Should ‘life’ mean ‘life’?

The question is raised by this article.

Further interesting questions arise,  if Direct Democracy is to mean anything:

  • if the people have indeed voted that ‘life should mean life’, then should it not be they who has the final decision on a possible ‘conditional release’? If not, why not?
  • Regardless of the crime, should a sentence not be served in full?
  • Should a Court be able to, in effect, change a decision of the people?
  • Does the will of politicians wishing to adhere to ‘human rights’, aided and abetted by the legal profession, outweigh the will of the people? If so, why should it?
  • Should the ‘State’ (and I include ‘pressure groups in all forms) be able to over-rule the will of the people? If so, why?

Your comments are welcome, as always……….