´óÏó´«Ã½

Good morning.
Ìý
Tuesday’s ruling from the European Court of Human Rights that whole life sentences are inhumane and degrading seems to have provoked some indignation.Ìý It’s an ‘assault on British justice and democracy’ according to one newspaper, and a ‘victory for evil’ according to another.
Ìý
With all this strength of feeling it is perhaps hard to hold on to the fact that the Court’s judgment is, as one of the more reflective editorials points out, procedural more than practical.Ìý The judgment does not say that there should be no whole life sentences.Ìý It does not require that any particular prisoners should be released.Ìý What it requires is only that any life sentence be subject to review after a reasonable period, such as 25 years.Ìý At that point the justification for the original detention – for the sake of punishment, deterrence or public protection – should be reexamined to see whether it still holds good - as of course it may.Ìý ItÌý doesn’t make a great headline, but, as the Court points out, the review of sentence it requires was normal practice in the UK until 2003.
Ìý
I have never had someone I loved murdered.Ìý It is hard to imagine how difficult it must be to feel anything other than profound animosity towards those who have caused you such deep pain.Ìý I think, however, that it would be a mistake to set this issue up as a dispute between those who are soft on criminals and those who feel for their victims.Ìý As I read the Court’s judgment, it is actually trying to create the possibility of an ending to these terrible stories somehow less bitter than imprisonment without review seems likely to guarantee.
Ìý
Medieval illustrations of the parable of the prodigal son often chose to depict the moment when the wayward son is so hungry that he is reduced to eating the food of the pigs he is caring for.Ìý It is the moment when he ‘comes to his senses’ and ‘seeks his father’s forgiveness’...