By
Ed Morrissey
Here
in the US, we have debates over the appropriateness and application of the
death penalty, so we haven’t yet started any debate over its usual replacement,
life without possibility of parole. Europe has mainly eliminated the
death penalty, which should have left them free to focus on other legal and
law-enforcement issues. Instead, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that the UK violated the EU charter’s Article 3 by imposing
life without parole — called
“whole life” in the EU in three cases:
Whole-life jail
sentences without any prospect of release amount to inhuman and degrading
treatment of prisoners, the European court of human
rights has ruled.
The landmark judgment
will set the ECHR on a fresh collision course with the UK government but does
not mean that any of the applicants – the convicted murderers Jeremy
Bamber, Peter Moore and Douglas
Vinter – are likely to be released soon.
In its decision, the
Strasbourg court said there had been a violation of article 3 of the European
convention on human rights, which prohibits inhuman and degrading treatment.
The judgment said:
“For a life sentence to remain compatible with article 3 there had to be both a
possibility of release and a possibility of review.”
The court emphasised,
however, that “the finding of a violation in the applicants’ cases should not
be understood as giving them any prospect of imminent release. Whether or not
they should be released would depend, for example, on whether there were still
legitimate penological grounds for their continued detention and whether they
should continue to be detained on grounds of dangerousness. These questions
were not in issue.”
Life
without parole developed — at least in the US — as a means to give the state an
option to the death penalty. Rather than have the state kill dangerous
murderers and violent convicts, juries instead could ensure that these
defendants would never be released into society again, save for a pardon or
commutation from a governor, who would be politically liable for such
actions. That ended the perceived turnstiles at the gates of prisons
where violent felons got released into society by overly sympathetic parole
boards and, in some cases, state-sanctioned killings through the death penalty.
Is
life without parole a rational outcome? Take a look at the cases at hand in
this ECHR ruling, which is legally enforceable in the UK:
The appeal was
brought by Vinter, who murdered a colleague in 1996 and after being released
stabbed his wife in 2008; Bamber, now 51, who killed his parents, his sister Sheila
Cafell and her two young children in 1985; and Moore, who killed four gay men
for his sexual gratification in 1995.
One
is a family annihilator, and another a serial killer who targeted gays.
The third got a release after his first murder just to murder again.
Amazingly, the EU appellate court ruled by a 16-1 decision that Vinter’s human
rights had been violated and awarded him €40,000 for it. Had the
decision rested on the individual merits of the prosecution — Bamber insists
he’s innocent of the crime, for instance — then demanding judicial review for
parole might have made some sense. Instead, the ECHR has broadly
eliminated “whole life” altogether.
My
colleague Jeb Golonkin at The Week is mystified by the reasoning:
It’s difficult to
figure out what bodies of law or precedent this purportedly legal body looked
to discern the meaning of “inhumane and degrading.” It certainly is not
history, nor is it the European convention on human rights, because, well, it’s
been around a bit and the court is only now coming round to making this rather
remarkable declaration. Even applying the modern “evolving standards of
decency” test, which the Supreme Court of the United States uses to measure the
propriety of a punishment, one has to wonder whether there is a society on
Earth where more than a small minority of people believes that no crime exists
that is so reprehensible that the perpetrator at least ought to go to jail
knowing that he has no hope of ever being a free man again.
If you want to know
why many Americans are fundamentally suspicious of international law and the
tribunals that purport to enforce it, this decision offers a good example.
There are legitimate arguments to be made about imposing life sentences on
minors (see Frontline‘s “When Kids Get Life”
for a fantastic look at the problems), but the idea that a convicted murderer
must always have the opportunity to win his freedom no matter the circumstances
is a startling proposition.
Indeed.
And this could give new impetus to death-penalty proponents who might worry
that American courts might be tempted to make the same ruling based on the
Eighth Amendment proscription on cruel and unusual punishment.
SoRo:
Another
example of the EU imposing its ‘morality’ on once-sovereign people.
BUT, don’t make the mistake of assuming that the EU, itself,
lives up to its own standards and moral demands.
A
perfect example of this is the death penalty. The death penalty, while actually
not condemned by majorities in many EU member states, has been illegal in most
countries in the EU for many years. (Latvia abolished it last year)
From
the EU’s website:
The
European Union holds a strong and principled position against the death penalty;
its abolition is a key objective for the Union’s human rights policy. Abolition
is, of course, also a pre-condition for entry into the Union.
Indeed, the EU
is the leading institutional actor and largest donor to the fight against the
death penalty. This
commitment is outlined clearly in the EU Guidelines on the death penalty, the
first ever human rights guidelines adopted by Council, in 1998.
Furthermore,
Article II, Clause II of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union explicitly states:
‘No one shall be
condemned to the death penalty, or executed.’
Now,
after reading that, one could easily infer that the EU strongly opposes the use
of the death penalty by any country, transnational organisation, and for any
reason.
One
would also be wrong to make that inference.
You
see, in the Soviet-like EU with its 27
unelected, unaccountable apparatchiks, the death penalty was reintroduced in a
footnote to the Treaty of Lisboa,
upon neither the whole nor part of which the overwhelming majority of Europeans
were allowed to vote. In its ‘explanations’ and ‘negative definitions’
accompanying the fundamental rights, the
Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union allows a reintroduction of
the death penalty in case of war or imminent war, but also the killing of
humans to suppress insurgency or riot.
The
footnoted ‘fine print’:
3. The provisions of
Article 2 of the Charter correspond to those of the above Articles of the ECHR
and its Protocol. They have the same meaning and the same scope, in accordance
with Article 52(3) of the Charter. Therefore, the ‘negative’ definitions
appearing in the ECHR must be regarded as also forming part of the Charter:
(a) Article 2(2) of
the ECHR:
Deprivation
of life shall not be regarded as inflicted in contravention of this article
when it results from the use of force which is no more than absolutely
necessary:
(a) in defence of any
person from unlawful violence;
(b) in order to
effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape of a person lawfully detained;
(c) in
action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection.
(b) Article 2 of
Protocol No 6 to the ECHR:
A State
may make provision in its law for the death penalty in respect of acts
committed in time of war or of imminent threat of war; such penalty shall
be applied only in the instances laid down in the law and in accordance with
its provisions…
In
other words, the murderers of children or serial killers of homosexuals cannot
be executed. Hell, not even Anders Behring-Breivik, who murdered 77 people, was
eligible for the death penalty…or life in prison. He was sentenced to 21 years
at a posh prison. If you are deemed an ‘enemy
of the state’ by the EU, however, you can be sentenced to death.
If
the people of Cyprus had rioted and/or staged an insurrection, they could have
been sentenced to death by the EU.
Like
most Progressives, the mantle of moral supremacy donned by EUrophiles is
neither as moral nor as supreme as they claim.
'It appears the EU can
rewrite any statute of any member state merely by claiming it violates some
human right which it just made up.'
- tommyboy on July 9,
2013 at 10:47 AM
It
can. To use the American political system, the EU is the ‘Federal government’
and its courts are the ‘Supreme Court.’ The
law of the EU is supreme to that of its member states.
It’s
not only the ‘law’ either. The laws AND regulations of the EU trump those of
the member states…and, some of the regs are quite unbelievable and textbook
micromanagement. Earlier this year, the EU attempted to ban unlabelled olive
oil jugs on restaurant tables. Outcry from across the EU resulted in the
withdrawing of the ban.
Don’t
forget that this is the same supranational organisation that issued a diktat
saying manufacturers could not claim that water can prevent dehydration.
Another
example of the European ‘Federal government’ dictating local issues…
Related Reading:
Boris Johnson: British Democracy Would Receive 'A Shot In
The Arm' If The UK Left The European Union
http://tinyurl.com/oncx3b7
http://tinyurl.com/oncx3b7
No comments:
Post a Comment