showing any remorse, for something he may not have done....I suppose his time has been taken up fighting his own case...Plus we don't know how he feels do we...

No Patti, it doesn't matter that he is a Cat A prisoner - but in maintaining his innocence he hasn't admitted responsibility. If he hasn't admitted responsibility, then he isn't showing remorse and all of those things are taken into account when considering parole. I think this is what he is referring to by a 'hollow victory'

[lookout]

I'm no sure if I am right here, but he has had no opportunity to show rehabilitation due to being a Cat A prisoner.  I might be wrong about that, if so someone will put me right.   I'm not sure about him no showing any remorse, for something he may not have done....I suppose his time has been taken up fighting his own case...Plus we don't know how he feels do we...

I would think that if Jeremy showed any remorse,it would be taken as an admission the way some minds think.

[Patti]

No Patti, it doesn't matter that he is a Cat A prisoner - but in maintaining his innocence he hasn't admitted responsibility. If he hasn't admitted responsibility, then he isn't showing remorse and all of those things are taken into account when considering parole. I think this is what he is referring to by a 'hollow victory'

So then, this matters not to him either way, it does not help him? So why did he take it to the ECHR in the first place? I've not seen the news yet....

[Lugg]

Patti, David Boutflour has already been on the box talking about how the family have to put up with this behaviour from Jeremy every few years.

Well that's nothing compared to what Jeremy has had to put up with day in and day out for 27 odd years.

[Jane]

So then, this matters not to him either way, it does not help him? So why did he take it to the ECHR in the first place? I've not seen the news yet....

Patti, I imagine his reasons for doing it are complex. It may simply be a matter of principle. Unless prison changes ones mindset totally, he must know people who really shouldn't ever be allowed out. I admit, that like lookout, my sole interest is Jeremy and I find it impossible to make him fit with some of those he's living with.

[Caroline R]

So then, this matters not to him either way, it does not help him? So why did he take it to the ECHR in the first place? I've not seen the news yet....

It remains to be seen but it has highlighted his case again - it's main headlines. It gets people interested and it reminds the powers that be that he isn't going away. Already we have two new members because he name was mentioned. Plus it provides hope, without it there would be no victory, hollow or otherwise.