██ ████████████

May 03, 2006 09:54

███ █████ █ █████ ██████ ██████████ ████ ███ ██████ █████████ █████ █████████ ██████ ███ ████ ██████ █ ████ ██ ███████ ██ ████ ████ ██ ████

██ ███████ ███ ██████████ ████ ███████ ███ ██ ██████ ██ █████ ███████ ██ ██ █ █████ ████ ███ ████ ███████ ████ █████████ ████ ████ ████████ ████ ███ ██████ ██ ███ █████ █████ █████████ ████ █████ █ ████████ ( Read more... )

political

Leave a comment

thalassius May 3 2006, 10:18:35 UTC
Is it not reasonable that if someone goes to another country and commits serious crimes, the government of that country has the right to deport them once they've served their sentence? (there *may* be reasons not to, but they would be specific to individual circs, and 'the other country is not as nice a place' shouldn't qualify. The 'host' country is not quite as nice a place either following the crime . . .)

They're quite likely to be here because this country offers more opportunities, which is fair enough, but why should they have a right to remain once they've proved their contribution will be robbery, rape, murder etc?

(This is a different question from why they were let out in the first place)

Reply

pseudomonas May 3 2006, 10:22:00 UTC
It's not whether the person has a right to remain - a society can deprive someone of (some of) their rights if they commit a crime, and residency seems reasonably one of them. The question is whether it's good for all the rest of humanity, rather than for the criminal.

Reply

thalassius May 3 2006, 12:06:36 UTC
OK, I see your point.

Surely, if they're not safe to be out, this then becomes an argument about forms of correction, and whether prison sentences are too short? Yes, if they're going to be let out, we should deport them, but should they be let out in the first place?

Reply

pseudomonas May 3 2006, 12:12:26 UTC
Whilst I'm not a lover of the idea of locking up people forever just-in-case, the argument needs to be had. What I dislike is the panicked argument that seems to run that these people are clearly too dangerous to be allowed to roam the streets of Britain, but that it's ethically acceptable to shove them off to another country.

Reply

elemy May 4 2006, 09:05:20 UTC
But arguably, that other country has foisted the problem on us in the first place, so it should be theirs to solve. I mean, you're not allowed to deport them to just anywhere, only to where they immigrated from, right?

Reply

pseudomonas May 4 2006, 09:08:22 UTC
I don't think the citizens of the other country are to blame in this case, assuming that they didn't deliberately export the person as a criminal.

Reply


Leave a comment

Up