Killers’ life terms ‘breached their human rights’

The European Court of Human Rights has ruled the whole life tariffs given to murderer Jeremy Bamber and two other killers breached their human rights.

The judges ruled by 16 to 1 that there had to be both a possibility of release and review of their sentence.

However it said this did not mean there was “any prospect of imminent release”.

On the issue of whether Britain should stay in the EU I believe we should, and when David Cameron says he plans to renegotiate our relationship with Europe I would hope that the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) is first thing on his list, because its rulings continue to undermine British law with this as the latest example.

ECHR makes our laws pretty much irrelevant because anyone in Britain who is unhappy with the judge’s ruling in their court case can appeal and appeal and appeal, and even if those appeals are rejected and the original decision is upheld they can still appeal to ECHR, who will invariably overturn the original decision.

I fail to see how giving the most dangerous of individuals a whole life tariff breaches their human rights, you can try to be rational and say that anyone is capable of change but as I see it there are some people who are just evil and will never change and shouldn’t be entitled to a review or any possibility of release.

In fact I would go one step further and bring back the death penalty for those deemed the most dangerous, and I am well aware that studies have shown that it doesn’t act as a deterrent, but my argument is an economic one.

Instead of spending however much it costs to keep the most dangerous housed for x number of years, wouldn’t it make more sense to sentence them to death and redistribute the money saved back into rehabilitation programmes for those who’ve actually got a chance of reforming.