Learco Chindamo - Should he stay or should he go?

[Teagan]

The killer of Philip Lawrence has had his 'human rights' upheld in that he is entitled to stay in this country after he leaves prison.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/6956088.stm

Have the laws for 'human rights' gone too far? Should he be sent back to Italy? Or, as he has been in the country since he was 4 entitle him to make a new life here after release?

And what about the Lawrence family? Should their rights and peace of mind be overlooked in favour of the man that killed their father?

[katchika]

The killer of Stephen Lawrence has had his 'human rights' upheld in that he is entitled to stay in this country after he leaves prison.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/6956088.stm

Have the laws for 'human rights' gone too far? Should he be sent back to Italy? Or, as he has been in the country since he was 4 entitle him to make a new life here after release?

And what about the Lawrence family? Should their rights and peace of mind be overlooked in favour of the man that killed their father?

It seems a bit pointless to deport him. It's the EU anyway so wouldn't he still have the right to come and live here?
Deporting him won't bring him back.
PS It's not Stephen Lawrence is it?

[CptCoatHanger]

Deporting him would seem to me to be an odious shirking of responsibility. He is a product of our society; he spent the majority of his life - and all his his formative years - growing up here.

The idea of deporting him to Italy when he's released is tantamount to sticking our fingers in our ears and shouting 'la la la la la it's not our problem'.

[Teagan]

PS It's not Stephen Lawrence is it?

Corrected to Philip - thanks! :)

[Teagan]

He is a product of our society; he spent the majority of his life - and all his his formative years - growing up here.

I am not sure he is ENTIRELY a product of our society. I read today that his father was a Mafia hitman - he may have grown up trying to live according to his father's moral view on the world.

[Sofie]

And what about the Lawrence family? Should their rights and peace of mind be overlooked in favour of the man that killed their father?

Of course.

[I'm With Stupid]

I am not sure he is ENTIRELY a product of our society. I read today that his father was a Mafia hitman - he may have grown up trying to live according to his father's moral view on the world.

By that logic, if he was born here, and his father was still a mafia hitman, he wouldn't be ENTIRELY a product of our society either. You can't deport someone when they've lived the vast majority of their law-abiding life in your country. It shouldn't have anything to do with human rights imo, it should be a question of which country is responsible for him, and since he spent a total of 4 years in Italy, it shouldn't be them.

[Man Of Kent]

I am not sure he is ENTIRELY a product of our society. I read today that his father was a Mafia hitman - he may have grown up trying to live according to his father's moral view on the world.

So, his three years with his Dad had more influence than the 12 in the UK?

Seriously, his family all live here, he was raised here. There is more chance of him becoming a decent citizen with that kind of support.

Flip this over, would you be happy if the Italians were trying to deport to us in the same circumstances?

[Disillusioned]

The issue of whether he should be deported or not should be irrelevant for the time being. He was given a life sentence for a brutal and violent murder, it's outrageous that the issue has come up now since he could be released as early as next year. Twelve years isn't long enough.

[Flashman's Ghost]

So, his three years with his Dad had more influence than the 12 in the UK?

Seriously, his family all live here, he was raised here. There is more chance of him becoming a decent citizen with that kind of support.

Flip this over, would you be happy if the Italians were trying to deport to us in the same circumstances?

Australia did and they were right to do so...

[Flashman's Ghost]

The issue of whether he should be deported or not should be irrelevant for the time being. He was given a life sentence for a brutal and violent murder, it's outrageous that the issue has come up now since he could be released as early as next year. Twelve years isn't long enough.

:yes: that as well

[Sofie]

The issue of whether he should be deported or not should be irrelevant for the time being. He was given a life sentence for a brutal and violent murder, it's outrageous that the issue has come up now since he could be released as early as next year. Twelve years isn't long enough.

:yes:

His widow was talking about this on Five news just now. She basically said that he's taken away someone else's human rights (by killing her husband) so why should he still have his?

[Man Of Kent]

Erm... he hasn't at the moment, he's inside paying for taking away someone's life. It's worth noting that he hasn't been released and it's only his tariff which expires next year.

What you are talking about is punishing him twice.

[I'm With Stupid]

:yes:

His widow was talking about this on Five news just now. She basically said that he's taken away someone else's human rights (by killing her husband) so why should he still have his?

He doesn't have his human rights. He doesn't have any freedom for the length of his sentence. Argue against that, but don't argue that once he's served his sentence, he shouldn't get the same human rights as everyone else. Given that he was only 15 when he committed the crime, I don't believe he could still be considered a threat to society.

[Sofie]

When he gets released he will have his human rights back.

[I'm With Stupid]

When he gets released he will have his human rights back.

And? He'll have served his sentence.

[Man Of Kent]

When he gets released he will have his human rights back.

You mean when we've finished punishing him, for the crime he committed, we will consider him to be worthy of his rights again?

[Sofie]

Apparantely, he's still a danger. So should he still be released then?

[Man Of Kent]

Apparantely, he's still a danger. So should he still be released then?


Apparently he has been released and the parole board won't do so if they consider him a danger...

[Kermit]

The parole board have been known to make mistakes, but that's not really the point.

I don't think life should mean life, but I don't think we should be prevented from booting filth out of our country. We have enough home-grown scum without having to put up with everyone else's filth too.

It has nothing to do with the Human Rights Act, though, and everything to do with recent EU legislation on the matter- something that Britain pushed for, if memory serves me right.

The argument is political, but I think that (for once) the Government are right.

[Sofie]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/6957739.stm

[wheresmyplacebo]

the decision was by a immigration tribunal, on whether he shoul stay when he has finished his sentence

his sentence, in particular the minumum custodial sentence is nearly up, THAT DOES NOT mean he is going to be released then

anyway, he's lived here since he was 5, on what grounds can he be deported it's just stupid like holding your eyes and going 'la la la' rather than dealing with him effectively

[stargalaxy]

I support the Government on this occasion. I have no time whatsoever for this odious, revolting creature. This man is in prison for murder - good riddance to him. He has lived in Britain since he was 5, and how has he chosen to thank the UK for its hospitality? By killing one of its own citizens. I would leave him to rot. I do not believe that his presence in Britain is a good thing, and would love to see the back of him. Although I would have no problem were he deported, I think such a move would be largely cosmetic.

I believe that the wishes of the Lawrence family should be taken into account, and I consider a 12-year sentence for murder to be very lenient. The least that one should receive for murder is life imprisonment - in prison until the day you die.

[Aladdin]

I have to say that so long as his life isn't in danger if he's deported (and Italy hardly comes across as a civil-war torn hellhole) I believe he should be given the boot.

I don't agree at all with expulsing all foreigners who have commited crimes. Each person and crime is different. But in this particular case I think there are good grounds for his deportation.

*Awaits for ''watch out Aladdin, somebody's hacked into your account'' comments* ;)

[Flashman's Ghost]

Must resist the temptation to say 'Aladdin, somebodys hacked into your account'

Ah, whoops
;)

[Flashman's Ghost]

That said i'm changing my mind. Given he can't speak hardly any Italian it probably constitutes cruel and unusual to send him back.

Still don't reckon he should be let out after 12 years (I'm not sure whether he has or hasn't I seem to have got confused somewhere along the line between the parole board and immigration tribunal)

[I'm With Stupid]

the decision was by a immigration tribunal, on whether he shoul stay when he has finished his sentence

And the guidelines clearly state that a fellow EU national cannot be denied access to the UK, unless they are a genuine threat to national security, which of course someone who murdered one man when he was 15 and served his sentence, wouldn't be. So you can deport him all you want, but he would have the right to come back in anyway. There's freedom of movement in the EU, which is one of the best things about it. How is it any different from someone being convicted of a crime in Scotland, and people trying to prevent him coming to England when he's released? Or someone being convicted of a crime in one town, and the next town trying to prevent him coming to theirs? If you accept freedom of movement, you accept it for everyone who is deemed fit to be released into society.

And the home office, and naturally David Cameron (who's used this as an opportunity to speak out against the human rights act, which this incident has absolutely fuck all to do with), are simply jumping on the populist bandwagon, rather than taking the difficult stance and upholding the judgement of the court.

[I'm With Stupid]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/6957739.stm

Oh, well the Home Office says so. It must be true. :rolleyes:

[Yerascrote]

*Awaits for ''watch out Aladdin, somebody's hacked into your account'' comments* ;)

Not really, if he's still a danger to society then he can fuck away off. If not, then he can stay, simple as.

[I'm With Stupid]

Still don't reckon he should be let out after 12 years (I'm not sure whether he has or hasn't I seem to have got confused somewhere along the line between the parole board and immigration tribunal)

I don't think this decision had anything to do with the length of his sentence. It's merely to decide whether or not he was deported. And I can see how people believe he should be in there longer (personally, I feel that a 15 year old who by all accounts has made every effort to turn his life around in prison should be allowed a second chance) but that's not the argument. Given that he has served the sentence handed to him by a court of law, what possible justification is there for not allowing him to remain in the country considering he is in everything but a technicality, a British citizen?

[I'm With Stupid]

Not really, if he's still a danger to society then he can fuck away off. If not, then he can stay, simple as.

Well if he's a danger to society, then why is it right that we should be inflicting that on Italy. Maybe we should do that with foreign paedophiles? Allow them to spend 6 months in jail, declare that they're a threat to our society, yet deem it acceptable to set them free in some other country? Hell, we could really cut down on our prison costs this way. If he's a threat to society, he should be in prison, but that's not the argument.

[Yerascrote]

Sorry, I was being a bit harsh. Still, he shouldn't be on the outside even if he done 12 years, as long as he's still a danger of course.

[I'm With Stupid]

Sorry, I was being a bit harsh. Still, he shouldn't be on the outside even if he done 12 years, as long as he's still a danger of course.

That's harsh? By your standards? :p

[Teagan]

By that logic, if he was born here, and his father was still a mafia hitman, he wouldn't be ENTIRELY a product of our society either. You can't deport someone when they've lived the vast majority of their law-abiding life in your country. It shouldn't have anything to do with human rights imo, it should be a question of which country is responsible for him, and since he spent a total of 4 years in Italy, it shouldn't be them.

So, his three years with his Dad had more influence than the 12 in the UK?

Seriously, his family all live here, he was raised here. There is more chance of him becoming a decent citizen with that kind of support.

Flip this over, would you be happy if the Italians were trying to deport to us in the same circumstances?

That wasn't what I was was trying to say. Boys often look up to their father's and perhaps his estrangement with his own father, built up ideas of his own grandeur and 'hardness' within his own mind - perhaps a fantasy of how to emulate his father. The fact that he was here since he was 4 does not entirely release him from the effect those early years had on his life.

[budda]

If he is released when its thought he will be then he will have served almost half his life in jail, frankly I think that is long enough, especially given the prison have said he has definitely changed.

As for the Home Office and him being a threat, if I heard the Today programme correctly this is based on him being a 'threat to public safety' basically because people will want to harm him! So basically because we cant trust the public he should be sent to another country?

[Flashman's Ghost]

I assume he's not at risk from the general public, but from gangs. I suspect 99% of the general public wouldn't remember who he was and will in a few days have forgotten again.

[Flashman's Ghost]

Maybe we should do that with foreign paedophiles? Allow them to spend 6 months in jail, declare that they're a threat to our society, yet deem it acceptable to set them free in some other country? Hell, we could really cut down on our prison costs this way. If he's a threat to society, he should be in prison, but that's not the argument.

Couldn't that also be seen the other way round. If there's a foreign paedophile why should we have to deal with them rather than the country of which they are a citizen...

[I'm With Stupid]

That wasn't what I was was trying to say. Boys often look up to their father's and perhaps his estrangement with his own father, built up ideas of his own grandeur and 'hardness' within his own mind - perhaps a fantasy of how to emulate his father. The fact that he was here since he was 4 does not entirely release him from the effect those early years had on his life.

Which is entirely speculation on your part. Trying to consider his level of Italianness in the decision as to whether he should be sent back there is ridiculous, considering that we in this country (via the judicial system) consider him safe to release into the public. If we consider him fit to release, then we should consider him fit for release into our society, not only someone elses. If he then chooses to continue to live in Britain (and for all you know, he may not even speak Italian, and if so would find it far more difficult to integrate into Italian society than British society) then that is his choice. But then the Home Office need to jump on any bandwagon that might help restore their popular reputation given the string of complete cockups. That's the only reason they're contesting this, not some bullshit about it being paramount to national security (the only reason an EU national can be deported) or the safety of the man.

[I'm With Stupid]

Couldn't that also be seen the other way round. If there's a foreign paedophile why should we have to deal with them rather than the country of which they are a citizen...

It seems to be a pretty universal concept that you are tried and punished in the country in which you committed the crime.

[Flashman's Ghost]

Its public security not national security.

[I'm With Stupid]

Nope, national security:

He also dismissed the government's protests as "posturing", saying it had accepted the 2006 European Commission regulation into British law.

"(This) said that any EU national who had lived in the UK, even in prison, for more than 10 years, could only be removed from Britain on imperative grounds of national security - which clearly would not include Mr Chindamo or anyone like him," he added.

[Flashman's Ghost]

It seems to be a pretty universal concept that you are tried and punished in the country in which you committed the crime.

Yes, but once they've been punished why should we have to deal with them (and bear in mind many people are punished but still risk reoffending)

[Flashman's Ghost]

Nope, national security:

From the The Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006

19. —(1) A person is not entitled to be admitted to the United Kingdom by virtue of regulation 11 if his exclusion is justified on grounds of public policy, public security or public health in accordance with regulation 21.

3) Subject to paragraphs (4) and (5), a person who has been admitted to, or acquired a right to reside in, the United Kingdom under these Regulations may be removed from the United Kingdom if—



(a) he does not have or ceases to have a right to reside under these Regulations; or

(b) he would otherwise be entitled to reside in the United Kingdom under these Regulations but the Secretary of State has decided that his removal is justified on the grounds of public policy, public security or public health in accordance with regulation 21.

The full Statutory Instrument is here

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2006/20061003.htm

[Teagan]

Which is entirely speculation on your part. Trying to consider his level of Italianness in the decision as to whether he should be sent back there is ridiculous, considering that we in this country (via the judicial system) consider him safe to release into the public. If we consider him fit to release, then we should consider him fit for release into our society, not only someone elses. If he then chooses to continue to live in Britain (and for all you know, he may not even speak Italian, and if so would find it far more difficult to integrate into Italian society than British society) then that is his choice. But then the Home Office need to jump on any bandwagon that might help restore their popular reputation given the string of complete cockups. That's the only reason they're contesting this, not some bullshit about it being paramount to national security (the only reason an EU national can be deported) or the safety of the man.

Yes, it is speculation - just as it's speculation that he is a COMPLETE product of his British upbringing. If you go back and read my origonal coment, it was that I felt his situation could not, neccessarily, be COMPLETELY blamed on his coming to the UK. Regarding the rest of your statement, I agree.

[I'm With Stupid]

Yes, but once they've been punished why should we have to deal with them (and bear in mind many people are punished but still risk reoffending)

We shouldn't have to "deal with them" because they've already been dealt with. If they are still at risk of reoffending, then you are simply admitting flaws in your judicial system, and I don't see why Italy should have to pay for that. If things like police surveillance are required, then that is still part of the punishment and rehabilitation, and so should take part in the country administering the punishment.

Of course it's a bit of a moot point, because anyone who is at risk of reoffending, when the crime that they committed was murder, shouldn't be released from prison. So we can assume that anyone released after such a crime is no longer judged to be a threat to society. Argue with that, but don't argue that he's still a threat to our country, so let's give him to the Italians when we've only completed half a job punishing him.

[I'm With Stupid]

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2006/20061003.htm

Thanks for the link. Very useful.

(4) A relevant decision may not be taken except on imperative grounds of public security in respect of an EEA national who—

(a) has resided in the United Kingdom for a continuous period of at least ten years prior to the relevant decision; or

(b) is under the age of 18, unless the relevant decision is necessary in his best interests, as provided for in the Convention on the Rights of the Child adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 20th November 1989[11].
I don't see any of these. And it seems the court didn't either.

(5) Where a relevant decision is taken on grounds of public policy or public security it shall, in addition to complying with the preceding paragraphs of this regulation, be taken in accordance with the following principles—

(a) the decision must comply with the principle of proportionality;

(b) the decision must be based exclusively on the personal conduct of the person concerned;

(c) the personal conduct of the person concerned must represent a genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat affecting one of the fundamental interests of society;

(d) matters isolated from the particulars of the case or which relate to considerations of general prevention do not justify the decision;

(e) a person's previous criminal convictions do not in themselves justify the decision.
Article (e) is of particular interest, and clarifies my point that once you've released him from prison, he is judged to have served his punishment for that crime and is rehabilitated, and any additional decision should be based entirely on its own. His past crimes are of zero relevance to the decision, nor is his own personal safety. If you had information that he was plotting further crimes, these could be brought up as evidence. His past crimes for which he has served his time cannot.

(6) Before taking a relevant decision on the grounds of public policy or public security in relation to a person who is resident in the United Kingdom the decision maker must take account of considerations such as the age, state of health, family and economic situation of the person, the person's length of residence in the United Kingdom, the person's social and cultural integration into the United Kingdom and the extent of the person's links with his country of origin.
Well I think he qualifies to stay in Britain on each and every one of these points.

I would at this point like to point out that despite you attempting to argue that you would be legally justified in kicking him out, the court case has already taken place, and it turned out it supported my position. The only reason we're talking about this is because of the government attempting to take the popular line, which isn't legally justifiable as the original court case showed.

[Flashman's Ghost]

No my argument is not that they're justified in kicking him out, my argument is that the law isn't around national security, but public security and these are different things.

The way I read it is that the tribunal took the view that he wasn't a threat to public security (I assume because he wouldn't be released until the parole board was convinced he wouldn't reoffend).

[Flashman's Ghost]

We shouldn't have to "deal with them" because they've already been dealt with. If they are still at risk of reoffending, then you are simply admitting flaws in your judicial system, and I don't see why Italy should have to pay for that. If things like police surveillance are required, then that is still part of the punishment and rehabilitation, and so should take part in the country administering the punishment.

Of course it's a bit of a moot point, because anyone who is at risk of reoffending, when the crime that they committed was murder, shouldn't be released from prison. So we can assume that anyone released after such a crime is no longer judged to be a threat to society. Argue with that, but don't argue that he's still a threat to our country, so let's give him to the Italians when we've only completed half a job punishing him.

I'm not so much commenting on this case, as your argument that foreign convicted criminals should be allowed to stay because otherwise we're throwing the problem at foreign countries. In general I think foreign convicted criminals should go back, because otherwise they're throwing the problem at us.

In this case I tend to agree he shouldn't go back, because, from what I've heard, he's unable to speak Italian and has no links there. That's a pretty unusual case. To send him back to a country where he would be unable to speak to the locals probably constitutes a cruel and unusual punishment.

[wheresmyplacebo]

the public security reason for deporting him is crap, because for him to actually be released from prison on life license, he has to not be a threat to public security anymore so thus can't be deported

deporting him is a load of crap anyway i'd rather someone stayed on life license in the UK rather than going to another country with near absolute freedom, at least in this country if he commits any minor crime he'll be put back in prison for a few more years

[I'm With Stupid]

I'm not so much commenting on this case, as your argument that foreign convicted criminals should be allowed to stay because otherwise we're throwing the problem at foreign countries. In general I think foreign convicted criminals should go back, because otherwise they're throwing the problem at us.

Well no, what I meant was that if someone was thrown out on the justification that they were a threat to public security, then it would be throwing the problem to another country. If they're a threat to public security, then they should be in prison. If they're not, then they should be released with all of the rights they had before they went in. Only in a case where someone is a specific threat to the public security in one country, but not in another, would you be justified in chucking them out imo (for example, a criminal who fundamentally hates Britain would be a threat to our security, but may not be a threat to the people of their country of origin, for example). So unless you're arguing that everyone should be tried at punished in their own country, I don't think you can get around the fact that sometimes you have to deal with foreigners committing crimes and you having to sort it out.

[Flashman's Ghost]

But once the crime has been punished I see (except in exceptional circumstances) no justification for not deporting them. Now there may be an exception in this case (or if there was a realistic threat to life if we depeorted him).

I'm not sure being a threat is a good enough reason to jail someone, but it is a good enough reason to throw someone out if they are not a UK subject (either born or through naturalisation)

[I'm With Stupid]

I'm not sure being a threat is a good enough reason to jail someone
Really? Because I consider the threat of reoffending to be the only reason to jail someone.

[katchika]

Really? Because I consider the threat of reoffending to be the only reason to jail someone.

What about deterrent and rehabilitation?

[I'm With Stupid]

What about deterrent and rehabilitation?

Well rehabilitation implies that there is a risk of reoffending, and therefore depending on the crime, needs to take place in prison (not that I think prison is a particularly effective method of rehabilitation). If there's no threat of reoffending, then what is there to rehabilitate? As for deterrent, to some degree, but I'd question how effective it is at that. I mean the death sentence doesn't result in lower crime rates, and nor do longer sentences or harsher prison conditions to the best of my knowledge.

[Flashman's Ghost]

Really? Because I consider the threat of reoffending to be the only reason to jail someone.

I think we disagree why we jail people, I think reoffending is one reason. But I also think there is the need for society to say some things are wrong and those that do them should be in jail

There is also the need to give justice to those who have been a victim.

Many murders the chance of reoffending is low, they tend not to be hardened criminals or pyschopaths, but a 'normal' person who for whatever reason has decided to kill someone they know for a particular reason.

[budda]

What about deterrent and rehabilitation?

Unless you put massively harsh penalties on small crimes there really doesnt appear to be any deterant factor at all. People either dont think they will get caught or they dont care one way or the other.

Still though, I am inclined to agree with Flashman that there does need to be a 'show of force' from the State when someone does something nasty.

[Teagan]

Quite a interesting, non-tabloid response from The Independent :

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/legal/article2883869.ece