The Student Room Group

EU: Suspected criminals should not be deported from Britain to other European states

So, Theresa May, how is the EU of help again? Is there an official list of EU contries you can't deport people to?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3524922/Suspected-criminals-not-deported-Britain-European-states-suffer-bad-treatment-jail-EU-s-court-rules.html
(edited 8 years ago)

Scroll to see replies

Reply 1
Original post by plstudent
So, Theresa May, how is the EU of help again? Is there an official listof EU contries you can't deport people to?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3524922/Suspected-criminals-not-deported-Britain-European-states-suffer-bad-treatment-jail-EU-s-court-rules.html


Yeah there is, the one's with **** prisons. Otherwise you can deport away to your heart's content. This would not be a Revelation to you, had you read the article and not created a clickbait thread.

"Suspected criminals should not be deported from Britain to other European countries if they might suffer poor treatment in prison, the EU's top court ruled today.

There must be substantial grounds for believing the individual concerned will be exposed to such a risk because of the conditions in which it is envisaged that he or she will be detained, the court found. "


Fairly sure we follow this line of legal thought already with countries outside the EU anyway.
(edited 8 years ago)
Reply 2
Original post by Aj12
Yeah there is, the one's with **** prisons..

:rolleyes:

There are no clear standards to define what constitutes a "humane" prison, and in any case, such determination should be made by the UK and not by any other entity.
We should be farming prisoners out to work for below minimum wage like they do in America.


I'd take all of the EU's prisoners, chain them up and put them to work 16 hours per day.
"suspected" criminals or criminals? remember the rule of law and habeus corpus?
I'd fix this countries' roads, make the trains run on time and build a wall and I will make them pay.
Reply 6
Original post by plstudent
:rolleyes:

There are no clear standards to define what constitutes a "humane" prison, and in any case, such determination should be made by the UK and not by any other entity.


Did you not read the quotes? The burden of proof is on the suspects legal team to adequately demonstrate there is a substantial risk to the person. This case would be presented to a British court during a deportation hearing presumably.

Posted from TSR Mobile
Reply 7
Original post by Aj12
Did you not read the quotes? The burden of proof is on the suspects legal team to adequately demonstrate there is a substantial risk to the person. This case would be presented to a British court during a deportation hearing presumably.

Posted from TSR Mobile


That's not the point. Did you read the part where it is stated that it is enough that poor treatment might happen? The ECJ is setting a ridiculously high standard for the implementation of a system that the EU itself devised. No EU countries should have inhumane treatment of prisoners anyway, as they are all signatory to the ECHR.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by Wewuz Hebrews
We should be farming prisoners out to work for below minimum wage like they do in America.


I'd take all of the EU's prisoners, chain them up and put them to work 16 hours per day.


No thanks. :no:
Original post by Chant No.1
No thanks. :no:


what a load of lefty claptrap
Reply 10
Original post by plstudent
That's not the point. Did you read the part where it is stated that it is enough that poor treatment might happen? The ECJ is setting a ridiculously high standard for the implementation of a system that the EU itself devised. No EU countries should have inhumane treatment of prisoners anyway, as they are all signatory to the ECHR.


You require substantial evidence that it might happen. Hardly a light test. You are getting worked up over absolutely nothing.
Reply 11
Original post by plstudent
That's not the point. Did you read the part where it is stated that it is enough that poor treatment might happen? The ECJ is setting a ridiculously high standard for the implementation of a system that the EU itself devised. No EU countries should have inhumane treatment of prisoners anyway, as they are all signatory to the ECHR.


Did you notice the part where it is enough that the suspect might be guilty of a crime? Arguably that's another "ridiculously high standard" countries are implementing.

Also not all EU member states have fully ratified the ECHR.
Reply 12
Original post by Dez
Did you notice the part where it is enough that the suspect might be guilty of a crime? Arguably that's another "ridiculously high standard" countries are implementing.


What part? Are we reading the same article or are you simply thinking of something else?

Original post by Dez
Also not all EU member states have fully ratified the ECHR.
Citation needed. Relevance needed.
Reply 13
Original post by Aj12
You require substantial evidence that it might happen. Hardly a light test. You are getting worked up over absolutely nothing.


Substantial evidence that something happened/will happen is one thing. Substantial evidence that something MIGHT happen is very diffuse and can be interpreted very liberally by judges.

I'm not getting worked up because I couldn't care less if the EU's system works. I don't think it's a good idea anyway. But if the organization even sabotages/complicates its own deportation systems, there is no telling what it will do to the member states. In fact, it already creates problems.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by plstudent
That's not the point. Did you read the part where it is stated that it is enough that poor treatment might happen? The ECJ is setting a ridiculously high standard for the implementation of a system that the EU itself devised. No EU countries should have inhumane treatment of prisoners anyway, as they are all signatory to the ECHR.


@Aj12 has already explained to you why your argument makes absolutely no sense, you're just embarrassing yourself now...
Doesn't sound like news to me. Thought it was common sense...
Reply 16
Original post by Plagioclase
@Aj12 has already explained to you why your argument makes absolutely no sense, you're just embarrassing yourself now...

:sleep:
Reply 17
Original post by rockrunride
Doesn't sound like news to me. Thought it was common sense...

Common sense is that a sovereign country can decide whether it deports somebody or not, much like I can decide if I kick someone out of my house or not.
Original post by plstudent
Common sense is that a sovereign country can decide whether it deports somebody or not, much like I can decide if I kick someone out of my house or not.


But you can't decide to kick someone into someone else's house or not...
Reply 19
Original post by RayApparently
But you can't decide to kick someone into someone else's house or not...


You can't send people back to their own house? Seems preferable to leaving them on the street.

Quick Reply

Latest

Trending

Trending