Turn on thread page Beta
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Part 1)

    In 1996, a school boy murderer and the heroic acts of a head teacher gripped the media, as such things do. Chindamo was an Italian citizen, but had been resident and educated in the UK from the age of 5. At 15 years old, Chindamo stabbed and killed a head teacher who was trying to protect another pupil. He was tried in a crown court, and sentenced to life - indefinite detention with a minimum 12 year tariff.

    As the day of his earliest possible release approaches, his case has again caught media attention. The home office has sought to impose additional penalties to the boy's initial sentence, by obtaining a court order for his deportation upon release.

    In general, how could deportation be a fair or desirable modification to someone's sentence? It can only apply to criminals of foreign nationality, and is dependent upon the whim of the incumbent minister and junior ministers in the home office. If at the end of the 12 year minimum tariff the parol board considers him fit for release, then he is as fit for release in this country as in Italy. Deportation will improve neither the probability of his re-offending, nor the quality of justice administered.

    In the case of EU citizens like Chindamo, there is further reason to decry deportation. Upon release in Italy, he will have the right to live and work in any EU country, the UK included. Deportation, whilst consuming very expensive court time, will merely result in a forced holiday to Italy upon the termination of his sentence. He can hop on the next return flight if he wants.

    Why would the government pursue deportation of EU nationals under present legislation, and why aren't they getting a proper grilling in the media?

    How can deportation be justified in any case (come on, public interest hardly applies to conventional criminals, who's sentences are what's at fault if they would pose an undue risk to society upon release)?

    BBC account
    Daily Mail account

    Part 2)

    Upon the failure of the home office to secure the deportation of Chindamo, David Cameron has demonstrated a (to me) rather repugnant populist streak.

    Cameron has judged that criminals such as Chindamo - where of foreign nationality - should be deported: "The fact that the murderer of Philip Lawrence cannot be deported flies in the face of common sense." Thus, to me, he seems to be supporting an entirely irrational, unjust and wasteful policy (open to dispute).

    Further, he has used this "common sense" argument to justify a change in policy: the Human Rights Act is inappropriate to people's needs, and would be replaced by the conservative government by a British "Bill of Rights".

    Telegraph

    Are Cameron's arguments sound? The Human Rights Act bans abnormal punishments, makes deportation awkward, and ensures such basics as proper nutrition and exercise opportunities for inmates; are these the kind of thing that need to be got rid of for court sentences that comply with "common sense"? If not, then why scrap the HRA?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Explain why it is preferable to keep foreign criminals?

    (It's all a bit meaningless given the 'borderless' EU to be honest)
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Renal)
    Explain why it is preferable to keep foreign criminals?

    (It's all a bit meaningless given the 'borderless' EU to be honest)
    Preferable to who?

    That British people generally might prefer not to have serious criminals with spent convictions living next door is neither here nor there; appealing to this sentiment with populist measures such as deportation orders is just pushing the problem onto other countries.

    Once the sentence has been served, surely the felon regains ordinary rights and freedoms. If the foreign national has residency rights in the UK, then there are no grounds for discontinuing these upon release (any individual who has acquired residency rights, as opposed to being here illegally or on temporary vesa, should surely be treated as a UK citizen). Or would you have a systematic discrimination purely based on nationality - everyone is equal before the law, except foreign nationals?


    I'm glad you accept what seems to me the most obvious point though: if deportation were to be practiced, it should not distinguish between British citizens and other EU nationals.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Preferable to Britain (not necessarilly the people as individuals, rather the country as a whole).

    Or would you have a systematic discrimination purely based on nationality - everyone is equal before the law, except foreign nationals?
    Why not?

    if deportation were to be practiced, it should not distinguish between British citizens and other EU nationals.
    I'm not sure I accept that. It either suggests that non-EU nationals should be treated worse than EU non-British nationals, or that 'looking after' EU citizens should be a priority for the government alongside 'looking after' British citizens.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Human rights are a farce and it's scandalous how they only ever seem to apply to the worst type of criminal. The victim has no human rights, he's dead, and his family and their opinions on the matter are written of as being overemotional by the bleeding hearts, so no human rights for them either.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Renal)
    Preferable to Britain (not necessarilly the people as individuals, rather the country as a whole).
    Think of each criminal with a spent conviction as a unit of risk of another crime being committed. Now, deportation does not reduce the number of units of risk worldwide. If the UK does benefit, then it will do so as part of a zero sum game, in which it manages to transfer more units of risk onto other countries than it receives.

    Imagine the behaviour of each country. They will each seek to minimize the number of units of risk within their borders. That may mean some countries refusing to accept deportees, effectively opting out of a game they cannot win - thus, seeking more deportations worldwide will produce some increase in hostility between countries (particularly between developed countries and LDCs, as developed countries have the means to deport, and LDCs are the source of large numbers of immigrants). Read: a slight strengthening of nationalism, a slight weakening of international cooperation in matters ranging from economic development to human rights (lol).

    Even between developed countries, deportation brings costs beyond the exorbitant legal fees. Just think of the effect in Italy if the Chindamo case caught media attention. Italian people - seeing the British government eagerly seeking to send them a murderer (schooled and brought up in the UK from the age of 5), with the stated objective of protecting public safety - will surely feel what sense of common identity they have with the British people, damaged. Indeed, deportations will, however small or large the extent, only contribute to nationalist sentiment.

    While the above effects would be tiny for as long as the numbers of attempted deportations remains small, it must be considered that the costs of these effects would still be large in proportion to the gain received by a single nation, in deporting several units of crime risk a year. Where multiple nations are considered, with no net decrease in crime risk, with many resources committed to legal disputes within and between countries over deportations (in proportion to the number of actual transfers), and with weakened international cooperation, the practice of deportation seems downright destructive.

    Britain, of course, might be capable of winning in the zero sum game of crime risk transfer, as it has both a large immigrant population and high crime rates (by western standards at least, not including the US). Britain could proceed with deportations by following Cameron's policy proposals: slam the Human Rights Act that Britain has agreed with other EU members, declare a British parallel that confers diminished rights, and proceed to fight legal battles to have our prisoners released in their countries. The gains in deportation might be made possible, but would be resisted; the price in terms of international cooperation alone would outweigh all benefits of what will certainly never exceed a hundred individuals a year deported. Compounded by the legal fees, and costs to justice that i believe exist, and i can't understand why someone but a populist with no moral scruples whatsoever, would support deportation.

    (Original post by Renal)
    Why not?
    If two British residents commit stabbings, under precisely the same circumstances and with the same motivations, it seems only acceptable that the justice administered by the state imposes equal sentences upon the two individuals concerned (approximately and within reason; i'm not saying they should have equal areas of floor space in their cells or anything). It smacks of profound injustice to decree that one of the individuals should not be permitted to continue what life they had, after the sentence is spent, whilst the other should be.

    Of course, the case of illegal immigrants would be entirely different, for they have committed the specific crime of entering illegally, for which the obvious sentence is deportation. I fully accept that this exception should exist for as long as the status of illegal immigrant exists.

    (Original post by Renal)
    I'm not sure I accept that. It either suggests that non-EU nationals should be treated worse than EU non-British nationals, or that 'looking after' EU citizens should be a priority for the government alongside 'looking after' British citizens.
    My position is clear - all UK residents should be equal before the law; none should be deported. It should surely be accepted that while free movement exists within the EU, any effort to deport European nationals will be 100% counterproductive. No point in expensive legal battles and international bickering to put a couple of criminals on holidays from which they can return.

    The end of deportations to the EU would absolutely make EU nationals equal to UK nationals as far as criminal law is concerned (as far as i know). That doesn't imply any "looking after" - they will merely be given the same sentence for the same crime. They will not be capable of claiming any benefits in this country until having been continuously employed here for a specified period (2 years?).

    Non-EU nationals would only be treated worse in that they would still be subject to arbitrary deportation, upon committing violent crime (or being a non-convicted terror suspect it seems). That is disagreeable; let's pray we someday have a government that sees sense in the matter.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by _jackofdiamonds)
    Human rights are a farce and it's scandalous how they only ever seem to apply to the worst type of criminal. The victim has no human rights, he's dead, and his family and their opinions on the matter are written of as being overemotional by the bleeding hearts, so no human rights for them either.
    So what particular human rights would you like to see revoked for the "worst type of criminal", that are not under the present justice system?

    And what are you on about when you say that a victim's family have no human rights? Will the family find their freedoms to go about their daily lives infringed by some specific failing in the system? How could this failing be addressed?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by _jackofdiamonds)
    Human rights are a farce and it's scandalous how they only ever seem to apply to the worst type of criminal. The victim has no human rights, he's dead, and his family and their opinions on the matter are written of as being overemotional by the bleeding hearts, so no human rights for them either.
    I wasn't aware there was a human right for uninformed, overopinionated moaners to be acknowledged...
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by _jackofdiamonds)
    Human rights are a farce and it's scandalous how they only ever seem to apply to the worst type of criminal. The victim has no human rights, he's dead, and his family and their opinions on the matter are written of as being overemotional by the bleeding hearts, so no human rights for them either.
    You've been reading too many Tory manifestos. Do you actually know anything about the Human Rights Act? You should take a look at it sometime.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: August 26, 2007
Poll
Black Friday: Yay or Nay?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.