WTF is wrong with this World?

tim_wand

ECHR Rule Government To Pay Damages To Rapist

A convicted rapist has won damages in a case brought against the government over delays to a review on whether he should be released.

Samuel Betteridge, jailed in 2005 for raping a 14-year-old girl, won a ruling at the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) that found he should be compensated for waiting 13 months for a Parole Board hearing.

The court found that his right to have "lawfulness of detention decided speedily by a court" had been breached and awarded him 750 euros, plus 2,000 euros in costs.

In its ruling, the ECHR said: "The delay in reviewing Mr Betteridge's case was the direct result of the failure of the authorities to anticipate the demand which would be placed on the prison system following the introduction of IPP [imprisonment for public protection] sentencing and that it was for the state to organise its judicial system in such a way as to enable its courts to comply with the requirement under the convention of a speedy hearing to review the lawfulness of detention."

CONVICTED RAPIST OF 14 YEAR OLD GIRL HAS HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATED" AND RECEIVES COMPENSATION.

WTF is wrong with this world?

pinno

Whats right with it ?

Frank the tank

To ordinary people it would appear all common sense goes out the window as the ECHR legislation just gets bastardised out of recognition by grabbing lawyers. It's a total disgrace.

pinno

Easy fella, take a deep breath, calm down, calm down - have a cup of tea.

Years ago: Scum headline - 'Brinks Mat robber gets 22 years'. Over the page, wee column of about 2 inches. 'Triple rapist gets 4 years'.
Its all fukked up if you ask me, but you know that anyway.

Tom Dean

Would you rather someone be potentially illegally imprisoned for 13 months?

Whether you think the initial sentence was enough is a different matter.

tim_wand

Tom Dean wrote:

Would you rather someone be potentially illegally imprisoned for 13 months?

Whether you think the initial sentence was enough is a different matter.

Indefinite Public Protection, to be sentenced under this kind of warrant the individual has to be either considered a high risk of reoffending, a severe danger to the public, or have repeatedly commited crimes of a serious nature and shown continued recidivism.

I used to work at Hmp Whatton, the biggest solely sex offender holding establishment in Europe.
I have witnessed the Senior Management team authorise over £220,000 in overtime payments annually to Forensic Psychologists to come in on overtime to write SAR reports for parole dossiers, to hit KPT's to avoid litigation like this.

The same ministry of Justice mangers were quite happy to run with two officers to 100 prisoners on full unlock at a weekend on a Wing, because they didnt want /couldnt affoard more uniformed staff.

I.P.P sentencing is specifically designed as to not set a time limit on sentencing, it is designed to allow sufficient time to allow the offender to reduce their risk not just sit and mark off the days.

There is some argument that if the individual cannot access interventions then they have no opportunity to reduce their risk, but my experience tells me its more often the offender remaining in denial and therefore unable to access interventions which causes the delay.

Tom Dean

I don't see the relevance. If you are annoyed that the system is badly run, this ruling would seem to support that.

tim_wand

Tom Dean wrote:

I don't see the relevance. If you are annoyed that the system is badly run, this ruling would seem to support that.

I am annoyed that the ECHR can pass down a judgement which ultimately is going to force those involved in sentence management to concentrate on the quantity of interventions rather than the quality and effectiveness of them.

The rate of recidivsm for type of offence is already over 27%. The I.P.P is designed to make sure we get this right and protect the public by reducing reoffending rates , not garauntee people a release date, regardless of the risk they represent.

Tom Dean

A simple question of funding surely? Not the ECHR's problem.

Personally I don't want human rights law to be made with saving money and ease of admin a priority.

tim_wand

Tom Dean wrote:

A simple question of funding surely? Not the ECHR's problem.

Personally I don't want human rights law to be made with saving money and ease of admin a priority.

That gets to the heart of the crux of the problem. Prisons are judged on performance, KPT's KPI's excetera.
Although the one I mentioned hasnt to date suffered from litigation in this form from an offender it has often been mooted.

The SMT did however throw the large chunk of money at the outstanding parole reports issue so as not to miss a key performance target, and therefore be downgraded from High Performing to level 3 on ratings.

My point is, certain public organisations should not be run for profit, but ultimately this Government as no appetite for Public prisons and wants to privatise, especially areas such as sex offenders which on the whole in terms of discipline in custody are compliant and therefore attractive to private bidders.

I Know I ve moved off the point, but basically you cannot put a cost or a time scale on effective intervention and ultimatley this judgement will force offender managers to run interventions based on numbers and timings rather than effectiveness.

pinno

tim wand wrote:

Tom Dean wrote:

A simple question of funding surely? Not the ECHR's problem......

That gets to the heart of the crux of the problem.

Are you sure that it is right in the middle of the eye of the heart of the crux of the centre of the epicentre of the root of the inception of the nail on the head of the problem ?

I love dodecahedral entities.

tim_wand

Thats exactly what the Ministry of Justice and ECHR are. Many faced organisations with no definable centre or shape.

RideOnTime

Tom Dean wrote:

Would you rather someone be potentially illegally imprisoned for 13 months?

Whether you think the initial sentence was enough is a different matter.

Yeah, I'm afraid of this wishy-washy liberal view as well. The guy was punished he served his time. As said may be question the sentence. But you rehabiliate and move on. You can't just keep people locked up indefinately without ever reviewing their situation.