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……….