The ECHR and Mandatory Sentencing
The European Convention on Human Rights is an international treaty established for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (reference goes here) The European Court of Human Rights established this by drawing upon inspiration from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The ECHR ratified this treaty and continually ensures all 47 articles contained in the doctrine are adhered to by all member states. (reference goes here) If we look at the fundamental nature of the principles as stated in the ECHR, they can be said to represent ideal states of affairs regarding the relations between individual citizens and the state in subject jurisdictions. As such, these principles are derived from moral …show more content…
The ECHR believe this mechanism will prevent prolonged and unnecessary imprisonment. The ECHR believe proportionality is of paramount importance within the framework of sentencing, in other words, as previously stated, while a life sentence may not seem unfavourable it must be proportionate to the crime committed.(Reference goes here)In recent years the ECHR have been presented with an increasing number of cases regarding fairness of mandatory life sentences and subsequently following a series of judgements in Strasbourg which include ‘Weeks v. United Kingdom(1988)’, ‘Wynne v. United Kingdom (1995)’and’ Stafford v. United Kingdom (2002)’, the Parole Board of any state must now determine the lawfulness of the continued detention of an offender following the punishment element of his prison sentence.(Reference goes here) The case of Vinter and others v. the UK 2012 also illustrates how term of life imprisonment without possibility of review is a breach of prisoners’ rights through inhuman and degrading treatment thus violating article 3 of the European Convention.(REFERENCE GOES …show more content…
By definition, mandatory sentencing provisions impose various strict limits on the ability of courts to consider aggravating and mitigating factors in sentencing. Both factors ordinarily considered at sentencing are not explored when sentencing an offender convicted of murder and no discrepancies are made in terms of the seriousness of the offence and the circumstances of the individual. There is great variation in the seriousness of crime, thus the factors which mitigate should have bearing on the MLS. For example, the perpetrator may have a mental disorder or disability which lowers the degree of their culpability. The case of Commonwealth v. Demond Chatman illustrates how mitigating factors are not deliberated at the sentencing process. In 2001 in Boston Demond Chatman shot his mother and in 2002 was convicted of the murder. Chatman filed a motion for a new trial claiming that he was not competent to stand trial, the motion was denied after a non-evidentiary hearing. During the trial period Chatman was analysed by various medical professionals, who all came to the conclusion he was not of sound mind. Dr Robert H. Joss, a forensic psychologist, at the time stated that the defendant suffers from "a long standing mental disease that is best described as a schizoaffective disorder with prominent paranoid delusions. This disease is a substantial disorder of thought, diand perception which grossly
The European Convention on Human Rights is an international treaty established for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (reference goes here) The European Court of Human Rights established this by drawing upon inspiration from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The ECHR ratified this treaty and continually ensures all 47 articles contained in the doctrine are adhered to by all member states. (reference goes here) If we look at the fundamental nature of the principles as stated in the ECHR, they can be said to represent ideal states of affairs regarding the relations between individual citizens and the state in subject jurisdictions. As such, these principles are derived from moral …show more content…
The ECHR believe this mechanism will prevent prolonged and unnecessary imprisonment. The ECHR believe proportionality is of paramount importance within the framework of sentencing, in other words, as previously stated, while a life sentence may not seem unfavourable it must be proportionate to the crime committed.(Reference goes here)In recent years the ECHR have been presented with an increasing number of cases regarding fairness of mandatory life sentences and subsequently following a series of judgements in Strasbourg which include ‘Weeks v. United Kingdom(1988)’, ‘Wynne v. United Kingdom (1995)’and’ Stafford v. United Kingdom (2002)’, the Parole Board of any state must now determine the lawfulness of the continued detention of an offender following the punishment element of his prison sentence.(Reference goes here) The case of Vinter and others v. the UK 2012 also illustrates how term of life imprisonment without possibility of review is a breach of prisoners’ rights through inhuman and degrading treatment thus violating article 3 of the European Convention.(REFERENCE GOES …show more content…
By definition, mandatory sentencing provisions impose various strict limits on the ability of courts to consider aggravating and mitigating factors in sentencing. Both factors ordinarily considered at sentencing are not explored when sentencing an offender convicted of murder and no discrepancies are made in terms of the seriousness of the offence and the circumstances of the individual. There is great variation in the seriousness of crime, thus the factors which mitigate should have bearing on the MLS. For example, the perpetrator may have a mental disorder or disability which lowers the degree of their culpability. The case of Commonwealth v. Demond Chatman illustrates how mitigating factors are not deliberated at the sentencing process. In 2001 in Boston Demond Chatman shot his mother and in 2002 was convicted of the murder. Chatman filed a motion for a new trial claiming that he was not competent to stand trial, the motion was denied after a non-evidentiary hearing. During the trial period Chatman was analysed by various medical professionals, who all came to the conclusion he was not of sound mind. Dr Robert H. Joss, a forensic psychologist, at the time stated that the defendant suffers from "a long standing mental disease that is best described as a schizoaffective disorder with prominent paranoid delusions. This disease is a substantial disorder of thought, diand perception which grossly