Should immigrants be deported when they commit a serious crime?

But you know I'm not talking about terrorists. (not exclusively)

The system is still open to abuse though which is the main problem.

If a Pakistani/Ukrainian/French/American rapes someone and say spends 10 years in a British jail, should they be allowed to stay in the country afterwards?

Yes, but they should be jailed indefinitely in our country on life sentences actually meaning life and there should be special prisons for these people. They should be primarily there to cater to the most evil in society and let them live their lives amongst other similar people away from the civilised society we lived in. Why do you suddenly think deporting them is going to solve a problem? If a Frenchman commits a horrible crime in the UK and they get deported back post sentence, there is a chance that same person could go and kill people in France and I, as a humanitarian, do not think that is the right way to do things because the French people should be protected too. The obvious answer to the problem are prisons that effectively home people for their entire lives. They live a basic lifestyle with no threat of a death penalty and the only thing they lose is their right to freedom because they're deemed dangerous in a free and open society.

Original post by Simes

I'd rather they changed their system such that they could sentence someone to "a full life tariff" (never coming out) or "an indeterminate sentence" (probably never coming out).

100% support this. We need prisons that are essentially there to home people who society deems too much of a risk and unable to be rehabilitated. We need to come to terms with the reality that some people cant or do not have the will to be rehabilitated. These people should spend their life behind bars.

Reply 41

Jammy Duel

21

Original post by Jitesh07

A grade-1 offence should lead to deportation after serving the jail term in the host country (in case of life term send him back to his country and ensure that he gets jailed over there)

Half of the point of the suggestion is to stop this, and gievn that all such sentences, or at least the vast majority, should be life, or at least very long, the initial provision would be mostly unnecessary

Reply 42

Jitesh07

2

Original post by Jammy Duel

Half of the point of the suggestion is to stop this, and gievn that all such sentences, or at least the vast majority, should be life, or at least very long, the initial provision would be mostly unnecessary

Of course. The offender, if he/she were to get a life term, should be jailed in the host country or his/her country of origin. If the offender gets a long jail term, he/she should be jailed here and then deported.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 43

Jammy Duel

21

Original post by Jitesh07

Of course. The offender, if he/she were to get a life term, should be jailed in the host country or his/her country of origin. If the offender gets a long jail term, he/she should be jailed here and then deported.

Posted from TSR Mobile

In the case of serious offenses, as is the case for the thread, ideally they should be deported ASAP rather than being another/a greater drain on resources.

Reply 44

Jitesh07

2

Original post by Jammy Duel

In the case of serious offenses, as is the case for the thread, ideally they should be deported ASAP rather than being another/a greater drain on resources.

Hmm. Well, I didn't consider the resource-drain part. If he's deported, the host country should also ensure that he/she serves his/her term in the country of origin. Else, it defeats the purpose.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 45

Viridiana

OP

12

Original post by Cinnamon.S

That's the reason why I am ashamed to say where I am from :frown:

Tell us, tell us :wink:

Original post by Messiah Complex

(...)

But assuming someone just gets 10 years, you can't really give a life sentence for everything.
Do you choose:
1. 10 years and deportation
or
2. 10 years and in your country

Reply 46

MrJAKEE

5

It would depend on the crime. I'd personally like to see the death sentence on several crimes where definitely proven ( on both immigrants and citizens) but with regards to other serious crimes by immigrants the circumstances vary but I think giving them the toughest "sentence" whether that be in jail here or in another country is desirable.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 47

Messiah Complex

3

Original post by Viridiana

x

Neither. I don't believe either of the options you presented are the solution to a serious problem.

Reply 48

steph0468

18

deport and put in prison

Reply 49

Emma:-)

Entertainment Forum Helper

19

Original post by Blue_Mason

Yes
If you decide to commit a serious crime as a non citizen then no valuable resources should be wasted on you.
No health care, no housing and no welfare.

I agree.
Other countries would be quick to kick out an english citizen for committing serious crimes in their countries as well.

Reply 50

HigherMinion

5

Original post by Jitesh07

The only way to sort this issue out seems to be by grading the sort of offences. For e.g.:-

Grade-1:- e.g. inciting Hatred/Provocative Behavior towards a community

Grade-2:- e.g. Theft. Vandalism.

A grade-1 offence should lead to deportation after serving the jail term in the host country (in case of life term send him back to his country and ensure that he gets jailed over there)

A grade-2 offence would initially lead to the corresponding jail term in the host country. Repeat offenders to be deported with a ban from entering the host country and its allies (such as in the EU) for the rest of his/her life.

Hi, can you explain why "saying bad things" is grade 1 in your world, and vandalism (actually damaging property) is grade 2?

Reply 51

Time Tourist

9

Original post by Maths and cheesecake

That's horrible, so residents who do not hold citizenship are inferior to the citizens ? and ready to be deported whiles citizens who commit exact same crime are given a second chance ?

You are very confused. Once you have served your sentence you're not 'being given a second chance' you've just served your sentence and can go home, that's all there is to it.

If you are a foreigner and you come here and break our laws, we can deport you afterwards since you were only a guest here in the first place and have your own country to go back to, you have abused our hospitality.

If you are British, we can't deport you after you have been punished (though we used to - it was called Australia).

(edited 9 years ago)

yes

Yes, do a poll.

"inciting hatred" shouldn't be a crime in my opinion seeing as it is simply an exercise of one's free speech; nothing about free speech says you don't have a right to hate people. however, if they commit a serious crime (e.g. theft, battery/GBH, rape, etc) then yes, they should be deported - kick out the bad immigrants and keep the good ones. sounds like a good idea.

Reply 55

GailQ

10

Original post by HigherMinion

Hi, can you explain why "saying bad things" is grade 1 in your world, and vandalism (actually damaging property) is grade 2?

Where does it say "saying bad things"? :confused:

If you are talking about Inciting Hatred etc. then I interpreted that as referring to the likes of hate preachers (a la Anjem Choudhary) and protesters endorsing/encouraging violence as opposed to writing a nasty comment on twitter. :rolleyes:

If that is the case, then I think it is perfectly justified to deport the offender.

Reply 56

HigherMinion

5

Original post by GailQ

Where does it say "saying bad things"? :confused:

If you are talking about Inciting Hatred etc. then I interpreted that as referring to the likes of hate preachers (a la Anjem Choudhary) and protesters endorsing/encouraging violence as opposed to writing a nasty comment on twitter. :rolleyes:

If that is the case, then I think it is perfectly justified to deport the offender.

As much as I dislike Choudhary; until he commits a legitimate crime- theft, rape, murder- then he is not a criminal. You don't send people away and incarcerate them for having opinions you disagree with. Inciting hatred is such a blanket term that anyone with dissenting opinions could be locked up. Even natives. And this happens often.

Reply 57

MrJAKEE

5

Original post by HigherMinion

As much as I dislike Choudhary; until he commits a legitimate crime- theft, rape, murder- then he is not a criminal. You don't send people away and incarcerate them for having opinions you disagree with. Inciting hatred is such a blanket term that anyone with dissenting opinions could be locked up. Even natives. And this happens often.

I agree with you completely. There is no excuse for freedom of speech to be infringed even if people do not agree with it.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 58

Jitesh07

2

Original post by HigherMinion

As much as I dislike Choudhary; until he commits a legitimate crime- theft, rape, murder- then he is not a criminal. You don't send people away and incarcerate them for having opinions you disagree with. Inciting hatred is such a blanket term that anyone with dissenting opinions could be locked up. Even natives. And this happens often.

Inciting Hatred refers to when the leader of a particular community tries to create a sort of disturbance between his community and someone else's. It can lead to large-scale riots and is potentially dangerous to the society.

As for the vandalism part, mine was just an example. It is for the authorities to decide whether which crime deserves which kind of punishment and grading.

Posted from TSR Mobile