Should Foreign Prisoners be punished twice?

[zenie]

(Because I think this will get lost in the Question time thread)

Following on from this thread here

What should be done about foreign criminals, should they be punished twice so therefore be deported on release or not?

My view was this: “If we are going to deport after prisoners have done their time then why not deport in the first place rather than waste tax payers’ money?”

Somehow I don’t think instant deportation for criminals is a good idea.

 

[s.norbury]

Can the UK deport european community criminals? I really don't understand what's going on, are the British government racist?

 

[dylanredefined]

Unless the criminal has a very good reason to stay in this country.Married to
someone with residency/citizenship and the means to support themselves for example .I see no reason not to deport them no ones going to deny the vietnamanesse the right to throw glitter out .Why should we tolerate foreigners
who break the laws of this country? Though lots are people are playing a race card it boils down to incomptenly carrying out normal policy .

 

[agricola]

They shouldnt be punished twice, but I see no reason why you shouldnt get thrown out after completing your sentence, irrespective of the "risks" your lawyer says you would face if sent back.

 

[TAE]

As I said in the other thread ...

I'm also glad someone asked the 'why punished twice' question. It's an important issue and I'm not sure where I stand on that issue.

On the one hand, if you are given a visa (or something similar) stating that you can stay in this country as long as you don't commit a serious crime, then you can't complain if (having been convicted for a serious crime) you are then deported.
On the other hand, I'm not convinced that it is always the best or fairest way to treat people who have come here.

 

[Fruitloop]

They shouldnt be punished twice, but I see no reason why you shouldnt get thrown out after completing your sentence, irrespective of the "risks" your lawyer says you would face if sent back.

So if they stole something and were imprisoned, and were then sent back and executed that would be OK?

 

[Lock&Light]

On the one hand, if you are given a visa (or something similar) stating that you can stay in this country as long as you don't commit a serious crime, then you can't complain if (having been convicted for a serious crime) you are then deported.
On the other hand, I'm not convinced that it is always the best or fairest way to treat people who have come here.

If they can't complain when deported, having been warned that that would be the consequence of commiting a serious crime, what would be unfair about treating people that way?

 

[Fruitloop]

Sounds a bit like 'if you sign an empoyment contract saying you can be sacked at any minute for no reason, why is it unfair when you get the push?'. Arrangements are fair or unfair on their own merits, regardless of whether you can persuade desparate people to sign up to them. By your token people-trafficking would be fine, as the people that are trafficked enter into it voluntarily.

 

[scarecrow]

(Because I think this will get lost in the Question time thread)

Following on from this thread here

What should be done about foreign criminals, should they be punished twice so therefore be deported on release or not?

My view was this: “If we are going to deport after prisoners have done their time then why not deport in the first place rather than waste tax payers’ money?”

Somehow I don’t think instant deportation for criminals is a good idea.

What makes you automatically assume that returning them to their birth country is a second punishment?

I can agree if we're sending them back to a warzone or where they may be persecuted but surely they should be responsible enough to have thought of that before they decided on commiting a crime?

I don't have a problem with it if they're murderers, women violators or kiddy fiddlers. Sure, if they've nicked a loaf of bread give them a chance.

EDIT: What upsets me more is the immediate deportation of foreign women who have been forced into prostitution.

 

[bluestreak]

deport them afterwards unless they have a good reason to be here. i'm all for immigration but if you don't behave yourself why not send em back - normal residency rules.

i might get shouted at for this, but actually i don't see why a condition of asylum, for example, shouldn't be "behave" - after all if you're in that much danger then it's a good incentive to not be a scrote when you've been let into another country.

of course, this is all very well but could i sanction sending a thief to a country where they face execution for their religious beliefs? no. but the threat should be there i think...

i dunno, it's a tricky one.

 

[Lock&Light]

Sounds a bit like 'if you sign an empoyment contract saying you can be sacked at any minute for no reason, why is it unfair when you get the push?'. Arrangements are fair or unfair on their own merits, regardless of whether you can persuade desparate people to sign up to them. By your token people-trafficking would be fine, as the people that are trafficked enter into it voluntarily.

That, I'm afraid, is just about the stupidest posting I've ever read on Urban.

 

[dylanredefined]

Bit of shop lifting no .Armed robbery definatly good byee .Why should this country tolerate criminals from other countries? we have plenty of our own .

 

[Fruitloop]

That, I'm afraid, is just about the stupidest posting I've ever read on Urban.

Proving once again that you have no grasp of logic.

 

[TAE]

If they can't complain when deported, having been warned that that would be the consequence of commiting a serious crime, what would be unfair about treating people that way?

If I could answer that then I would not be in two minds about it.

Fruitloop expressed part of my concerns - I guess it's a case of legalism vs real justice.


And there is difference between being a law abiding person and being a good person.
You can be arrested and imprisoned for all kinds of things.

 

[Azrael]

Deport them unless recognised refugees. They're guests in the country, they've abused its hospitality, they should go.

I spend ages arguing the Left isn't weak on crime, it's all spin ... then come across things like this.

 

[zenie]

Deport them unless recognised refugees. They're guests in the country, they've abused its hospitality, they should go.

I spend ages arguing the Left isn't weak on crime, it's all spin ... then come across things like this.

So, if you're hear on asylum you can do what you want???

 

[Fruitloop]

I reckon if you adopt the weak on crime vs tough on crime meme then the matter is pretty much already decided.

 

[Lock&Light]

And there is difference between being a law abiding person and being a good person.
You can be arrested and imprisoned for all kinds of things.

We have been talking about SERIOUS crime, TAE.

 

[TAE]

Protesting outside parliament is covered by the serious/organised crime bill.
And manslaughter can (AFAIK) be the result of self-defence gone very wrong.


The other issue is that deporting people does not solve the problem for mankind as a whole, it just makes it 'not our problem'.

 

[Fruitloop]

As is buying an ounce of weed and selling half on to a mate. Deport these dangerous criminals!

 

[treelover]

One of things that worries me, is that when a recession comes (as it must)and service sector /casual work disappears particulalry in london(remember the 1991/1992 one, london was gloomy) many desperate migrants may turn to crime with the backlash that will engender

 

[scarecrow]

The other issue is that deporting people does not solve the problem for mankind as a whole, it just makes it 'not our problem'.

So should Gary Glitter be allowed to stay in Vietnam?

 

[Lock&Light]

My approval of deportation is certainly subject to a number of caveats. One of which is a clear agreement on what is and what is not serious crime.

 

[Fruitloop]

Is Gary Glitter in danger if he returns to Britain?

 

[zenie]

One of things that worries me, is that when a recession comes (as it must)and service sector /casual work disappears particulalry in london(remember the 1991/1992 one, london was gloomy) many desperate migrants may turn to crime with the backlash that will engender

That's a bit fuckin strong innit??

 

[zenie]

Is Gary Glitter in danger if he returns to Britain?

I would like to think so

 

[scarecrow]

Is Gary Glitter in danger if he returns to Britain?

You don't think Gary Glitter gets persecuted?

 

[Fruitloop]

The maybe he should be allowed to stay - there's no need for legal justice plus mob justice. Is he still rich? I reckon if you have the coin then it doesn't matter.

 

[lunatrick]

i think if you commit a serious violent or sexual crime then yep deport....I mean if you're not a british national and you behave in this way - good riddance.....the same would happen in any other country wouldn't it? I can't think of any other sensible answer. And it works both ways - we get glitter back.....

 

[scarecrow]

The maybe he should be allowed to stay - there's no need for legal justice plus mob justice. Is he still rich? I reckon if you have the coin then it doesn't matter.

Erm no. Deporting criminals After they've finished seving time for a serious offence is legal justice. The mob justice started when the legal justice failed.