This just

[Mich the Tester]

I would say the law wastes too much time bothering about motive when the factor that really matters is ongoing risk to others.

Don't you think that the motive and the ongoing risk to others are very strongly related?

For instance, somebody who has a fit of rage at a bully who's made his life hell for years might take a knife and kill him, but after the right help he might never be a danger to anyone again, while someone who kills out of religious fervour might always be a danger, because even if he were to renounce his faith, he's perhaps still receptive to loony ideologies. The guy who killed his tormentor might spend the rest of his life struggling with his consience and acting as peacefully as possible, while the religious nutter might become a political extremist who carries on using violence.

[mudskipper]

SMac posted a link in Nick's Monday Links thread this week about a reformed terrorist - worth a read.

[Mich the Tester]

SMac posted a link in Nick's Monday Links thread this week about a reformed terrorist - worth a read.

Yep; some reform, some don't and it's probably quite difficult to predict who will and who won't.

However, somehow I think an IRA terrorist is more likely to reform and become pacifist than a regious terrorist; despite the religious aspects of the conflict in Ireland, the IRA basically have some constitutional demands that can be rationally discussed and negotiated among people with opposing views but a common need to find a liveable solution. The complete destruction of non-Wahabi muslim way of life, as it seems that some Islamist terrorists want, isn't really the kind of thing that can be negotiated.

[darmstadt]

BTW Britain was one of the countries that wanted and worked to make the European Court of Human Rights work after World War II.

Indeed; Churchill and Adenauer, not exactly pinko-commie leftie Islingtonites, pushed hard for it. Churchill realised that Britain could only exert a 'civilising influence' on some European countries if it signed up itself, otherwise it would have zero moral authority. They saw the threat that the Soviet Union presented, not only in military terms but in political terms, as many European countries, even those west of the iron curtain, could fall into dictatorship supported by the Soviet Union. OK, so now the USSR is gone, but given the power hunger of Mr Putin and the parlous state of public finances in some western European countries, it's still quite possible that western European states can be destabilised and end up with nasty dictatorships; perhaps even more so than in the 50s given the financial crisis.

Unfortunately the ECHR has been caught up, quite incorrectly, in the whole EU debate, and however much you tell some people that these are completely seperate institutions, many fail to understand that. Also, a few unusual cases have led to bad publicity, but in general the ECHR serves a very useful purpose; some in the UK, NL or Germany might say "it's not necessary here" because those countries generally respect the human rights of their citizens and residents, but it is necessary to exert influence on those that don't, and it might even be necessary for the those countries given recent governments' behaviour with more and more intrusive powers for intelligence and now taxes.

And now CMD wants to replace the ECHR with a 'British Bill of Rights', presumably like that of the 17th century, as the Tory hardliners don't like the supremacy of the ECHR and, I personally think, are bowing to the Euro-sceptics who don't wuite understand the difference between the EU and the ECHR (see Mich's quote above if you don't understand.)

From the Human Rights Act to a Bill of Rights? - UK Parliament

Why are the Conservatives against the European court of human rights? | Law | theguardian.com

Interestingly enough, Russia is also a signatory along with another 46 countries including the EU as a separate entity

[tomtomagain]

Lee Rigby Killers Receive £200k Legal Aid.

Is the headline.

But of course they don't get the money do they?

Law Firm Representing Lee Rigby Killers Invoice and Receive £200k is probably more accurate.

Or probably more accurately ( although I have no idea if this is true )

Law Firm Representing Lee Rigby Killers can Invoice Up to £200k of time and expenses


So whilst I am confident that justice will be done ( in this case I believe "Justice" to mean they never walk the streets free men again ) I am not going to get worked up over this headline.

The cost of legal advice .... now that's underlying cause of these headlines.

[SueEllen]

And now CMD wants to replace the ECHR with a 'British Bill of Rights', presumably like that of the 17th century, as the Tory hardliners don't like the supremacy of the ECHR and, I personally think, are bowing to the Euro-sceptics who don't wuite understand the difference between the EU and the ECHR (see Mich's quote above if you don't understand.)

From the Human Rights Act to a Bill of Rights? - UK Parliament

Why are the Conservatives against the European court of human rights? | Law | theguardian.com

Interestingly enough, Russia is also a signatory along with another 46 countries including the EU as a separate entity

What is so funny about it is that the UK government could just do what the French and Italy governments sometimes do with the court's rulings - ignore them.

[SueEllen]

So whilst I am confident that justice will be done ( in this case I believe "Justice" to mean they never walk the streets free men again ) I am not going to get worked up over this headline.

The cost of legal advice .... now that's underlying cause of these headlines.

If the government spent say £600,000 to ensure they were locked up (remember the government is very wasteful) then them spending £200,000 to have a "defence" and so have a fair trial is fine.

[original PM]

If the government spent say £600,000 to ensure they were locked up (remember the government is very wasteful) then them spending £200,000 to have a "defence" and so have a fair trial is fine.

A defence against what?

Hacking someone to death with a machete in braad daylight and getting a long prison sentence.

I do not understand how they can appeal against anything as long as the initially judgement was a legal one.

Can they appeal against the charge of murder? No

Can they appeal against a perfectly acceptable sentence for the crime the committed? apparently yes.

For me it is not the money it is the fact that clearly guilty people feel they should have any say in their sentencing.

[SpontaneousOrder]

For me it is not the money it is the fact that clearly guilty people feel they should have any say in their sentencing.

Of course they should.

[original PM]

Of course they should.

Ok true - so they should go to the Prison Warden and ask for an appeal against their sentence...

Based on what?

Unlawful inprisonment - well nope they are guilty as sin
Unlawful/harsh sentencing - well nope they terms of the sentence are within UK justice rules

So based on what?