Regarding the Yorkshire Ripper, any campaign for early release is completely unfounded, rather his the remainder of his sentence should be handed down by the courts, rather than the home secretary. It would be up to the legal system to decide when he is safe for release. The sole human rights issue is that the original ruling on his jail term was made and is controlled by the home secretary rather than a member of the judiciary.

A sentence should not be handed down purely to satisfy victims or their families (pretty much everyone would get a life sentence if that were the case), as I've said in a comment on another article: aside from being a deterrent, prison should be about rehabilitation. If a prisoner is no longer a danger to society or themselves, then they should be released.

As it stands, Peter Sutcliffe is 61. The Criminal Justice Act of 2003 sets out that multiple murderers should serve a minimum of 30 years as a guideline. This guideline, regardless of any judgement on life sentences by the ECHR would likely be exceeded upon by any UK judge given the severity of Sutcliffe's case. Even so, were he to serve just 30 years, he would still be 64 when released. An old man, most likely subject to constant torment by the press and society (however wrong it may be) could surely no longer be considered a threat.