So what if the court isn’t satisfied? The court will do what courts do when they are unhappy with the response of some other branch of government. The court tells it what to do.
And this is exactly how it will play out. The ECHR will keep shrugging its shoulders, the court will mandate a remedy, and the ECHR will use the mandate to lobby for more money to implement it, and will blame the court for anything that goes wrong.
It’s pretty much win-win for them.
I think you are confused. The ECHR is the court.
How did this guy even survive till the end of his “tariff”? Don’t your convicts across the pond have access to shivs and such?
He got through his tariff because we do our job properly.
Is this a comment on the competence of US prison staff? If so I highly doubt it will be a welcome comment.
He would not have been put in the general prison population, as someone who murdered 3 children would be unlikely to survive in a US prison in general population. I’m fairly sure that would be the case in the UK prison system too. So, he would have survived here as well.
The only difference is that it’s doubtful that someone who murdered 3 children would ever get paroled, and if he did we wouldn’t worry about keeping him anonymous if we turned him loose, afaik. It would have been on him to assure his own survival once out of the prison system.
Life terms in the US imply the possiblity of parole in the same way. That’s why the most severe life sentences have to specify “life without the possibility of parole.”
According to the article, he’s been seriously assaulted a few times in prison.
The further along the series of steps toward release, the more he will be with adequately socialised prisoners rather than with the dregs of the dregs, thus lessening the risk to him, so past assaults against him should not be a bar to following the normal stepped process toward release.
This is part of the reason for posting this conundrum. Many people would be quite happy for the prison system and the police to allow such people to be beaten and killed by others.
In the UK it is quite clear that people are sent to prison AS punishment, not FOR punishment, and that convicted criminals retain all their human rights including that of protection by the state. We also abide (usually) by the rule of law (especially about sentence duration (even though there was the cock up over release from the ridiculous indeterminate cases where prisoners were required to have completed unavailable programs.)
It seems clear to me that this man, as foul as his original crimes may have been, is fit to be released, but due to an understandable failure of the Prison Service and the law, he remains detained in a legal limbo. The ECHR will not like this!
Which is a failure of rule of law and justice for the US. The state owes protection to the individual- that is part of the social contract.
In the UK the Police are responsible for keeping the peace- if they allow riots to happen, they are open to being sued for failing in their role! If a prisoner at risk was released into the community without a suitable protection plan, the Probation and police services would be open to being sued.
It is called a humane society.
That is not necessarily so. Category D prisons are not like the US Middle Class Country Clubs. All manner of prisoners pass through as part of their return to the community.
I’m sure you are right. Something in your posts led me to think that they were two different squabbling government agencies. But I will stick by the gist of what I said. The agency responsible for merging this guy back into the world will shrug helplessly until the court comes up with a remedy in the form of a court order, and the agency will wring its hands, do it and blame the court for anything that goes wrong.
Where I am, the Humane Society euthanizes animals.
Since a wrongful death claim by a family member would be less likely and less costly than a claim made by the fellow should he survive a debilitating attack, it would make good money sense to place him in the most dangerous situation possible and let his fellow prisoners finish him.
If that is not acceptable, then just change his name (cheap and easy to do), and ship him to a facility that is distant from the one he is in so as to lessen the chance of being recognized as he goes through the release progression.
Where I am, we never treat humans as animals.
Sorry, but I disagree that this is a requirement of the state to protect the anonymity of a murderer. Certainly the state doesn’t want to have riots in the streets, but then we don’t have that here in general anyway…no more than YOU do, at any rate and we are just a touch larger of a country than you are IIRC.
But if you want to feel that you live in a humane society because your justice system is having angst over how to turn this guy loose and protect his anonymity from his fellow citizens who might not be so humane towards a guy who murdered 3 children, well, feel as smug as you like. Whatever floats thy boat, man. 
It is not cheap- the new ID needs to be solid and difficult to break. Additionally the Media etc need to be banned from disclosing details.
The cost of such new identities whether for terrorist informers or criminals is thought to cost in the region of tens to hundreds of thousands of pounds.
I don’t need to feel smug about that. I am smug enough already about the ban on capital punishment and excessive use of life means life sentences in the US.
It is not a question of smug, it is a question of rights of the individual and the responsibilities of the State.
Of COURSE you are smug about it…and feeling all superior to us barbaric Americans. Here is another example:
[QUOTE=Pjen]
Where I am, we never treat humans as animals.
[/QUOTE]
To me, this entire thread is you backhandedly proving that the UK penal system is superior to the US, since the obvious response to your thread (on a mainly American board) is going to be ‘well, that’s just stupid…why jump through all these ridiculous hoops to protect a guy who murdered 3 children under the age of 4?’…which gives you the opportunity to do what you are doing.
ETA: If that’s not your intent then, IMHO, that’s they way you are coming across. MMV of course and maybe it’s just me.
I’m smug about our freedom of the press in the United States, but there’s nothing else to do here but follow the laws the UK has enacted in this case. Bite the bullet, pay for the new identity, and violate the freedom of the press. Is there any sort of alternate plan, really?
Exactly. I don’t know why it’s even a question, or why they are doing all this hand wringing over it all.