Stabbing attack at London bridge.

When the death sentence was abolished in the UK, those who campaigned for it to be abandoned d did so on the premise that life would mean life. Almost as soon as it was gone, many of the same people started to chip away at this, until we are in the situation we are now. Don't get me wrong; I'm not a fan of capitol punishment, but I do think that whole life or indeterminate sentences should be available to Judges.

 

They are.

 

I thought indeterminate sentences & whole life sentences with no possibility of parole had been found incompatible with human rights laws by the ECJ?

 

The ECJ will be my next brew ELECTRIC CITRA JUICE, sorry I cant help it , and yes I own the copyright to that name

 

could a taser have set off a real IED?

 

So there's this guy here in the U.S. who is being held "indefinitely". He was initially arrested in 2002 for over-staying his visa (the dumb-ass) but was eventually charged and convicted of sending money to overseas terrorist organizations. He has now served the lame sentence he received, but he is not a U.S. citizen, and no other country will take him in. So the administration doesn't want to just release him into the U.S. (Thank you, Attorney General Barr.) I don't know whether your Mr. Corbyn has been asked to take him in, but he sounds like another perfect candidate for rehabilitation in London.

This Reason magazine article's annoying author bemoans this "bureaucratic cruelty" and the fact that the government hasn't identified any "identifiable victims" to his actions, as rationales for letting the guy go free here in the U.S. Boo hoo. He should rot in hell, but rotting in prison is the next best thing.

 

If my sarcasm about Mr. Corbyn was not obvious, I apologize.

 

Because he would if he was in power, remove this free speech if you like

 

Stick to brewing beer lads it's better craic.

 

I thought the Home Secretary had the final say on this, Weren't the Moors Murderers locked away for life with no chance of release? I can see that the ECJ might be concerned that indeterminate sentencing might be abused, but that being the case, why wasn't he given a longer sentence than 16 years to start with, I wonder, and, more importantly, was he allowed out after serving only half of his sentence.
I see a danger of the ECJ being made a scapegoat here, when the problem is very much on our own doorstep.

 

His indeterminate sentence was changed to a determinate sentence by the Court of Appeal. Nothing to do with the ECJ.

 

Indeterminate sentencing WAS being misused, if I remember right - I'm sure I watched a docco in which prisoners in for fairly standard (though usually violent) crimes were being imprisoned under Indeterminate Sentences for Public Protection, where IPPs were meant for only the most dangerous criminals.

 

The problem with that and early release, is that it is intended to make them behaves themselves in prison to gain that early release. If things change so they serve their full sentence out, then there would need to then be a scheme hanging over their heads for adding extra time to their original jail term.

I agree, some people should never be released.