"I took explosives on to underground but didn't mean to kill anyone"

[pembrokestephen]

Did I say kill them? That would be easy, just hurt them

Being soft and understanding, like that wanker of a mayor in London won't help

Allowing rallies promoting and demanding a radical muslim government in the muslim world to take place in London is a joke

These people WANT to believe that they're fighting some kind of force of evil. The nastiest thing we could ever do to them is to treat them with the kindness and respect that they are clearly so unable to show to their fellow citizens. I don't think we should brutalise or harm them in any way - simply incarcerate them, so that they can no longer be any threat to the rest of us.

 

[pembrokestephen]

What I am slightly alarmed at is people calling for punishments which are far harsher than typical murder cases etc. After all these people didn't actually kill anyone, so why should they get harsher sentences than people who have?

I think there's a big difference between the murders these people might have committed if they had successfully detonated their bombs and those committed by yer average murderer: these people were aiming to disrupt society in a way that the likes of Fred West were not trying to do. My feeling is that this adds a dimension to their crime which warrants a much stricter sentence. I'd really hope that, if convicted, these people would get a sentence of life with no prospect of release.

 

[pembrokestephen]

You can forget about putting him in jail for the rest of his life, rightly or wrongly we're signed up to loads of human rights charters which forbids it.

I think we can still incarcerate him until it is felt that he no longer poses a threat. In the case of someone like this, that could well be his entire life, no?

 

[hotvans]

According to the BBC it might be a couple of months before the UK security people can get this guy under their control. (and shut him up about Iraq?)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4733867.stm

BBC story oddly doesn't mention any of the things he's been saying lately ...

Perhaps BBC not quoting things he's been saying because they want him to be able to have a jury that hasn't heard it all already?

 

[Cadmus]

You can forget about putting him in jail for the rest of his life, rightly or wrongly we're signed up to loads of human rights charters which forbids it.

Not one (international) HR charter forbids jailing for life.

 

[Cadmus]

I wouldn't be surprised if sentences were handed down so severe that the convicts win appeal against sentence in the European Court in about 2030 - by which time the social-theatre function of the long sentence is complete

I would.

The ECHR does not scrutinize particular criminal sentences. It scrutinizes possible violations of the European Convention of Human Rights which has no provision on what is and isn't a severe penalty. It only forbids the death penalty and asks for the sentences to be handed down in accordance with the requirements of due process and legal certainty.

 

[camouflage]

I believe him. Not condoning what he did, but I think that if his intention was to kill himself and others around him, he would have admitted so, since the martyrdom of going to gaol for killing us evil westerners for the sake of Allah would have still been enough for him to fuck all them virgins when he was to die.

Strategic Lie?

Disinform, Confuse, Divide.

 

[laptop]

The ECHR does not scrutinize particular criminal sentences. It scrutinizes possible violations of the European Convention of Human Rights which has no provision on what is and isn't a severe penalty. It only forbids the death penalty and asks for the sentences to be handed down in accordance with the requirements of due process and legal certainty.

Ah. So I was misremembering a case that was about indeterminate sentences - lack of certainty?

I'd still not be surprised if this rumbled through the courts as far as it can, for years - presuming that there are convictions at first instance.

Not that I would ever allege that a lower court would impose a sentence for political - I mean "public policy" - reasons in the expectation of it being overturned later, when the need for harshness was less pressing.

 

[Nemo]

You can forget about putting him in jail for the rest of his life, rightly or wrongly we're signed up to loads of human rights charters which forbids it.

Mendacious drivel. Life sentences are still permitted by the Human Rights Act. Shipman got a whole-life tariff for example.

 

[TeeJay]

I think there's a big difference between the murders these people might have committed if they had successfully detonated their bombs and those committed by yer average murderer: these people were aiming to disrupt society in a way that the likes of Fred West were not trying to do. My feeling is that this adds a dimension to their crime which warrants a much stricter sentence. I'd really hope that, if convicted, these people would get a sentence of life with no prospect of release.

Any worse than IRA bombers?

 

[Cadmus]

I think there's a big difference between the murders these people might have committed if they had successfully detonated their bombs and those committed by yer average murderer: these people were aiming to disrupt society in a way that the likes of Fred West were not trying to do. My feeling is that this adds a dimension to their crime which warrants a much stricter sentence.

There is a difference in the element of intent - their intent was specific. Because of that they will be tried for a specific criminal offence which will result in a sepcific penalty.

 

[detective-boy]

You can forget about putting him in jail for the rest of his life, rightly or wrongly we're signed up to loads of human rights charters which forbids it.

No they don't. Too much Daily Mail ...

 

[detective-boy]

It only forbids the death penalty ...

Not sure the ECHR even does that absolutely:

Article 2 ECHR 1. Everyone's right to life shall be protected by law. No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided by law ...

Sixth Protocol to the ECHR Article 1: The death penalty shall be abolished. No one shall be condemned to such penalty or executed.
Article 2: A State may make provision in it's law for the death penalty in respect of acts committed in time of war or of imminent threat of war ...

Don't think the "War" on Terror counts though - good try Tone!

 

[Cadmus]

Not sure the ECHR even does that absolutely

Its done through a Protocol. But effectively it does - all members of the Council of Europe, who are signatories to the ECHR, have to abolish the death penalty to enter the club.

Also 'war on terror' doesn't count but that's not the reason why it's been termed 'war' anyway.