Why Would Anyone Have A Leasehold?
Society & Culture3 mins ago
Prison or deportation for criminal asylum seekers?
An asylum seeker has been sentenced to 11 years for keeping a woman prisoner and raping her five times. If this man is a genuine asylum seeker who sought refuge here because he feared for his life in his own country, would deportation be a more effective sentence than a term in prison?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by naomi24. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
oneeyedvic, if these people's lives were truly in peril in their own countries, then they wouldn't risk being sent back and therefore I think the threat of deportation would be a deterrent.
fingerprint, no I wouldn't kill a British person who committed the crime - but neither would I sentence the asylum seeker. If the 'one strike and you're out' rule applied, his future would be his choice.
SP1814 - no we shouldn't have sliding scales - we shouldn't be keeping asylum seekers who commit violent crimes in our prisons at all.
fingerprint, no I wouldn't kill a British person who committed the crime - but neither would I sentence the asylum seeker. If the 'one strike and you're out' rule applied, his future would be his choice.
SP1814 - no we shouldn't have sliding scales - we shouldn't be keeping asylum seekers who commit violent crimes in our prisons at all.
Mariner if you disagree with what I said then why don't you put your argument forward.
Your just spouting a lot of extreme nonesense. I haven't proposed letting all the criminals in and then giving them a slap on the wrist and letting them go once the committ crimes. You said 'human rights' as if it's some soft liberal left wing nonesense, but these human rights are actually preventing many people and families from being sent home to be brutally murdered and raped, often for something as small as a having an opinion that differs to that of their government.
Your just spouting a lot of extreme nonesense. I haven't proposed letting all the criminals in and then giving them a slap on the wrist and letting them go once the committ crimes. You said 'human rights' as if it's some soft liberal left wing nonesense, but these human rights are actually preventing many people and families from being sent home to be brutally murdered and raped, often for something as small as a having an opinion that differs to that of their government.
I consider myself a caring person. I care what happens to decent people and would assist the best I can if someone needed my help. I also tolerate a certain degree of wrongdoing, if the wrongdoing is carried out through sheer desperation, didn't involve an attack on a fellow human being, and the wrongdoer then did all they can to get their life on track.
However, my tolerance runs out, as does my support for human rights, when someone crosses the line as has happened in this case.
As with the lowlife who was sentenced yesterday for shooting the woman through the head at a Christening, I wouldn�t care less if this guy was sent back to his own country, tortured for a day with a red hot poker, hacked into small pieces, and fed to the local wildlife.
However, my tolerance runs out, as does my support for human rights, when someone crosses the line as has happened in this case.
As with the lowlife who was sentenced yesterday for shooting the woman through the head at a Christening, I wouldn�t care less if this guy was sent back to his own country, tortured for a day with a red hot poker, hacked into small pieces, and fed to the local wildlife.
Naomi, I'm not defending the rape. But surely you must see that even when someone has committed such a terrible act it still does not make it right to inflict an act of similar brutality upon them. If you kill my Brother does that make it okay for me to kill your Brother? Like I said there are many countries where whole families are killed just because one member speaks against the government.
You can try to pass the responsibility onto the individual saying it was their choice to committ the crime and be sent home, but ultimately if you send them home you are sentancing them to death. What if the rapist was suffering from massive mental health problems, would you still have him killed?
If a millionaire businessman had committed this crime should he recieve a lesser sentance than the asylum seeker due to the amount of tax he had contributed? If not where does the tax contribution issue you mentioned fit into your argument, it seems to me that your are only using it as an extra stick to beat the asylum seeker with.
You can try to pass the responsibility onto the individual saying it was their choice to committ the crime and be sent home, but ultimately if you send them home you are sentancing them to death. What if the rapist was suffering from massive mental health problems, would you still have him killed?
If a millionaire businessman had committed this crime should he recieve a lesser sentance than the asylum seeker due to the amount of tax he had contributed? If not where does the tax contribution issue you mentioned fit into your argument, it seems to me that your are only using it as an extra stick to beat the asylum seeker with.
If a millionaire businessman committed the crime, and he was British, he should receive the appropriate sentence. However, when people come here seeking our protection, and then abuse that protection, I fail to understand why you appear to care more for their safety than the safety of their victims or potential future victims. In my opinion when he committed a violent act on an innocent person, he forfeited his claim to our protection.
If he was suffering from massive mental health problems, we would know - and he wasn't. He's just a violent man.
If genuine asylum seekers need our protection, I have no problem with that, so I'm certainly not using the tax issue as an extra stick - but in this man's case he has abused our hospitality, he has committed a brutal crime, he is going to continue to claim our protection and he is going to continue to cost us a lot of money for years to come.
As for me sentencing him to death - have you considerd that perhaps by arguiing for violent asylum seekers to remain here, you may be saving the life of criminals, but sentencing innocent people to violence and perhaps death in the future?
If he was suffering from massive mental health problems, we would know - and he wasn't. He's just a violent man.
If genuine asylum seekers need our protection, I have no problem with that, so I'm certainly not using the tax issue as an extra stick - but in this man's case he has abused our hospitality, he has committed a brutal crime, he is going to continue to claim our protection and he is going to continue to cost us a lot of money for years to come.
As for me sentencing him to death - have you considerd that perhaps by arguiing for violent asylum seekers to remain here, you may be saving the life of criminals, but sentencing innocent people to violence and perhaps death in the future?
Naomi - You didn't answer my questions, should the millionaire businessman recieve a lesser sentance? and where does the tax issue come into your argument?
Of course I care more for the welfare of the victims and future victims, that goes without saying, I'm just discussing the asylum seeker more because the question was about should he be deported or sent to prison.
When I asked about mental health problems I was talking about a hypothetical situation rather than this actual case. In a similar situation where the offender was found to have mental health problems would you still prefer to have him killed?
I'm not arguing that the asyluym seeker should be set free or put out in the public therefore I don't think I am sentancing more people to death.
Of course I care more for the welfare of the victims and future victims, that goes without saying, I'm just discussing the asylum seeker more because the question was about should he be deported or sent to prison.
When I asked about mental health problems I was talking about a hypothetical situation rather than this actual case. In a similar situation where the offender was found to have mental health problems would you still prefer to have him killed?
I'm not arguing that the asyluym seeker should be set free or put out in the public therefore I don't think I am sentancing more people to death.
Philanthro - are you one and the same as fingerprint? It was he who asked those questions, and I believe I answered them.
If you read what I've written you'll see that I haven't said I would prefer to have anyone killed.
If someone was mentaly ill, I would hope that he would receive the appropriate treatment.
You say you are not arguing for criminal asylum seekers to be set free, but if you are indeed fingerprint, then that's certainly the way your argument is coming across. The fact is that the man in question has been sentenced to 11 years, and therefore he will eventually be set free, so those who call for him to remain in this country may well be protecting his life, but sentencing innocent people in this country to violent attacks - or worse - in the future.
If you read what I've written you'll see that I haven't said I would prefer to have anyone killed.
If someone was mentaly ill, I would hope that he would receive the appropriate treatment.
You say you are not arguing for criminal asylum seekers to be set free, but if you are indeed fingerprint, then that's certainly the way your argument is coming across. The fact is that the man in question has been sentenced to 11 years, and therefore he will eventually be set free, so those who call for him to remain in this country may well be protecting his life, but sentencing innocent people in this country to violent attacks - or worse - in the future.
sp ! have you thaught long enough about your sugestion? what about great great grand children? it might get to the point where they are "deported" to the next county, their kids to the next town and so on 'til we get to the point where they are rehoused in an adjacant street and then B&B next door and then back to a corner of their original living room !!! -Not difficult to see it's far from a perfect solution. Personaly, I'd jail them 'til they are 63 and a half then deport them. I do believe there are cases where reabilitation is a non starter - but it's only my oppinion.
Oneyedvic - it might make YOUR heart bleed to think of a rapist being deported to his country of origin but I think you'll find that the rest of Britain are unequivocal on this.
This dreadful creature was shown compassion once by being given sanctuary in this country. It was unconditional compassion and he repaid it by destroying the life of a helpless child, the daughter of people who no doubt unwittingly keep the rapist in hot meals via taxation.
If I can find out the time and location of his deportation, I'll gladly go to wave the poor little rapist child molester off. So he might get killed in his homeland. Diddums. His future in Britain would have been secure had he NOT been a rapist. I say "been" when in truth, his "is" and as such remains a threat to every female.
P.S I wonder why he fled his native homeland? To avoid persecution or to evade prosecution? No matter. Microchip him like the animal he is to ensure he can't slime his way back to our shores.
This dreadful creature was shown compassion once by being given sanctuary in this country. It was unconditional compassion and he repaid it by destroying the life of a helpless child, the daughter of people who no doubt unwittingly keep the rapist in hot meals via taxation.
If I can find out the time and location of his deportation, I'll gladly go to wave the poor little rapist child molester off. So he might get killed in his homeland. Diddums. His future in Britain would have been secure had he NOT been a rapist. I say "been" when in truth, his "is" and as such remains a threat to every female.
P.S I wonder why he fled his native homeland? To avoid persecution or to evade prosecution? No matter. Microchip him like the animal he is to ensure he can't slime his way back to our shores.
fingerprint - I've read my posts again and I'm sure I have answered your questions, but I'll try to make it clearer. I said the millionaire should receive the appropriate sentence. I assume the appropriate sentence for the crime is 11 years because that's what the asylum seeker was sentenced to, and therefore the millionaire should be sentenced to 11 years.
The British taxpayer pays this man's keep, board and lodging, medical care and everything else. Instead of taking the opportunity to make a new, safe and decent life for himself in this country, he has abused our hospitality, he's put himself outside the law by committing a violent crime, he's going to prison for 11 years, and therefore the British taxpayer will be obliged to continue to pay for him.
I didn't say I would send anyone to their death, and I repeat that if someone was mentally ill, I would hope he'd receive the appropriate treatment. By that I mean the appropriate medical treatment.
Trust that's all clearer now. Been nice talking to you. Thanks for the discussion.
The British taxpayer pays this man's keep, board and lodging, medical care and everything else. Instead of taking the opportunity to make a new, safe and decent life for himself in this country, he has abused our hospitality, he's put himself outside the law by committing a violent crime, he's going to prison for 11 years, and therefore the British taxpayer will be obliged to continue to pay for him.
I didn't say I would send anyone to their death, and I repeat that if someone was mentally ill, I would hope he'd receive the appropriate treatment. By that I mean the appropriate medical treatment.
Trust that's all clearer now. Been nice talking to you. Thanks for the discussion.
I would send him back ASAP. Can see no reason why our taxes should keep him in safety. I would have thought someone who used this country as a refuge would be grateful for living amongst "civilised " people in virtual safety, but no, he disregarded all that so am suspicious of his claims anyway. Fed up with listening to such stories and its about time the powers that be woke up.
two things:
1) "If he was suffering from massive mental health problems, we would know - and he wasn't" - imho anyone who could commit such an act obviously has mental health problems.
2) If you are happy to say that if the asylum seeker knows its "one strike and you're out" and you are happy to send him to his death, then what is the difference between that and bringing in the death sentence - one rape and you are executed. - after all its their choice.
As previously stated, I don't have a problem with an ultimate death penalty so long as everyone is treated equally - ie a millionaire born in this country or an asylum seeker - one rule for all.
1) "If he was suffering from massive mental health problems, we would know - and he wasn't" - imho anyone who could commit such an act obviously has mental health problems.
2) If you are happy to say that if the asylum seeker knows its "one strike and you're out" and you are happy to send him to his death, then what is the difference between that and bringing in the death sentence - one rape and you are executed. - after all its their choice.
As previously stated, I don't have a problem with an ultimate death penalty so long as everyone is treated equally - ie a millionaire born in this country or an asylum seeker - one rule for all.
-- answer removed --
fender "if a guest came into my house and did a criminal act on another person i would throw them out," - yes, but it is irrelevant whether that guest was an asylum seeker, a born & bred Brit or even a neighbour - you would treat them exactly the same - throwing them all out.
That is all I am asking - that you treat people in the same way.
That is all I am asking - that you treat people in the same way.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.