// Jim, do you think those foreign criminals should have been deported? //
Firstly, which criminals? The most recent deportation I'm aware of involved 13 criminals to Jamaica, but I can find nothing about them (at the moment) other than their being described as "serious foreign criminals".
Secondly, I'm confused why the "right to safety" of humans in Jamaica is an apparent non-issue, or why the matter is apparently considered dealt with once these criminals have been deported. If these people are still dangerous, then the safety of citizens in another country is put at risk; if, however, there is no evidential reason to worry about the safety of Jamaican citizens, then presumably the person in question has been judged to have served their time and is no longer a threat in the UK either (at least, no longer any more severe a threat than the average citizen).
As an example, there's this case:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9003697/Jamaican-criminal-won-battle-avoid-deportation-release-jail-charged-murder.html . If this man had been successfully deported to Jamaica, what chance that he'd have murdered somebody over there? Fairly high, I should think, if indeed he is found guilty of this second murder (given its recency I don't think he's been convicted yet). Therefore the assessment that he was ready for release was clearly premature, and *that* is the problem that needs fixing first.
As far as I'm concerned, if anyone is judged as a candidate for deportation on public safety grounds, then I'd prefer that they continue to remain in prison. Perhaps that requires longer sentences; perhaps, too, that requires higher standards for being eligible for parole. I should clarify that I am not recognising a "human right" to live in the UK. Rather, I am saying that if a person is judged a threat to the safety of citizens here, then it follows that they should be judged a threat anywhere else, and that deportation is no answer to that threat.