Whole-life jail terms without review breach human rights

I had to look up the ECHR as well because it's exclusively European based upon the European Convention on Human Rights treaty. 

My background on European law is shaky so I can only address this from the perspective of the US Constitution were a treaty the United States enters into acquires a legal status somewhere between the US Constitution (which it is subordinate to) and federal statutes (which is superior to) under Article III.

The problem I find is that the European Convention on Human Rights treaty, while well intended, is flawed in many respects. 

I can understand that and it makes sense.

I'm of the political opinion that imprisonment is supposed to be about protection of the Rights of the people in society and that a government doesn't have the authority to "punish" a person. Punishment is about extracting revenge and we, as person's, don't have a Right of Revenge so it is illogical to believe that we can grant a "power" to government that we don't possess as a person. Protection relates to Self-Defense and we do have that Right. 

I simply refer to the US Declaration of Independence which establishes that the primary purpose of government is to protect the Rights of the Person. In doing so it is a pragmatic necessity for government to limit the Freedom the Exercise our Inalienable Rights but in doing so it should always ensure that the limitation upon our Freedom to Exercise our Inalienable Rights is to the least extent possible to provide the greater protection.

It also establishes that our government derives it's powers based upon the consent of the governed and the people cannot delegate a power that they do not possess.

Incarceration is an act of self-defense against the acts of a person that has violated the Rights of the Person (which is why I oppose victimless crimes where no one's rights are violated) and that incarceration imposes a limititation upon the Freedom to Exercise the Right of Liberty. Depending upon the offense the limitation on the Freedom to Exercise the Right of Liberty varies. For minor offenses it usually results in low level confinement such as work farms. For very serious offenses it could predominately limit a person to their cell. It all depends upon the offense but in all cases it should be the least infringement possible to provide the protections of the Rights of the Person whether a person is on the outside or if a person is another inmate.

The term should also be limited based upon pragmatic limitations. A person at 95 that is a complete invalid probably doesn't need to be in prison as they can no longer harm anyone. Of course they might be just another burden to society if released and pragmatically it might be in their best interests to keep them in prison. I won't make that call but if they no longer represent any threat then we're not defending ourselves from their actions which is the only justification for imprisonment based upon the Declaration of Independence.
 

The Declaration of Independence is the founding legal document of the United States as 13 independent States (nations) unified in a common cause based upon a common ideal and was approved by the First Continental Congress on July 4, 1776. It established the ideals upon which the Article of Confederation were drafted which was a task also started by the First Continental Congress at the same time, submitted to the independent States in 1777, and fully ratified in 1781. In 1786 the first Constitutional Convention called by the States to replace the Articles of Confederation with the US Constitution. The US Constitution is the supreme law of the land but it's authority originated with the Declaration of Independence and the intent of the US Constitution was to fulfill the ideals expressed within the Declaration of Independence.


Basically we have the statement of principles/ideals in the Declaration of Independence ultimately followed by the legal document establishing the government to fulfill those principles/ideals in the US Constitution which became the supreme law of the land.

It can be noted that while the US Constitution is the supreme law of the land the US Supreme Court has often referred to the Declaration of Independence in establishing Constitutional precedent (supreme legal precedent) in it's decisions. Many disregard the huge role in Constitutional precedent that the Declaration of Independence has played historically. The "Ideals of America" are at the forefront in virtually all US Supreme Court decisions.    

The Declaration of Independence is really comprised of three parts. The first is obviously the Preamble which estabishes the reason for the document itself. The second is a statement of ideals and principles of government. The final part is a specific complaint against the King of England based upon the ideals and principles. The second part established the ideals and principles of government in the United States.
It is this section that was embodied both in the American Revolution and the subsequent government established in the United States and all that follows in American history is founded upon this.

I also became highly interested but only after my mother went through the laborious process of documenting her heritage to become a Daughter of the American Revolution. It was only then, when I was in my mid-30's, did I begin a real investigation into the roots of American political philosophy and it was then that I realized how much of a failure our primary education (K-12) was in addressing it. It's no wonder that so many from the political left and right have such weird political beliefs because they're just down right uneducated when it comes to understanding the political ideology that the United States was founded upon.

It was only after I began to understand the foundation of our political ideology as expressed in the Declaration of Independence, going even further into where the founders gained this political ideology, that I began to understand. What I learned was amazing because the founders didn't present the culmination of our political ideology but instead only proposed the beginning. Institutions and beliefs that predated and contradicted the political ideology expressed in the Declaration of Independence long remained and continue to remain in our nation and it is our responsibility to address these. Slavery persisted until the 1860's, as we all know, and it clearly violated the ideals expressed where "all Men are created equal" but many other "inherited" European practices continue to this day that contradict the ideals expressed in the DOI.

I question many of these such as our misunderstandings related to the Right of Property, the legal institution of Marriage, Immigration Laws, and the War on Drugs for example.

Of course, as applicable to this thread, I question the power of government as well as the purpose of government when it comes to incarceration. I don't believe the "government" can have the power of "Revenge" which is what "Punishment" represents because the "Person" does not have the "Right of Revenge" where we can delegate a power to the government to extract "revenge" against a person regardless of what that person might have done. The role of government is to "protect" the people from acts by others that would or have violated our Inalienable Rights. The purpose of incarceration should be "Protection" and not "Punishment" based upon the political ideals our nation was founded upon.