Murderers rights to be parents

[Peter M]

The human rights of a murderer and his wife were breached when they were not allowed to have a child by artificial insemination, it has been ruled.

 

 

read more:

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/humber/7128145.stm

[kleinboet]

PC strikes again!!

[chesters1]

hmmmm surely the laws on not gaining anything on the proceeds of crime should include sprogs ,if its his semen and he's in prison then he's gaining a child whilst serving time for breaking the law ....either that he's trying to escape bit by bit ,this week sperm next week eyelashes etc etc

 

strangely the liar book scribbler and ex mp also wrote books in clink but still kept the proceeds

Edited December 5, 2007 by chesters1

[ColinW]

I'm OK with it as long as Cecil Jacobson performs the artificial insemination.

[chesters1]

I'm OK with it as long as Cecil Jacobson performs the artificial insemination.

 

Albert Pierrepoint would have extracted a few drops for her in a far better way!!!

if the erection part is true?

mind you if Albert (well his modern version) still worked there would hopefully be plenty for all

Edited December 5, 2007 by chesters1

[five bellies]

What was the women guilty of again please remind Me ?

[gozzer]

What was the women guilty of again please remind Me ?

 

 

It doesn't specify FB, she was released in 2001.

She already has 3 children by a previous relationship.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/humber/3704826.stm

 

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/humber/6246975.stm

 

 

The Home Office said applications from prisoners for artificial insemination were granted only in "exceptional" circumstances: out of about 50 requests, seven had been accepted.

 

The ECHR seem to think it should be granted more often.

 

John.

[ColinW]

If murderers were hanged that would prevent their defective genes spreading quite effectively. Or would the European courts then force us to make clones from their corpses?

 

The most ridiculous aspect of this case is that we are discussing his rights to breed and not mentioning the fact that a convicted killer given a life sentence expects to be released by the time he is 36! How on earth can that be a life sentence?

At 86 or even 76, then yes it's probably safe to release him, but at 36 he will still be perfectly capable of killing someone else. Let's face it if he's an atheist he now knows he has nothing to fear from the law and if he's religious he already knows he's going to burn for eternity anyway, so why shouldn't he kill again if the fancy takes him?

[Paul_D]

The very fact that this would deliberately result in a single parent family, albeit for a period of time only, should be sufficient grounds to stop it.

[five bellies]

I supose if you see jail as a punishment then this is bad law,

 

If you see jail as a Metod of correction hoping that when someone leaves they are a reformed chacter its not so bad is it ?

 

Looking at the bigger picture now there is a precident if you are in for a stretch for a corporate or Blue coller crime Why would that stop you being a Good parent, also why should your wife be made to give up an oppertunity of a family for your Crime.In many ways she is as much a victim of your crime as the Injured Party.

 

This particular case on face value seems a bit Ill concieved excuse the Pun.