- Disabilities treaty might hit Senate floor soon; Sen. Hatch opposes [The Hill, Hatch, Heritage; earlier here, here, etc.]
- Right to expropriate trumps right to privacy? Georgetown lawprof claims Swiss bank confidentiality violates human rights [Stephen Cohen, SSRN via TaxProf]
- No thanks, we like our First Amendment: curbs on internet “hate speech” top agenda of UN committee;
- You know those unsound “no recognition of foreign law” bills popular in some state legislatures? Among their unintended effects could be to interfere with recognition of some international adoptions [Jefferson City, Mo. News Tribune, earlier] Court strikes down Oklahoma sharia ban [NPR]
- Two views of the U.N. Small Arms Treaty, which President Obama is due to sign any day now [Bob Barr/Washington Times, St. Louis Post-Dispatch (editorial dismisses issue as mere “scarelore”)]
- Conservatives for looser asylum laws? About the German homeschooler case [Ann Althouse]
- Claim: international law forbids complicity in the death penalty [Bharat Malkani, OJ] Hans Bader on European court’s invalidation of “whole-life” sentences [CEI “Open Market”]
- “The War of Law: How New International Law Undermines Democratic Sovereignty” [Jon Kyl, Douglas J. Feith, and John Fonte, Foreign Affairs; Peter Spiro, OJ; related ForeignPolicy.com interview with Kenneth Anderson and Brett Schaefer]
Filed under: adoption, asylum law, banks, disabled rights, guns, international human rights, Oklahoma, Switzerland, United Nations
2 Comments
The comment from Hans Bader – or the summary – is misleading. The ECHR ( note it is not an EU court) ruled against the situation where a person would be in jail for their life without the possibility of a review. That doesn’t mean that the prisoner would be released – after review.
It is recognised that some people can change especially after many years in prison.
Consider an 18 year old, imprisoned for 30 years of a life sentence – if there is a possibility of remorse/redemption should thee not be a process for recognising this?
Rehabilitation is one reason justifying imprisonment, but it is not the only one.
Let us consider the case of the late Jeffrey Dahmer (or for that matter, the very much alive Charles Manson).
Suppose each is genuinely sorry, after being imprisoned for 10 years.
Do we let them out?