So…today, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that whole-life tariffs breach a prisoner’s human rights. This ruling on the case brought by Jeremy Bamber, Peter Moore and Douglas Vinter means that prisoners with a whole-life tariff (life meaning life not 25 years) will have the possibility of getting their sentence reviewed and changed if they are shown to have been rehabilitated.
I personally do not agree with this ruling. If someone has committed an offence so serious as to have warranted this sentence then why should they have the possible chance of release? Do we really want the likes of Rosemary West or Ian Brady walking the streets? I don’t think so.
Another problem with this ruling is that it doesn’t help the one man it should. There are 49 prisoners currently serving whole life tariffs. 48 of those committed horrendous crimes and were convicted with hard evidence. 1 was convicted on circumstantial or fabricated evidence and bias witness testimony. In regards to this 1 prisoner, there was no DNA evidence, he was not caught in the act and, as recently released documents now show, not only were two key pieces of physical evidence fabricated, but he had a police alibi for the time of at least one of the murders he’s convicted of.
For this 1 prisoner, Jeremy Bamber, this ruling does nothing at all.
Why? Because he’s innocent.
I could go on and explain exactly what this means but I don’t have to. You can hear it from Jeremy himself:
“Reviews and parole hearings are subject to a risk assessment to gauge dangerousness and this is influenced by the inmate’s confession, remorse and rehabilitation for reintegration back into the community. In my case I do not fit the criteria for parole on this basis.”
This excerpt is taken from Jeremy Bamber’s blog and you can read the rest of it here: Jeremy Bamber: The Official Blogger.
You can visit his main campaign site at: Jeremy Bamber Official Website.
For a different view with a more than a squeeze of satire, this blogger knows his stuff: Jeremy Bamber: The Campaigner.
And my own take on the case: A ‘novel’ approach.