Turn on thread page Beta

Human rights farce: Phillip Lawrence killer to cost taxpayer £1 million a year watch

Announcements
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    The government is preparing to give the killer of headmaster Philip Lawrence a new identity.

    Under the plans, Learco Chindamo, 26, and his close family will be given new names and moved to an address away from London, where he grew up and where his mother, stepfather and brothers still live.

    They would then be provided with 24 hour police protection via a panic button.

    The media may also be barred from reporting details of Chindamo's new identity, what he does or where he lives. The cost to the taxpayer during the rest of Chindamo's life would run to millions of pounds.

    The revelation will reignite the anger which erupted last week when a bid to deport Chindamo to Italy, where he was born, was rejected. Ironically, the Ministry of Justice, which is to appeal against that decision, would ultimately find itself responsible for ensuring the Chindamos' safety.

    Mr Lawrence's widow, Frances, reacted angrily to the proposal, pointing out that the cost would dwarf the sum her family received from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority following her husband's murder.
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...nlearco126.xml
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Haha, this is what happens when you let murderers out of prison after 12 years.
    Offline

    13
    Right - so we should just let him get lynched in the street. Because that would be the hallmark of a liberal, progressive society...
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alasdair_R)
    Right - so we should just let him get lynched in the street. Because that would be the hallmark of a liberal, progressive society...
    Or you could always have a judicial system that actually locks away murderers for life. But that would be too harsh obviously. :rolleyes:
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    I don't see how harsh punishments for harsh crimes contradicts liberal ideals.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    He was a boy - 15 years old - when he committed his one and only serious crime. Described by the judge as immature and full of bravado, he stabbed the head teacher whilst full of adrenaline and under the pressure of other gang members after having been running after another school pupil.

    Whilst in prison, he has taken his GCSEs and an NVQ in health and social care (despite having been previously illiterate). He has been well behaved throughout his sentence, and has been active in encouraging younger inmates to turn away from crime.

    Source

    Given the above, it seems the parole board is going to release him once his minimum tariff of 12 years has been fulfilled. That is most probably the correct decision; they release far more serious criminals who are far more likely to re-offend than Chindamo.

    Once released, he should of course be accorded full human rights. Those rights include the right not to be pursued, have your property wrecked, and your bodily integrity threatened, by lynch mob.

    Given the media fuss over Chindamo, it is only proper that he be given state protection upon release. One would envisage that this would relax after a couple of years of his being out of the limelight.

    The cost of providing basic human rights to all people who reside within our borders, is quite irrelevant, given the nation's prosperity.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Good point. Anyone who commits murder for the first time doesn't really mean to do it. After all, it's not like one expects a person one stabs to die or anything.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by Bismarck)
    Or you could always have a judicial system that actually locks away murderers for life. But that would be too harsh obviously. :rolleyes:
    Is he still a threat to society? No. Should he therefore be released? Yes. Simple really.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alasdair_R)
    Is he still a threat to society? No. Should he therefore be released? Yes. Simple really.
    Yeah, a guy who has spent his entire adult life in prison is magically going to become a good citizen. Using this logic, perhaps we shouldn't even lock up people who commit murders of passion, since their recidivism rate is pretty damn low (much lower than someone who murders a person he doesn't know well in cold blood)?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Yet more press spin on a matter few people understand. The man is virtually English, his home life is in England, his family are in England. Of course he should be allowed to stay in the UK. Besides, as an EU citizen, even if deported, he would have every right to come straight back on the next plane... As for protection, he has quite obviously completely reversed his life, and is no longer a threat to society. Not to mention the fact that some of the worst drug dealers and murderers are given protection. I can't really see any valid argument against it.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dionysus)
    Yet more press spin on a matter few people understand. The man is virtually English, his home life is in England, his family are in England. Of course he should be allowed to stay in the UK. Besides, as an EU citizen, even if deported, he would have every right to come straight back on the next plane... As for protection, he has quite obviously completely reversed his life, and is no longer a threat to society. Not to mention the fact that some of the worst drug dealers and murderers are given protection. I can't really see any valid argument against it.
    Obvious to who?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bismarck)
    Good point. Anyone who commits murder for the first time doesn't really mean to do it. After all, it's not like one expects a person one stabs to die or anything.
    The fact that he has only committed one serious crime makes his chances of re-offending all but negligible.

    That will of course be taken into the parole board's considerations, as it should be.

    He poses no real risk to society.

    The pretty serious psychological issues this guy had as a kid seem to have been resolved.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Shaun39)
    The fact that he has only committed one serious crime makes his chances of re-offending all but negligible.

    That will of course be taken into the parole board's considerations, as it should be.

    He poses no real risk to society.

    The pretty serious psychological issues this guy had as a kid seem to have been resolved.
    According to who?

    And once again, does that mean that anyone who commits a murder out of passion shouldn't be locked up, since their recidivism rate is incredibly low?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bismarck)
    Yeah, a guy who has spent his entire adult life in prison is magically going to become a good citizen. Using this logic, perhaps we shouldn't even lock up people who commit murders of passion, since their recidivism rate is pretty damn low (much lower than someone who murders a person he doesn't know well in cold blood)?
    No - most here consider 12 years quite sufficient as far as a deterrent is concerned (given the time horizons of the typical violent criminal, a longer sentence would be irrelevant). Most consider that a 12 year sentence has enough of a sting in it, as far as retribution is concerned, to give most reasonable friends of the victims a sense of closure on the ordeal suffered.

    So your murder of passion example is rather a perversion of what anyone here is saying.

    The only reason for having a longer sentence then, as far as many are concerned, is to keep off the street those who are likely to re-offend.

    Perhaps we should leave the prison sentence debate to another day though, and get back to the main issue raised by the OP.

    Would you agree with what seems a general consensus, that this guy should be entitled to the basic rights of any other UK resident, upon release?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Shaun39)
    No - most here consider 12 years quite sufficient as far as a deterrent is concerned (given the time horizons of the typical violent criminal, a longer sentence would be irrelevant). Most consider that a 12 year sentence has enough of a sting in it, as far as retribution is concerned, to give most reasonable friends of the victims a sense of closure on the ordeal suffered.

    So your murder of passion example is rather a perversion of what anyone here is saying.

    The only reason for having a longer sentence then, as far as many are concerned, is to keep off the street those who are likely to re-offend.

    Perhaps we should leave the prison sentence debate to another day though, and get back to the main issue raised by the OP.

    Would you agree with what seems a general consensus, that this guy should be entitled to the basic rights of any other UK resident, upon release?
    I think this situation wouldn't arise if he was imprisoned for life. And yes, he's entitled to the same rights as any other Briton; coincidentally, other Britons don't have the right to around-the-clock police protection. Also, people have rights with the government, not with other people.

    And by the way, it seems the recidivism rate for boys is 77%. No chance of reoffending indeed.

    http://www.sgc.wa.gov/PUBS/Recidivis...eport_FY05.pdf
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by Bismarck)
    Obvious to who?
    Lots of trained professionals with years of experience in offender management...
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    This is really nothing to do with the Human Rights Act. This man is allowed to stay in Britain because he is an EU citizen. He should probably be deported, but if we accept he's going to stay as a given, giving him a new identity is just common sense.
    Offline

    13
    Indeed - it annoys me that the media has prortrayed this as a 'Human Rights' case, which does little for the image of 'Human Rights' in the popular imagination...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bismarck)
    I think this situation wouldn't arise if he was imprisoned for life.
    True, but financial motivations are hardly appropriate when considering whether someone should continue to be locked up in a prison cell against their will.

    But i can see that for you, who already believes in life long life sentences, this really ought to be a non-issue.

    (Original post by Bismarck)
    And yes, he's entitled to the same rights as any other Briton; coincidentally, other Britons don't have the right to around-the-clock police protection. Also, people have rights with the government, not with other people.
    What do you mean when you say that rights are with government? That they only apply to government actions (don't make me spell out the nonsense that would entail)?

    The government has a responsibility to ensure as far as possible that all human rights are upheld, for all residents of the country. That entails all reasonable actions to prevent crime. You are, frankly, talking out your arse when you go on about a "right to around-the-clock police protection". That is the means selected by the government in upholding the rights of a resident, likely to have their rights infringed by other members of the public. Same applies to court witnesses, etc.

    (Original post by Bismarck)
    And by the way, it seems the recidivism rate for boys is 77%. No chance of reoffending indeed.
    Well, that's quite a wide category you're using. I'm human, and 58% of the (living) human population was born on the Asian continent - i'd better check my birth certificate.

    The parole board have far more information than the simple facts that he was male and under 18 when he committed his crime. For instance, all kinds of psychosis are quite prevalent amongst this group - he doesn't have one.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alasdair_R)
    Indeed - it annoys me that the media has prortrayed this as a 'Human Rights' case, which does little for the image of 'Human Rights' in the popular imagination...
    In fairness, I dont think that the Human Rights Act represents an accurate description of human rights, it just didnt happen to be responsible in this case.
 
 
 
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 30, 2007
Poll
Should Banksy be put in prison?
Useful resources

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.