In a recent ruling by the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights a whole life sentence has been ruled as inhumane.
It ruled “life means life” sentences were a breach of their human rights and said every lifer must have the “possibility” of both having their sentence reviewed and of being released.

The UK has 49 persons serving whole life sentences who if this ruling stands may apply for release

So there maybe hope for the likes of Peter Sutcliffe (Yorkshire Ripper) Rose West, Mark Bridger and Ian Brady to apply for release.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage...-inhumane.html

We need to believe that common sense will prevail. The only problem with that is that there's nothing more uncommon than common sense.

I don't really see the problem as long as the people doing the review don't actually decide to release them

The ruling will have little affect on the sentences, other than to make headlines for a week or two.

There lies the problem what if somebody or a panel of somebodies decide to release them on parole?
So which one of the 49 would you prefer to be your next door neighbour?

Im hoping saner heads will prevail and none of these 49 will be released but ya just never know. Im betting the UK Govt never expected this ruling when whole life sentences were introduced.

Are you prepared to bet your house on none of these 49 ever being released/paroled in the future?

Bamber cause I don't think he's guilty

It's true you may get some idiot who wants to release them but I would imagine that the decision would be made by a panel so hopefully someone would have some common sense. I can't really see anyone deciding Brady should be released, can you?

One has to ask who has more common sense the UK Govt who introduced the whole life sentence or the European Court now saying the UK Govt was wrong in introducing them?
Brady is just one of the 49. You say Bamber is not guilty so that now leaves 47 of them.

It didn't say that. It simply said that not to review the sentence from time to time (unspecified) was going too far.

Haven't you got something better to splutter about?

But it will probably be a British panel that reviews the case not a European court.

I can't imagine them releasing any of the notorious killers

Semantics.
So the whole life sentence is OK just the fact of there being no review is going to far (roughly translated as being wrong).

Actually at this moment in time I have nothing else better to splutter about unless you have any views on the impending Harper cabinet shuffle and trying to predict who my new boss will be now that Vic Toews has resigned.
We could also discuss this Govts perceived crackdowns on Public Service unions and collective bargaining and forced vote on some members of PSAC.
Au revoir mon ami.

No, as it is likely that some of them will, particularly if they develop a terminal illness. Whole life does not mean that they will never be released, simply that it is very unlikely that they will.

Jon Venables?

I thought he was already out (notwithstanding his previous release and reincarceration).

A fine example of the thin end of the wedge. There was a time when the most unworthy would be executed, and the matter would be done with. Then "life" sentences were introduced on the notion that this would be the "civilised" solution. Now the ultra-liberals are getting wet on "life"...give us a few more decades and will be like the Norweigens treating the worst criminals to a few months at the spa and a gratuitous supply of Ikea gift certificates!

As for Jon Venables, £5 million for his "rehabilitation" meanwhile hundreds of kids with suicidal mental health issues are unable to get professional care because of "insufficient resources".