Can't We Get Rid Of Any Of Foreign Criminals?

[anotheoldgit]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2304888/Polish-wife-killed-husband-stamping-repeatedly-head-deported-EU-rules.html

Yet another example of how the EU makes it impossible for us to send a violent convicted criminal back to her own country.

If she can become vicious enough to kill her own husband, who can say she won't kill again?

[excelsior-1]

how on earth can 'stamping repeatedly on someones head' not be serious enough?

rediculous!

[rojash]

"Rafacz pleaded guilty to manslaughter and was jailed for two years after Belfast Crown Court was told how she 'lost control' when she came home from work to find her husband Piotr drunk while he was meant to be looking after their three-year-old son.

On the day of the attack in May 2009, she discovered he had left their son alone, probably for several hours, while he went drinking.

Mr Justice Blake said: 'There was no basis to conclude that her level of risk that she presented to the United Kingdom and its people was significant'".

[friedgreentomato]

I can sympathise with her at times!!!

But seriously, you are picking up on the small numbers that make the news because they don't get kicked out, what about the hundreds and thousands that do get made to leave?

[Barquentine]

The deportation question is missing the point. Deportation is only vital if a criminal is a threat to the public at large. If you regard her as just any person (as opposed to Abu Qatada) the main question is, why did she only get 2 years? I suspect there is more to the case than the unregulated sensationalist press cares to report. It may be that her husband was a drunk as well as violent (has that been reported anywhere?) - in which case it might have been a justified killing. That said, it is truly obscene how many countless times the British criminal injustice system has failed the British public with its offensive judgments by judges whose superior intelligence undoubtedly equips them rapidly to assimilate and synthesize large amounts of relevant information but whose wisdom and powers of good judgment harm any remaining cohesiveness in society.

[jim360]

Surely that depends on what a "good judgement" is. If by "good judgement" you mean conforming to what is allowed by the law, taking into account all relevant information and being entirely dispassionate, then most judges in this country are surely excellent. Alternatively if by "good judgement" you mean doing what the public wants them to do, no most judges aren't exactly brilliant. Still, that would turn into justice by an angry mob. And a society that is cohesive but wrong isn't really that desirable either.

[FredPuli43]

She only got two years because it was a strong case of "diminished responsibility" and thus manslaughter, under s3 of the Homicide Act 1957, as amended (the amendment rewords the provision to give a more precise definition; Coroners and Justice Act 2009). It was not murder. The prosecution must have accepted the defence, since she pleaded guilty to manslaughter without a jury being asked to consider murder.

The Daily Mail has not bothered to explain this interesting and rather important matter, but the hints lie in the words that she lost control and in the background of her husband being alcoholic. She killed him when suffering a temporary disorder of the mind, brought on by extreme provocation over time, in effect. To suggest that this means she is a danger to the public at large is to ignore both the facts, which must have been accepted by the prosecution, and the law of the last 50 years plus.

[anotheoldgit]

Barquentine

/// It may be that her husband was a drunk as well as violent (has that been reported anywhere?) - in which case it might have been a justified killing. ///

A justified killing????????????????????????

Even if he was a violent drunk, that does not give her the right to kill him.

If capital punishment was still force and she had been found guilty of his murder and thus sentenced to death would that have also been a 'justified killing'?

[jim360]

Not necessarily. What if she felt her own life was in danger? Then is killing justified to save your own life? If it were a burglar attacking her I think most people would say yes, you should be able to kill that burglar if your own life is in serious danger.

Mind, that's not really what the story was saying, as best I can make out. But it still seems likely that this was a woman who just snapped and lost control, with tragic consequences. Not really a serious danger to society especially as the verdict is guilty of manslaughter rather than willful murder. Had it been murder she were found guilty of it would be a different matter. But it's not so it isn't.

[anotheoldgit]

jim360

Although I think that you have a point regarding the act of protecting one's self, this woman somehow managed to overcome her husband enough to be able to kill him by repeatedly stamping on his head, and then you say this woman is not really a serious danger to society, well if she has the tendency to snap and loose control to such extent, who can say that she would not again do the same, therefore a woman such as this is indeed a serious danger to society.

[jim360]

It depends on the circumstances in which she lost control. If this were a one-off event, coming home to find her husband drunk, then yes she is a danger as it doesn't take much provocation to cause her to lose control. On the other hand, if she came home regularly to find her husband drunk, or even violent and abusive towards her as may be the case, then no, she is not so much of a danger as it takes a lot to provoke her. But the thing is that many people probably have a breaking point, where they snap and lose control. It's just that for most of us it's far enough away that we don't ever find ourselves getting there. But in general one of the lessons of history is that almost everyone can be a nasty person given the "right" circumstances.

[jomifl]

Is it likely that she will stamp on her next husbands head for neglecting their baby?
Probably the least of Britains problems since her husband was Polish.

[Sharingan]

I don't think she is a very good example of the sort of foreign criminal who should be deported. This is a woman who lost her cool big time, once, possibly after years of provocation by what could have been a drunken possibly violent husband. She is not a high risk candidate of reoffending and might be as much of a victim as her husband. Clearly the judge thought so because he only gave her 2 years.