leo9: The axe murderer reference was not hypothetical, it was directly related to the prisoner votes case, and I do believe that even accused axe murderers - particularly axe murderers, given the severity of the case and the punishment if convicted - should get a fair trial. That is not what the ECHR were arguing with, though: they somehow think that convicted killers should be entitled to vote, despite democratically passed legislation and public opinion to the contrary. With luck, this piece of judicial stupidity might just be the last straw which gets their authority revoked entirely.

It is a shame. I would like to have a court which sticks up for actual principles - the right to a fair trial, that any real "crime" requires harm to a victim - but instead, they just whine about real courts being nasty by not letting drug-taking axe-killers vote. Can you give me any actual reason to allow him to vote despite the law saying otherwise?

If the ECHR were sticking up for fair trials, I would applaud it - but they were seeking to reduce the punishment prescribed by law for the guilty, which is a very different situation.

I am disappointed you seem to confuse an ill-founded "conviction" by a kangaroo court in a police state with actual guilt, but you get close to my point again here:

"What you are complaining about is that even after someone has been found guilty, people like the ECHR continue to treat him like a human being, who should be punished for his crime but not otherwise treated worse than any other human being."

Almost: I complain that the ECHR objects to applying part of the legally-prescribed punishment (in this case, loss of the vote) to those whose guilt is not in dispute. Someone is guilty, the law says that means they can't vote - and the ECHR demands otherwise. Why is this acceptable?

"the strongest reason they forced that through was that the chap was probably, on the evidence available, innocent, and had an appeal coming up"

What evidence? The first trial examined the evidence and concluded he was guilty beyond reasonable doubt, as did the appeal. Yes, there was a request in the pipeline for a second appeal in the hope that might disagree with the first two hearings - but there's no shortage of people in prison wanting to keep plugging away in hopes of getting lucky eventually, particularly when they aren't footing the bill.

"But if you then deport him as well, you are sentencing him to death, probably a very nasty death. If parliament wanted hit-and-run drivers to die by torture, they would have legislated accordingly: since they didn't, it is reasonable to question whether it is just to add that to his sentence."

No - just refusing to protect him if he refuses to comply with our laws - and as I understand it, parliament DID legislate that criminals should be kicked out, but this was then interfered with in the name of 'human rights'.

"And you know they are bad people because the media tell you so."

Nothing to do with any media. Get convicted by the appropriate court beyond reasonable doubt, you forfeit our protection. If that means returning to a situation you don't like, you should have thought of that before committing the crime. Remember, there is no right to go and live in another country of your choice if that country doesn't want you; if a country is kind enough to let you in, it has the right to revoke that if you abuse the hospitality.

If I turned up on your doorstep wanting to shelter from the rain, then started stealing from you or punching you, should you be obliged to let me carry on because it's wet outside?

I know this is one area where British/American law differ from French law and Asimov's Laws of Robotics, in the legal treatment of inaction; the French hold that if I see something nasty is going to happen to you but fail to intervene, I am in the wrong, something I strongly disagree with. In my view, if some nasty fate might befall you, I am under no legal obligation to intervene unless there is something to make me responsible for you (being your parent or guardian, for example). It would be nice of me to help you, but there should be nothing forcing me to do so. On an international level, if you are in a country which will mistreat you, it would be nice of another country to help in some way, but there is no obligation to do so - and if you literally or figuratively attack or mistreat your would-be rescuer, you should not be surprised or entitled to redress if this changes their mind about coming to your aid!