Foreign Criminals......

[SoulKiss]

Have been thinking on this one for a while, cant come to a decision.

The post about Russian bike thieves stealing everything not nailed down it to blame for this resufacing in my head, and now, in the Forum.

Remember the cases of the asylum seekers who should have been deported after they did their time?

Why did they do ANY time in jail at all.

Why did we not just kick them out and ban from ever re-entering the country.

Its what we intended to do in the first place, so why the expense and hassle of confining them in the first place?

Similarly with these Russians. If they are visitors, ie not UK Citizens, why not just boot them on a plane to Moscow if they are caught (and convicted as any other suspected criminal - I am not talking about summary judgments, so some jail time would be served)

Why not just amend UK law to state that exile (if you can use that term for a non-citizen) is an applicable sentence in the case of ALL criminal convictions of foreign nationals and should be considered BEFORE a custodial sentence.

Anyone see the flaws in this (I can see a few which is why I am undecided)

David

I'm no law student but I imagine the following might be some problems with that way of doing things:

I - Seeing as this would be a case of crimes on our soil they would not be exiled to be prosecuted at the other end, i.e. extradited. Even if they could be, I imagine the rule of not sending them where certain punishment exists would cut in in many cases. In other words...they get away with it. EDIT: btw I have no idea of the percentage nationality of illegal immigrant criminals & how many come from countries we have an ethical responsibility not to return them to. Would be useful to know though

II - Depending on the level (petty vs. organised) of criminal being deported this may act as no deterrent whatsoever, i.e. if a criminal from a well run/well-funded group it would be easy enough for them to return with the current state of illegal immigrant influx.

III - I imagine a fuss would be kicked up possibly along Human Rights grounds, citing the dangerous precedent being set in treating our own citizens very differently to others, i.e. not a British citizen = kicked out as opposed to British citizen = locked up/freedom taken away. Two very different ways of dealing with the same crime, might be seen as unjust.

IV - If the system works as it *should* then currently there wouldn't be a need to implement this system. Theoretically it operates with them serving UK jail time and then being deported as well in some cases. The fault lies in the improper enforcement of the 2nd bit in some cases and they remain here. If they can't deport them efficiently after a custodial sentence, why would they be any more competent at enforcing it beforehand?

Just a couple of thoughts. Hope the choice of words/terminology isn't too far off the mark, just my layman's thoughts on the subject.

God help me , but here is what I have to say -
If your in a foreign country and you break the law, you go to prison for X years and then are deported. Now why can't we have the same thing here.
Simple answer is we have too many goody goodies telling us it's inhumane to send these people back to poverty etc.
Well as far as i'm concerned if a person seeks asylum here and misbehaves then they should be treated with very little respect, cos what the hell were they like back in their own country, probably worse!
There is alot more that could be said - ie benefits they get, easiness of living in this country compared to their own, etc etc.
But I'm not going to go on a rant.
Oh b*gg*r it, just shoot them!

[Biker Biggles]

What we should do is come to arrangements with foriegn countries whereby we sentence them to so many years and they serve their time back in their home country.We could even pay for their imprisonment abroad,as it would surely be cheaper than us paying for it here.


Or we could just shoot them.

Originally Posted by slark01

If your in a foreign country and you break the law, you go to prison for X years and then are deported. Now why can't we have the same thing here.

Well we do have that here, it just doesn't always work like that. There have been recent cases when they 'disappeared' on release from prison when they were due to be deported. Then again, this sort of press is given great media coverage so who knows what proportion these examples truly represent?

Originally Posted by slark01

Simple answer is we have too many goody goodies telling us it's inhumane to send these people back to poverty etc.

I would agree that 'poverty' per se is not necessarily a reason not to deport someone but then again I don't believe that currently it is adequate grounds for claiming asylum either...i.e. it must be because of persecution/political injustice/physical harm. In these cases I think we *do* have a responsibility, although proving the provenance of these claims I do not doubt is very tough (and maybe not true in a great many cases).

Originally Posted by slark01

Well as far as i'm concerned if a person seeks asylum here and misbehaves then they should be treated with very little respect

Anyone who 'misbehaves' should be given reduced status but 'little respect' depends on how it is applied. For e.g. I would agree that all criminals in the UK (British or otherwise) should serve proper prison time. This means no watching Man U. vs. Liverpool on TV, no Playstations. The only form of 'leisure' offered (apart from exercise) should be through rehabilitative means, say a library and the means to gain useful qualifications. Again though, easier said than done. Was an enlightening undercover documentary on prisons recently and how impossible it is for the small number of wardens to operate in an often corrupt closed system where they are vastly outnumbered. The prisons were almost being run by the cons.

The difficulty with 'little respect' is where the line is crossed. Guantanamo Bay/Abu Ghraib might be examples where more respect may well have served both the criminals and the countries responsible much better.

Originally Posted by slark01

There is alot more that could be said - ie benefits they get, easiness of living in this country compared to their own, etc etc.

There was another great documentary recently, following an undercover reporter in the immigration system and how they were being exploited by utterly corrupt middle-class British businessmen. These Eastern Europeans (mostly) were trying to make an honest wage and were living like cattle in Yorkshire, unable to speak English, denied any chance of help/tuition but used as shift workers unaware of their rights and paid unbelievably badly. Sure, the negative stories in the press get the headlines, but I'm sure many are making their own way, just look at how Polish workers have become very well-respected by many in recent years.