Death penalty in the UK

[Ed]

I knew Europe would start coming around. Now we'll get them well armed.




"Shadow home secretary: Bring back death penalty
By Colin Brown and David Bamber
(Filed: 16/11/2003)


David Davis, the shadow home secretary, yesterday demanded the reintroduction of the death penalty.

In his first interview since his appointment last week, Mr Davis backed the return of capital punishment in cases of "clearly pre-meditated and cold-blooded murder". He favours the use of lethal injections over more antiquated methods such as hanging. "

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/11/16/ncrim16.xml

[geni]

d*mn

I'm not voting for him at the next election (not that I would have anyway).

[Abdul Alhazred]

Originally posted by Ed
... Mr Davis backed the return of capital punishment in cases of "clearly pre-meditated and cold-blooded murder". He favours the use of lethal injections over more antiquated methods such as hanging. "

But hanging is a much more satisfying spectacle. And so much more English. Nothing beats a good old-fashioned public hanging.

Does he prefer Coors Lite to the more antiquated Bass Ale? :p

[Zep]

Yes, we've got pro-death-penalty guys rabbiting on here too. Even though it has been gone since 1966. And they're just as heeded here...

Worth noting that this chappy is the shadow Home Secretary, which means the Opposition, i.e. Tories currently. Who happen to be the political party way on the outer with the British public in a number of areas. So his would probably be a tiny minority voice...

*YAWN*

[geni]

Originally posted by Zep

Worth noting that this chappy is the shadow Home Secretary, which means the Opposition, i.e. Tories currently. Who happen to be the political party way on the outer with the British public in a number of areas. So his would probably be a tiny minority voice...

*YAWN*


I wish. The majority here suports the death penalty.

[corplinx]

Good for the UK. Just remember to keep the cost of it less than what it would take to just board and feed the animals for the rest of their lives. We f*cked that one up here in the states and now it makes more sense not to kill them since its cheaper.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by corplinx
Good for the UK. Just remember to keep the cost of it less than what it would take to just board and feed the animals for the rest of their lives. We f*cked that one up here in the states and now it makes more sense not to kill them since its cheaper.
What could they dump to save money? Presumption of Inocence, right of appeal, due process maybe? How about they do away with the jury?

The simple fact is its easy to mouth off when you are in opposition. You don't have to implement anything you rant about.

[Zep]

Originally posted by geni

I wish. The majority here suports the death penalty. Is that the majority according to The Mirror and The Sun, or according to a plebescite of the people?

[corplinx]

Originally posted by The Fool

What could they dump to save money? Presumption of Inocence, right of appeal, due process maybe? How about they do away with the jury?

The simple fact is its easy to mouth off when you are in opposition. You don't have to implement anything you rant about.

A point which you prove for yourself. You mouth off pretty well and make no sense at all.

How is it a death penalty is more expensive than a life in prison penalty to begin with? Is their no presumption of innocence when someone is given a life sentence? Is that why its cheaper?

Try using your skeptical powers instead of shooting off your mouth like an idiot. You can be a good knife in defense of something you believe in but you all but put on a blindfold when its on the other side.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by corplinx


A point which you prove for yourself. You mouth off pretty well and make no sense at all.

How is it a death penalty is more expensive than a life in prison penalty to begin with? Is their no presumption of innocence when someone is given a life sentence? Is that why its cheaper?

Try using your skeptical powers instead of shooting off your mouth like an idiot. You can be a good knife in defense of something you believe in but you all but put on a blindfold when its on the other side.

When you're in prison for life, there's always the chance that some evidence might come to light that will free you. Several people in Australia have been freed after DNA testing. Who would have guessed, twenty years ago, that we would be able to tell if someone committed a crime with DNA?

There are people who would be dead now if there was a death penalty, especially without all the avenues of appeal and due process taht you advocate.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by corplinx


A point which you prove for yourself. You mouth off pretty well and make no sense at all.

No sense at all? Damn....


How is it a death penalty is more expensive than a life in prison penalty to begin with? Is their no presumption of innocence when someone is given a life sentence? Is that why its cheaper?

I could tell you but I make no sense at all....




Try using your skeptical powers instead of shooting off your mouth like an idiot. You can be a good knife in defense of something you believe in but you all but put on a blindfold when its on the other side.
Sorry about shooting off my mouth like an idiot but when I saw your well considered "board and feed the animals for the rest of their lives" I thought it was a "shoot your mouth off like an idiot" competition, my bad.

[The Don]

The death penalty has historically been one of the few issues on which a free vote (no party position) is allowed.

I prefer trial by ordeal as a legal system rather than the rather cumbersome legal due process

[Zep]

Originally posted by The Don
The death penalty has historically been one of the few issues on which a free vote (no party position) is allowed.

I prefer trial by ordeal as a legal system rather than the rather cumbersome legal due process Does she weigh more than a duck?

[Abdul Alhazred]

Originally posted by Zep
Is that the majority according to The Mirror and The Sun, or according to a plebescite of the people?

I don't know how it divides by party in the UK or Australia, but in the United States it doesn't.

In my state, Illinois, it was a Republican governor (Ryan) who placed a moratorium of death penalties, and a Democrat (Blagojevich) now trying to bring it back.

In New York, which now has the death penalty, it was the other way around.

In Texas, the consensus is so broad that uniquely among the states, the governor has no authority commute a death sentence (though a temporary stay is possible).

Some states have it on the books, but in practise never impose it. New Jersey for example.

Bill Clinton was enthusiastic for it.

Many examples either way.

Even radical leftists are divided.

What!? Not kill the bastard!? It's just a question of who is picking which bastard.

[Zep]

It doesn't divide the major parties here at all as it is hardly a front-line issue. It's only a handful of the up-against-the-wall-come-the-revolution folks or the pseudo-nazis who pursue this as a definite item of policy here. Choruses of yawns greet their every move...

However there are also the newly bereaved families, such as those who lost relatives in Bali, who would also not say no to the death penalty for the killers and rapists. These folks are much easier to sympathise with, and heaven knows we all have a natural urge to exact an equal revenge on their behalf - eye for an eye. It is they who make this subject very difficult at times...

[JamesM]

Originally posted by The Don
The death penalty has historically been one of the few issues on which a free vote (no party position) is allowed.
Yes, and the Tories have made it clear it's not their party policy, just Davis' personal opinion. Probably to make him look tough for the grass-roots.

[BillyTK]

There's always some Tory calling for the return of capital punishment or serfdom or droit de seigneur or somesuch nonsense. As such, Davis joins such Tory party luminaries as Anne Widdicombe who said, "If it can be shown that it is a real deterrent and its availability, not its regular use, is enough to deter murderers and save innocent lives, then I think that is a case that can be made." Don't know how they figure they can prove that, but they have short memories of why capital punishment was dropped in the first place; they might wish to check up on the cases of Ruth Ellis and Derek Bentley.

[Jon_in_london]

Well, the Tories other wonderfull idea is to ship all illegal immigrants off to an imaginary impoverished desert island where they will all eat fish and coconuts, just like in the movies.

Of course, the Tories can say whatever they want since they are never going to be elected anyway.

[Hypocolius]

Originally posted by corplinx

How is it a death penalty is more expensive than a life in prison penalty to begin with? Is their no presumption of innocence when someone is given a life sentence? Is that why its cheaper?


I've heard that it is considerably more expensive (in the US) to execute someone rather than imprison them for life. Soemthing to do with the lengthy, and very expensive, series of appeals that all death row inmates are entitled to, but lifers aren't.

[RonSceptic]

This staement is no suprise given how often the Tories kill off their own leaders. They are currently on their third leader in the current parliament.

[ahirst]

Basically the death penalty cannot be re-introduced to the UK without the UK leaving the European Union.

I'll leave you to 'google' for the relevant documents, but Protocol 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ratified and incorporated into UK law in November 1999) bans the use of the death penalty in times of peace, and Protocol 13 (ratified etc. July 2003) is an absolute ban on its use.

Furthermore it is now against EU law to extradite suspects from any EU country to another country where they may suffer the death penalty upon conviction of their crime.

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by ahirst
Basically the death penalty cannot be re-introduced to the UK without the UK leaving the European Union.


On the other hand, we could just be like France and do whatever the hell we want anyway.

[Cleon]

Originally posted by Hypocolius


I've heard that it is considerably more expensive (in the US) to execute someone rather than imprison them for life. Soemthing to do with the lengthy, and very expensive, series of appeals that all death row inmates are entitled to, but lifers aren't.

Not quite true; every convicted person is allowed to appeal, up to the Supreme Court (not that this is any guarantee that SCOTUS will hear the case).

In a DP case, though, many states have laws that dictate an automatic appeal. Also, the convicted are much less likely to give up and just accept their sentence; so they'll appeal the verdict, the sentence, instructions to the jury, etc., all of which require a hearing.

Adding to the costs is the death warrant; cases have to be reviewed, sometimes by the governor, sometimes by a special commission, before a warrant is signed for the execution. Money, money, money. Then, if an appeal hearing is granted, you have to ask for a stay of execution from the court; more money, especially for the hearing. None of this applies to those who are simply imprisoned without a death sentence hanging over them.

It's not that people sentenced to death have more rights than life-sentenced people, it's just that there are more processes involved.

[Shane Costello]

FWIW Ireland was still sentencing people to death into the 1980's. Those convicted were IRA terrorists who'd murdered policemen. Those sentenced ultimately recieved a presidential pardon, both because capital punishment was frowned upon (if not explicitly banned) by Europe at the time, also for the simple reason that we never had an official Irish executioner, and had traditionally borrowed Albert Pierrepoint when the need arose.

[Agammamon]

Originally posted by Ed
. . .shadow home secretary, yesterday demanded the reintroduction of the death penalty. . .

So, is the shadow home secretary anything like the shadow government covering up the UFO's and running chemtrails throught the sky over here?

[corplinx]

It amazes me how much farther Europe has creeped out of the age of faith and superstition than America has but in other ways are so much more superstitious.

Execution is one of these throwbacks I will never understand the opposition to. Must be lingering catholic thinking.

[ChrisH]

The last public hangman in Britain, Albert Pierpoint, said that it had done no good at all.

[Abdul Alhazred]

Originally posted by ahirst
Basically the death penalty cannot be re-introduced to the UK without the UK leaving the European Union.


Interesting. There was a period of time back around thirty years ago when the Supreme Court of the United States invalidated all death penalty laws under the rubrick of "cruel and unusual punishment" (8th amendment) and "equal protection" (14th amendment).

This is the reason, for example, that Sirhan Sirhan was not executed.

One by one, many states rewrote their death penalty laws to be constitutional within the decision. The same applies to Federal death penalties. Hence lethal injection and the required lengthy appeals process.

The EU has no equivalent to the Supreme Court does it? Suppose the UK just went ahead and restored the death penalty without formally withdrawing from the EU?

Could they be expelled from the EU?

[Tony]

Originally posted by Abdul Alhazred

Could they be expelled from the EU?

I doubt it would happen. It’s unlikely the EU would expel one of its primary cash cows. The EU needs the UK more than the UK needs the EU.

[Abdul Alhazred]

Originally posted by ChrisH
The last public hangman in Britain, Albert Pierpoint, said that it had done no good at all.

Gilbert Clay would have disagreed.

... but he was a Public Headsman, which is quite another thing.


:p

[Supercharts]

Why not re-introduce flogging? I believe the last flogging was in 1953. BICBW.
Flog a few and see what the people's reaction will be. Test the waters, so to speak.

[corplinx]

The point is, why bother housing anyone for the rest of their life on the taxpayer dole? We can put people down who humanely and be done with it instead.

If the proof of a crime is overwhelming and premeditiation is proven beyond doubt, it seems to me that instead of a life sentence we should simply terminate these people.

This only makes sense though if it costs less to get a death penalty conviction than it does to house/feed someone for the rest of their life.

Also, justice has to be fair for this to be fair. In America we couldn't even get a guilty verdict on OJ Simpson despite overwhleming evidence.

The death penalty is perfectly reasonable in a secular society but only as long as justice itself is even and untainted as much as possible.

[Matabiri]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london
Well, the Tories other wonderfull idea is to ship all illegal immigrants off to an imaginary impoverished desert island where they will all eat fish and coconuts, just like in the movies.


This being worse than Blunkett's idea of stealing their kids from them until they go away of their own accord?

Question: Is it possible to be a Home Secretary without being a complete (*expletive deleted*)?

[Supercharts]

One way around having the taxpayers pay for incarcerating a person for life instead of hanging them is to pay the public pay voluntarily for their upkeep.
Someone is found guilty of murder and sentenced to die on, for example, May 1, 2004. Unless the public voluntarily pays for his/her incarceration.
Pick a round number - 50,000Ls. / per year.
Those against Capital Punishment could go door-to-door to collect his/her upkeep. Every year collect 50,000 Ls. or, if not fully paid by May 1, 20?? he/she is executed.
They could have little tin cans, with slots on the top, put in pubs, locals etc.
If enough people contribute then he/she lives. If not enough money is collected consider the effort as a democratic 'vote' on the death penalty.

[Matabiri]

Originally posted by Supercharts
One way around having the taxpayers pay for incarcerating a person for life instead of hanging them is to pay the public pay voluntarily for their upkeep.
Someone is found guilty of murder and sentenced to die on, for example, May 1, 2004. Unless the public voluntarily pays for his/her incarceration.
Pick a round number - 50,000Ls. / per year.
Those against Capital Punishment could go door-to-door to collect his/her upkeep. Every year collect 50,000 Ls. or, if not fully paid by May 1, 20?? he/she is executed.
They could have little tin cans, with slots on the top, put in pubs, locals etc.
If enough people contribute then he/she lives. If not enough money is collected consider the effort as a democratic 'vote' on the death penalty.

Why not do this for the unemployed, as well? Or the sick or elderly? "Pay for the grannies in hospital, or we'll put them down on Friday!"

Better still, why not have politicians' salaries paid like this? If people feel they're getting value for money, they stick in a extra fiver for their MP, if not, he/she gets nothing. Seems fair to me.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by corplinx

Also, justice has to be fair for this to be fair. In America we couldn't even get a guilty verdict on OJ Simpson despite overwhleming evidence.




If you are implying the jury made the wrong choice, I wonder what particular piece of data makes you believe that you are more qualified than the jury to come to that conclusion. Is it because you saw parts of the trial on TV and they had to get by by being front and center in the courtroom through the whole thing?

Is there something else I am missing? The whole thing still looks like a clumsy plant job to me, but hey, CNN said the DNA evidence was reliable, so I must be wrong about that. Nevermind that a DNA test can never be more reliable than the people doing the test. Lab people wouldn't lie would they? I mean besides Fred Zain (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=Fred+Zain) of course (We are still cleaning up that guy's mess).

Sorry. Just a bit of a pet peeve of mine.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Suddenly




If you are implying the jury made the wrong choice, I wonder what particular piece of data makes you believe that you are more qualified than the jury to come to that conclusion. Is it because you saw parts of the trial on TV and they had to get by by being front and center in the courtroom through the whole thing?



Well, the jury was supposed to review the evidence in the case when they deliberated. They returned a verdict in a couple of hours. That sorta suggests that they knew the verdict going in.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by Ed


Well, the jury was supposed to review the evidence in the case when they deliberated. They returned a verdict in a couple of hours. That sorta suggests that they knew the verdict going in.
Not so sure about review. They were to only use information to decide. It is likely they took an immediate straw poll, saw they were unanimous, and spent the rest of the time making sure they didn't miss anything obvious.

Why do you suggest that should take hours, considering that if everyone agrees initially that there is reasonable doubt, it is over? It can't take that long to decide that the LAPD is pretty much full of crap and that virtually all the state's evidence smells like old cheese. Maybe in some circles it doesn't spill a lot of beer when blood "found" on the scene already has lab preservative chemicals in it, the main detective turns out to be a raging bigot, and items of clothing with blood on them are just "left out" in the middle of the floor. Perhaps these jurors just flat rejected much of the state's evidence as not credible? That just isn't going to take long to result in acquittal.

It is very common for a jury when delivering a jury verdict to act quickly, especially when it is obvious. I'd think a quick acquital goes to prove my point, that perhaps actually seeing the whole trial may create a different impression than seeing parts of it on TV, and being exposed to the opinions of various experts and not-so-experts.

[Abdul Alhazred]

Originally posted by Supercharts
Why not re-introduce flogging? I believe the last flogging was in 1953. BICBW.
Flog a few and see what the people's reaction will be. Test the waters, so to speak.

I assume you mean in the UK? What was flogging a penalty for in 1953?

The last flogging in the US Navy was sometime in the early 19th century, following the British naval tradition of rum, ********, and the lash.

Never a civilian penalty, nor a military one on land, at least in the USA.

I'm pretty sure flogging was at the captain's discretion for general discipline, not a judicial penalty.

Keelhauling was a good one, too. :p

[KelvinG]

Originally posted by corplinx
The point is, why bother housing anyone for the rest of their life on the taxpayer dole? We can put people down who humanely and be done with it instead.

If the proof of a crime is overwhelming and premeditiation is proven beyond doubt, it seems to me that instead of a life sentence we should simply terminate these people.

This only makes sense though if it costs less to get a death penalty conviction than it does to house/feed someone for the rest of their life.


OK, but how on earth do we define exactly when proof of a crime is "overwhelming." I'm going to guess that most crimes don't have overwhelming proof of guilt. Does "beyond a reasonable doubt" equate with "overwhelming proof." It doesn't to me.
I'll guess that the death sentence would actually get imposed a lot less if some sort of stringent requirement for "certainty of guilt" was implemented.
And how much money would putting someone to death really save the government. Most prisoners on death row are there for many, many years anyway, exercising the appeal process.

And the bottom line for me is that if even one person is put to death and later cleared of a crime, then the state is guilty of murder. You can't just shrug your shoulders later and say "Oops, well better luck next time."

[Tony]

Once guilt has been established, I think the choice between life in prison or the death penalty should be left up to the family of the victim.

[Hypocolius]

Originally posted by corplinx
The death penalty is perfectly reasonable in a secular society but only as long as justice itself is even and untainted as much as possible.

Couldn't agree more, however in the UK an alarming series of convictions were overturned in the early-mid '90's (Think Guildford 4, Birmingham 6 etc), due to police corruption/ incompetence (delete as appropriate). Had the death penalty been in existence when these guys were convicted there is no doubt they would have swung. IMO the solace society gets from putting a real b*stard down is massively outweighed by the thought of killing an innocent person. I, and I suspect a majority of Britons, given the current levels of police efficiency and safety of conviction, would rather house the Ian Brady's of this world for life, than accidently kill the innocent. I understand this is seen as alarmingly sentimental by our cousins across the pond, but there you are. I'm kind to animals too.

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by Abdul Alhazred


I assume you mean in the UK? What was flogging a penalty for in 1953?

The last flogging in the US Navy was sometime in the early 19th century, following the British naval tradition of rum, ********, and the lash.

Never a civilian penalty, nor a military one on land, at least in the USA.

I'm pretty sure flogging was at the captain's discretion for general discipline, not a judicial penalty.

Keelhauling was a good one, too. :p

Im in favour of corporal punishment.

Sergeant punishment is a bit extreme though....

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by Matabiri


This being worse than Blunkett's idea of stealing their kids from them until they go away of their own accord?


I think Blunkett's idea is great. The problem is, you cant keep giving benefits to failed asylum seekers (aka illegal immigrants) but its proved basically impossible to force repatriation. Now what will happen if you have whole families without any benefits and without the right to work?

So its obviosuly better to take the children into care rather than let them become child-prostitutes or something isnt it?

[geni]

Originally posted by Hypocolius

I, and I suspect a majority of Britons, given the current levels of police efficiency and safety of conviction, would rather house the Ian Brady's of this world for life, than accidently kill the innocent. I understand this is seen as alarmingly sentimental by our cousins across the pond, but there you are. I'm kind to animals too.

Opion polls have reapeted shown that the majority is in favor of the death penalty.:(

[The Don]

Originally posted by geni


Opion polls have repeated shown that the majority is in favor of the death penalty.:(

Absolutely, but I think you can influence this by the kind of questions you ask:

Pollster : Do you think that there's too much crime and drugs these days ?
"Man" in Street : Yes
P : Do you think something should be done to reduce the number of murdered old people, police and young children ?
MIS : Yes
P : Do you think the people carrying out these attacks are evil ?
MIS : Yes
P : Do you think that releasing evil killers to kill again is wrong ?
MIS :Yes
P : would you support the death penalty for evil killers ?
MIS : YES!!!

OR
Pollster : Do you think that the police and courts sometimes make mistakes ?
"Man" in Street : Yes
P : Do you think it's wrong to kill innocent people ?
MIS : Yes
P : Do you recall the cases of xxxxxxxxxxx and xxxxxxxxxxx who were wrongly executed ?
MIS : Yes
P : Do you oppose the death penalty ?
MIS : YES!!!

edited to remove some of the typographical errors

[The Don]

Originally posted by Abdul Alhazred


I assume you mean in the UK? What was flogging a penalty for in 1953?



The Isle of Man was the last hold-out until 1976

An account is here:

http://www.corpun.com/manx.htm

[richardm]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london


I think Blunkett's idea is great. The problem is, you cant keep giving benefits to failed asylum seekers (aka illegal immigrants) but its proved basically impossible to force repatriation. Now what will happen if you have whole families without any benefits and without the right to work?

So its obviosuly better to take the children into care rather than let them become child-prostitutes or something isnt it?

Well spotted, Jon. Everyone was very quick to attack this idea as though Blunkett was threatening to execute the children at the ports, rather than as a reassurance that children would not be left in dire straits if their parents were stripped of benefits.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Tony
Once guilt has been established, I think the choice between life in prison or the death penalty should be left up to the family of the victim.

They had something like that in Afganistan. The family could accept blood money or personally kill the murderer, as I recall.

This does not sound like the basis for a legal system to me.

[Jon_in_london]

On the subject of last meals:

Does the guy have time to actually digest his food though? I mean, I would order snails and smoked oysters with roast garlic and lemon butter followed by two lobsters and a steak chasseur with chocolate mousse and a fine stilton to top it off. Now you are going to do me in and all that fine food is going to just sit undigested in my stomach? Its a bit of a waste isnt it?

[Hypocolius]

Originally posted by geni


Opion polls have reapeted shown that the majority is in favor of the death penalty.:(

Which is why I highlighted the phrase given the current levels of police efficiency and safety of conviction. People generally get asked questions about this, with the qualifier that there is no doubt about the murderer's guilt. This is understandable, trying to guage the absolute level of support for the death penalty, however the qualifier is unrealistic. The UK police have a terrible record over the last couple of decades in acheiving unsafe convictions through downright incompetence (hopefully), or fitting people up because they have an Irish accent (say it isn't so!). I would suggest that, given the qualifier that wrongful executions are almost inevitable, support for the death penalty would fall away dramatically. However, this is just an opinion, I have yet to see any surveys on this.

[Mendor]

Originally posted by The Don
Pollster : Do you think that there's too much crime and drugs these days ?
"Man" in Street : Yes
P : Do you think soethnig should be done to reduce the number of murdered old people, police and young children ?
MIS : Yes
P : Do you think the people carrynig out these attacks are evil ?
MIS : Yes
P : Do you think that releasing evil killers to kild again is wrong ?
MIS :Yes
P : would you support the death penalty for evil killers ?
MIS : YES!!!

OR
Pollster : Do you think that the police and courts sometimes make mistakes ?
"Man" in Street : Yes
P : Do you think it's wrong to kill innocent people ?
MIS : Yes
P :Do you recall the cases of xxxxxxxxxxx and xxxxxxxxxxx who were wronly executed ?
MIS : Yes
P : Do you oppose the death penalty ?
MIS : YES!!! "Congratulations Bernard, you're the perfect Balanced Sample."

[Tony]

Originally posted by Ed


They had something like that in Afganistan. The family could accept blood money or personally kill the murderer, as I recall.

This does not sound like the basis for a legal system to me.


Thats because your interpretation is a strawman.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by Tony



Thats because your interpretation is a strawman.

What part of "something like that" did you fail to understand? And it wasn't a strawman, it was a similar real world example, different in some ways to what you posted and different in others. You could point out the differences from that example that make what you propose more reasonable, but that would take some thought. Much easier to scream strawman.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Suddenly

You could point out the differences from that example that make what you propose more reasonable, but that would take some thought. Much easier to scream strawman.


The differences are apparent. I never said anything about blood money or having the victim's family personally killing the murderer. The only thing that would be different from our current system is that the choice between life in prison or the death penalty would ultimately left up to the family of the victim. Not a jury and not the state, but the party that has a personal stake in the matter. If they can find it in their hearts to give mercy, their wish should be respected.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by Tony



The differences are apparent. I never said anything about blood money or having the victim's family personally killing the murderer. The only thing that would be different from our current system is that the choice between life in prison or the death penalty would ultimately left up to the family of the victim. Not a jury and not the state, but the party that has a personal stake in the matter. If they can find it in their hearts to give mercy, their wish should be respected.

What if the defendant or freinds of the defendant offer the family a whole bunch of money or some other consideration if they let the defendant live? That makes the two much more similar.

As far as who actually kills the defendant in a death penalty case I think a decent case could be made that it should be part of the juror's duty. If they decide the guy needs killing, they should be the ones to throw the switch.

[Thanz]

Originally posted by Tony

If they can find it in their hearts to give mercy, their wish should be respected.
And if they have an insatiable blood lust, we need to respect that as well?

The convicted person is going to be punished by the state, not by the family of the victim. The state's interests in the punishment should govern, not the emotional leanings of the family of the victim. They should be able to make a statement one way or the other, but I disagree that they should be given the final say on punishment.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Suddenly


What if the defendant or freinds of the defendant offer the family a whole bunch of money or some other consideration if they let the defendant live? That makes the two much more similar.


Why doesnt that happen now? Why dont the defendants offer the state or the jury a bunch of money to let the defendant live?

As far as who actually kills the defendant in a death penalty case I think a decent case could be made that it should be part of the juror's duty. If they decide the guy needs killing, they should be the ones to throw the switch.

Why should a jury have that right? They have no stake in the matter.

[Matabiri]

Originally posted by richardm


Well spotted, Jon. Everyone was very quick to attack this idea as though Blunkett was threatening to execute the children at the ports, rather than as a reassurance that children would not be left in dire straits if their parents were stripped of benefits.

Okay; you have a family who are seeking asylum. They are denied, but refuse to leave. Their children are taken away from them. Do they get them back when (if) they leave the country? Isn't that incredibly distressing for the children as well? Isn't that treating the children as political pawns, rather than as people who need to be protected?

Or you have a family that come to the UK in full knowledge that they'll get refused asylum. However, they want their children to be fostered and receive an education. They're denied asylum. Their kids are removed and fostered. They disappear back to their country, having abandoned their kids. Widespread abuse of this set-up is possible and easy.

How exactly was this idea ever supposed to work, except as a draconian threat to asylum seekers that, if their application fails, they'll be stripped of their family and deported?

[Tony]

Originally posted by Thanz

The convicted person is going to be punished by the state, not by the family of the victim. The state's interests in the punishment should govern, not the emotional leanings of the family of the victim.

I’m not interesting in the state's interests, im interested in justice.

They should be able to make a statement one way or the other, but I disagree that they should be given the final say on punishment.

Just to be clear, I dont think the family should have final say in ALL punishment. Just when it comes down to life in prison or the death penalty.

[The Don]

Originally posted by Matabiri


Okay; you have a family who are seeking asylum. They are denied, but refuse to leave. Their children are taken away from them. Do they get them back when (if) they leave the country? Isn't that incredibly distressing for the children as well? Isn't that treating the children as political pawns, rather than as people who need to be protected?

Or you have a family that come to the UK in full knowledge that they'll get refused asylum. However, they want their children to be fostered and receive an education. They're denied asylum. Their kids are removed and fostered. They disappear back to their country, having abandoned their kids. Widespread abuse of this set-up is possible and easy.

How exactly was this idea ever supposed to work, except as a draconian threat to asylum seekers that, if their application fails, they'll be stripped of their family and deported?

To repeat:

The parents cannot work legally because their asylum claim has been refused

The parents cannot claim benefits because their asylum claim has been refused

They have no income.

The British government are not responsible for the adults (after all they have come to the country on false pretences) but they are responsible for the welfare of the children.

There are two options, give the parents permission to work and/or claim benefits or look after the children whilst not looking after the parents (a.k.a. take the children into care)

The government cannot do the former for political reasons (where's the incentive to leave, just bring a kid and you'll get benefits forever) so they're left with the latter.

The children are returned to the parents when (if?) they are found and deported

Alternative suggestions would be appreciated

[Matabiri]

Originally posted by Tony


I’m not interesting in the state's interests, im interested in justice.

Just to be clear, I dont think the family should have final say in ALL punishment. Just when it comes down to life in prison or the death penalty.

Justice is supposed to be blind, and impartial. I don't think you can say that about the victim's family...

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Ed


They had something like that in Afganistan. The family could accept blood money or personally kill the murderer, as I recall.

This does not sound like the basis for a legal system to me.
I was thinking similar on reading Tony's post. IIRC it's part of (suni?) muslim law.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Matabiri


Justice is supposed to be blind, and impartial. I don't think you can say that about the victim's family...

The victim's family isn’t deciding guilt or innocence, just the ultimate punishment.

[Matabiri]

Originally posted by The Don


To repeat:

The parents cannot work legally because their asylum claim has been refused

The parents cannot claim benefits because their asylum claim has been refused

They have no income.

The British government are not responsible for the adults (after all they have come to the country on false pretences) but they are responsible for the welfare of the children.

There are two options, give the parents permission to work and/or claim benefits or look after the children whilst not looking after the parents (a.k.a. take the children into care)

The government cannot do the former for political reasons (where's the incentive to leave, just bring a kid and you'll get benefits forever) so they're left with the latter.

Alternative suggestions would be appreciated

If people want to come here and work, why is that a problem?

I don't see why someone should get a job over someone else just because they happened to have been born in this country, if there's someone more enthusiastic and just as qualified applying.

If we're short of people who want to do physical work (plumbers, builders, whatever) because your average Brit thinks it's beneath an intellectual such as he, why not allow someone else who is interested to do the job?

I don't see the point in disallowing anyone from working, if they're qualified. So, to summarise, give them permission to work.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Tony
Just to be clear, I dont think the family should have final say in ALL punishment. Just when it comes down to life in prison or the death penalty.
Why?

[Tony]

Originally posted by BillyTK

Why?

I don’t think the state deserves the right to make a decision on someone's life.

[The Don]

Originally posted by Tony


The victim's family isn’t deciding guilt or innocence, just the ultimate punishment.

I can understand what you're trying to achieve here, an opportunity to make the victims feel more enabled. I personally think it's a bad idea and furthermore I fear that there will be operational difficulties with it.

What happens if the family of the victim splits, some wanting the dealth penalty some not.

Is it only the next of kin who count ?

What happens if my wife of 10 minutes doesn't want the death penalty for my killer but my parents of 30 years do

What happens if my estranged wife wants the death penalty but my kids don't

Or is is a case of any one person wanting (or not wanting) the death penalty would decide ?

[Matabiri]

Originally posted by Tony


The victim's family isn’t deciding guilt or innocence, just the ultimate punishment.

You said you were interested in "justice", which would presumably include some measure of the punishment fitting the crime.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by Tony


Why doesnt that happen now? Why dont the defendants offer the state or the jury a bunch of money to let the defendant live?
This is illegal, as there are particular criteria as to whether a defendant should be sentenced to death or not; it isn't just the jury saying "he should live." If you establish criteria and restrictions on the family's choice, you limit their discretion. If you don't, you open the door to people being executed for odd reasons, such as race or wealth.

Why should a jury have that right? They have no stake in the matter.

This objection applies to your original suggestion as well. The prosecution of a crime is a matter involving the state and the defendant. The victim and the victim's family are only involved as far as they are witnesses. Only recently has there been a push to involve the victim in the criminal process, and even this stops short of making them a party.

Since the jury is made up of citizens of the state, and crime is by definition an act against the state, a jury has as much stake in the matter as anyone else. I'm suggesting that a jury would have to think long and hard before voting to kill someone if they knew they would be the ones pulling the switch. It would cut down on gratuitious use of the death penalty, and on the other side of the ledger would give the state a substantial ground to strike anti-death penalty people for cause. Those that would refuse under any circumstances to vote for death because they will not participate in the execution could rightfully be struck from a jury.

[sophia8]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london


I think Blunkett's idea is great. The problem is, you cant keep giving benefits to failed asylum seekers (aka illegal immigrants) but its proved basically impossible to force repatriation. Now what will happen if you have whole families without any benefits and without the right to work?

So its obviosuly better to take the children into care rather than let them become child-prostitutes or something isnt it?
But it's hardly cost-effective. It's far cheaper to give families benefits than take their kids into care. I haven't the time to look up the rates paid to foster-parents, but it's a lot more than the kids' parents would ever get.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Matabiri


You said you were interested in "justice", which would presumably include some measure of the punishment fitting the crime.

Do you not think life in prison or death is a fitting punishment for murder?

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Tony


I don’t think the state deserves the right to make a decision on someone's life.
Why? And if not the state, then why should anyone else have that right?

[Matabiri]

Originally posted by Tony


Do you not think life in prison or death is a fitting punishment for murder?

Depends on the circumstance, which is not a decision a grieving and aggrieved person is generally in a condition to make on behalf of society.

Justice must be done, and must be seen to be done. But to allow the brother of a man who's, say, been murdered by his long-time beaten wife to insist on the death penalty would definitely undermine the "seen to be done" part.

[Tony]

Originally posted by BillyTK

Why?

Why should it?

And if not the state, then why should anyone else have that right?

It was their mom/dad/brother/sister/husband/wife that was killed. If anyone has that right, it is them.

[Thanz]

Originally posted by Tony

It was their mom/dad/brother/sister/husband/wife that was killed. If anyone has that right, it is them.
What you are interested in is not justice but revenge. It is amazing how often death penalty advocates equate the two.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Matabiri


Depends on the circumstance, which is not a decision a grieving and aggrieved person is generally in a condition to make on behalf of society.


Its not "society's"(the state's) decision, that's my point.

Justice must be done, and must be seen to be done. But to allow the brother of a man who's, say, been murdered by his long-time beaten wife to insist on the death penalty would definitely undermine the "seen to be done" part.

How?

[Tony]

Originally posted by Thanz

What you are interested in is not justice but revenge.

Im interested in both.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Tony


Why should it?
For a number of reasons, but it's not my claim being tested here. Again, why?

It was their mom/dad/brother/sister/husband/wife that was killed. If anyone has that right, it is them.
This is not an answer, this is simply restating your initial claim. On what basis should they have that right?
Its not "society's"(the state's) decision, that's my point.
Society and the state are not exactly the same thing; the latter is a subset of the former.
Im interested in both [justice and revenge]
You carnt have both; they're pretty much exclusive.

[Tony]

Originally posted by BillyTK

For a number of reasons, but it's not my claim being tested here. Again, why?


You are claiming the state should have the power over someone's life. That was your implication.

This is not an answer, this is simply restating your initial claim. On what basis should they have that right?

That is my answer.

Society and the state are not exactly the same thing; the latter is a subset of the former.

I never said they were. But when most people use the term "soceity", what their really talking about is the state.

You carnt have both; they're pretty much exclusive.

No they aren't. Justice, revenge, and retribution are interconnected.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Tony


You are claiming the state should have the power over someone's life. That was your implication.
It's you're claim we're discussing here, remember? That, "I don’t think the state deserves the right to make a decision on someone's life. " (I'm quoting you here). Can you support this?
That is my answer.
That is not an answer; it's no more meaningful than saying, "Because I say so." Is that as far as you can support your claim?

I never said they were. But when most people use the term "soceity", what their really talking about is the state.
You gave no such indication when you stated that "Its not "society's"(the state's) decision, that's my point." Can you support your new claim that "when most people use the term 'soceity', what their really talking about is the state"?

No they aren't. Justice, revenge, and retribution are interconnected.
Punishment serves a retributive purpose for society (as in society, not just the state), but that doesn't mean punishment is revenge, or directed by revenge. Compare Islamic law (typically an eye for an eye-style punishment) with secular western law, particularly the "blood money" aspect that Ed mentioned earlier.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by Tony


You are claiming the state should have the power over someone's life. That was your implication.


I'll take this one:

From the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution:

"[N]or be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law."

So the constitution specifically allows the taking of life as long as there is due process.

Is that enough? Are you a psuedo-constitutionalist or just a garden variety anarchist that opposes all government?

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Suddenly

Is that enough? Are you a psuedo-constitutionalist or just a garden variety anarchist that opposes all government?
Hey! That's an insult to us anarchists! ;) :D

[richardm]

Originally posted by sophia8

But it's hardly cost-effective. It's far cheaper to give families benefits than take their kids into care. I haven't the time to look up the rates paid to foster-parents, but it's a lot more than the kids' parents would ever get.

Well, it's not just the money, there is a matter of principle too.

But since you asked, a foster parent gets paid £155 per week, with another £55 if a second child is placed there. *

I wouldn't be so sure that benefits would be much less than that, by the time you've added in housing benefit to pay your rent and income support.

Edited to add: * In Northumberland.

[richardm]

Originally posted by Matabiri


If people want to come here and work, why is that a problem?

I don't see why someone should get a job over someone else just because they happened to have been born in this country, if there's someone more enthusiastic and just as qualified applying.

If we're short of people who want to do physical work (plumbers, builders, whatever) because your average Brit thinks it's beneath an intellectual such as he, why not allow someone else who is interested to do the job?

I don't see the point in disallowing anyone from working, if they're qualified. So, to summarise, give them permission to work.

So you think there should be no immigration restrictions at all? I wonder if this should go to a separate thread.

[Graham]

Originally posted by sophia8

But it's hardly cost-effective. It's far cheaper to give families benefits than take their kids into care. I haven't the time to look up the rates paid to foster-parents, but it's a lot more than the kids' parents would ever get.

In addition to Richardm's comments, I'd like to point out that children rarely get taken into care solely for financial reasons.

There usually has to be other (unpleasant) factors as well. Otherwise the system would be even more overrun than it already is.

Graham

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by sophia8

But it's hardly cost-effective. It's far cheaper to give families benefits than take their kids into care. I haven't the time to look up the rates paid to foster-parents, but it's a lot more than the kids' parents would ever get.

So you are advocating giving tax-payers money to illegal immigrants?

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by Matabiri


Okay; you have a family who are seeking asylum. They are denied, but refuse to leave. Their children are taken away from them. Do they get them back when (if) they leave the country? Isn't that incredibly distressing for the children as well? Isn't that treating the children as political pawns, rather than as people who need to be protected?

Or you have a family that come to the UK in full knowledge that they'll get refused asylum. However, they want their children to be fostered and receive an education. They're denied asylum. Their kids are removed and fostered. They disappear back to their country, having abandoned their kids. Widespread abuse of this set-up is possible and easy.

How exactly was this idea ever supposed to work, except as a draconian threat to asylum seekers that, if their application fails, they'll be stripped of their family and deported?

In the first case, people shouldnt be crossing borders illgealy with their children in the first case. The are being taken into care for their protection and I dont see where 'political pawn' comes into this at all.

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by Matabiri


If people want to come here and work, why is that a problem?

I don't see why someone should get a job over someone else just because they happened to have been born in this country, if there's someone more enthusiastic and just as qualified applying.

If we're short of people who want to do physical work (plumbers, builders, whatever) because your average Brit thinks it's beneath an intellectual such as he, why not allow someone else who is interested to do the job?

I don't see the point in disallowing anyone from working, if they're qualified. So, to summarise, give them permission to work.

Maybe its just a big difference between someone like you and someone like me Matabiri, but I belive British people have first rights in Britain, over and above all foreigners. Thats the way it works in every other country so thats the way it HAS to be here.
When the rest of the world agrees to change that, then so should we. Not before.

We may be short of people to do some dirty work in the present climate of economic prosperity but when (not if) the next big recession comes and unemployment soars, whats going to happen then?

And by the way, its not because "your average Brit thinks it's beneath an intellectual such as he" but because our entire system of vocational education and training has been utterly destroyed by governments obssesed with shoe-horning the entire population into universities.

And Matabiri, people are most welcome to apply for a work permit at their local British Consulate or High Commision. Surely giving illegal immigrants special dispensation is a huge slap in the face for all those honest folk who have done it by the book and NOT broken our laws?

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by richardm


Well, it's not just the money, there is a matter of principle too.

But since you asked, a foster parent gets paid £155 per week, with another £55 if a second child is placed there. *

I wouldn't be so sure that benefits would be much less than that, by the time you've added in housing benefit to pay your rent and income support.

Edited to add: * In Northumberland.

But then there's admin costs as well; I guess keeping families together would be benefit + benefit admin costs + asylum seeker* processing costs, whereas to foster the children would be benefit costs + benefit admin costs + social services costs (I'm guessing there'd be a social worker assigned to the children).

Imo, the whole is a cynical and manipulative ploy to deter genuine families from seeking asylum in this country; it's not going to affect those who come here illegally and stay illegally because no-one knows about them. At best it'll result in more asylum seekers disapearing into the black economy, with all the problems that involves, but maybe I'm being cynical out the way New Labour has out-toried the tories. On the other hand, as half of all asylum seekers are from Iraq (IIRC), we should all look to giving the government 100% support in trying to establish a democracy in Iraq, so we can send 'em all back asap.

*Why carnt we call them "refugees"? I hate the term "asylum seeker".

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by BillyTK

On the other hand, as half of all asylum seekers are from Iraq (IIRC), we should all look to giving the government 100% support in trying to establish a democracy in Iraq, so we can send 'em all back asap.

*Why carnt we call them "refugees"? I hate the term "asylum seeker".

I doubt that 50% are from Iraq YDRC. But I second your thoughts on Iraq.

*Once an 'asylum seeker' has been approved and processed they are given refugee status and are entilted to work etc....
The problem is that 'asylum seeker' has become a sickening euphamism for all illegal immigrants.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london


Maybe its just a big difference between someone like you and someone like me Matabiri, but I belive British people have first rights in Britain, over and above all foreigners.
But the UK was literally built with migrant labour!
Thats the way it works in every other country so thats the way it HAS to be here.
Every other country except for the ones where it doesn't work that way; the US, France, Germany, hell just about every Western European country, in fact any country with any decent evel of prosperity, simply because migrant labour is typically cheaper and easier to exploit than indigenous labour, and that's the problem that needs to be addressed. If the govt. rounded up every illegal immigrant in London and deported them, how many businesses do you think would be able to switch over to British labour and survive the increase in costs?

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by BillyTK
[B]
But the UK was literally built with migrant labour!

[b]


Legal migrant labour!

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london


I doubt that 50% are from Iraq YDRC.
A quick google (http://www.cforl.org/campaigns/GoingGlobal/asylumseekers.asp) turned up the following fact[oid]:
The main countries from which applicants in the UK came in 2002 were Iraq (14,940), Zimbabwe (7,695) and Afghanistan (7,380).

*Once an 'asylum seeker' has been approved and processed they are given refugee status and are entilted to work etc....
The problem is that 'asylum seeker' has become a sickening euphamism for all illegal immigrants.
From the same source,
the United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees [...] defined a refugee as someone who, ‘owing to a wellfounded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country.’
I say we start calling refugees "refugees" and economic migrants "economic migrants", and dump this new PC nonsense!

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london


Legal migrant labour!
Debatable... but don't want to say anymore until I've confirmed me grandad's legal status (they carnt deport you if you're born in this country, right?) ;) :D

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by BillyTK

Every other country except for the ones where it doesn't work that way; the US, France, Germany, hell just about every Western European country, in fact any country with any decent evel of prosperity, simply because migrant labour is typically cheaper and easier to exploit than indigenous labour, and that's the problem that needs to be addressed. If the govt. rounded up every illegal immigrant in London and deported them, how many businesses do you think would be able to switch over to British labour and survive the increase in costs?

Oh right. So if I went to work illegally in the US France Germany etc... I would have exactly the same rights as a citizen of that country? Is that the way it doesnt work in all those countries?

Frankly I dont know how many would be able to survive without illegal immigrants. The soultion is probably for people to put their time and effort into getting work permits legally rather breaking the law. Ther are tens of thousands of legal migrant workers here so why should the criminals get any special dispensation?

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by BillyTK

I say we start calling refugees "refugees" and economic migrants "economic migrants", and dump this new PC nonsense!

The ironic thing is that 'asylum seeker' has now become such a dirty word! its almost as bad as calling someone a paki.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london


Oh right. So if I went to work illegally in the US France Germany etc... I would have exactly the same rights as a citizen of that country? Is that the way it doesnt work in all those countries?
No idea what this relates to.

Frankly I dont know how many would be able to survive without illegal immigrants. The soultion is probably for people to put their time and effort into getting work permits legally rather breaking the law.
What's the incentive? At the moment businesses get cheap services and labour, the smuggling racketeers make tons of money and it's the people at the bottom of the heap who get screwed; if they stick their heads above radar they'll more than likely be repatriated and lose whatever pittance they'd been able to scrape together ayway. So what's the incentive?
Ther are tens of thousands of legal migrant workers here so why should the criminals get any special dispensation?
Criminals, heh-which ones? The businesses, racketeers or migrants?

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by BillyTK
What's the incentive? At the moment businesses get cheap services and labour, the smuggling racketeers make tons of money and it's the people at the bottom of the heap who get screwed; if they stick their heads above radar they'll more than likely be repatriated and lose whatever pittance they'd been able to scrape together ayway. So what's the incentive?



Big fat fines for people who employ illegals might do the trick. Like you said, its the people at the bottom getting screwed (umm.... yes...nevermind) by getting sub-minimum wage and the country gets screwed because they are contributing to the tax-pot.

Legal is better.

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by BillyTK
Criminals, heh-which ones? The businesses, racketeers or migrants?

All of the buggers.

[Matabiri]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london

When the rest of the world agrees to change that, then so should we. Not before.


So Britain shouldn't lead the way in anything related to human rights, because the rest of the world doesn't agree?

(I know this is a strawman, but I think your statement is silly enough to deserve one)


And by the way, its not because "your average Brit thinks it's beneath an intellectual such as he" but because our entire system of vocational education and training has been utterly destroyed by governments obssesed with shoe-horning the entire population into universities.


That's a separate issue. If someone's bringing skills into the country, why turn them away?


And Matabiri, people are most welcome to apply for a work permit at their local British Consulate or High Commision. Surely giving illegal immigrants special dispensation is a huge slap in the face for all those honest folk who have done it by the book and NOT broken our laws?

Why is it "special dispensation" to allow someone to get a job?

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by Matabiri


So Britain shouldn't lead the way in anything related to human rights, because the rest of the world doesn't agree?

(I know this is a strawman, but I think your statement is silly enough to deserve one)



That's a separate issue. If someone's bringing skills into the country, why turn them away?



Why is it "special dispensation" to allow someone to get a job?

1. Until there are reciprocal agreements between us and each country in question (like there is within the EU). I think your statements are silly.

2. Slagging off your fellow countrymen might be a separate issue but you brought it up. The answer is to repair the damage done to our system so that Britons can be trained to fill the gaps rather than importing people from thre outside.

3. The point is that there are people who have done it by the book and to give the same treatment to them as to illegal immigrants is blatantly unfair and a disincentive to regulated legal immigration.

[Matabiri]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london


2. Slagging off your fellow countrymen might be a separate issue but you brought it up. The answer is to repair the damage done to our system so that Britons can be trained to fill the gaps rather than importing people from thre outside.


And in the meantime?


3. The point is that there are people who have done it by the book and to give the same treatment to them as to illegal immigrants is blatantly unfair and a disincentive to regulated legal immigration.

Redefine illegal immigrants as legal immigrants. No problem.

I'm not sure what the whole obsession with kicking people who want to work out of the country is. Entitlements to benefits etc. is one thing. But if they work, they pay tax and create wealth, which benefits the country.

As has been said, disallowing people from working plays into the hands of gang masters and the exploitative like.

(I'll try answering point 1 in a bit).

[richardm]

Originally posted by Matabiri

I'm not sure what the whole obsession with kicking people who want to work out of the country is. Entitlements to benefits etc. is one thing. But if they work, they pay tax and create wealth, which benefits the country.


I don't think anyone is saying that we should kick out people who want to work as a matter of course.

The problem as perceived by the Government is that there are a number of people sneaking into this country without going through the proper legal process. If they are intercepted, they claim that they are refugees seeking asylum - even though many of them have passed through a number of safe European countries en route to the UK.

The logical conclusion to draw from that is that they are intent on disappearing into the country somewhere. To do what? Work illegally, with all that that implies?

[Matabiri]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london

Maybe its just a big difference between someone like you and someone like me Matabiri, but I belive British people have first rights in Britain, over and above all foreigners. Thats the way it works in every other country so thats the way it HAS to be here.
When the rest of the world agrees to change that, then so should we. Not before.



1. Until there are reciprocal agreements between us and each country in question (like there is within the EU). I think your statements are silly.


I'm still not sure why we need any kind of reciprocal agreement to allow people to come here to work. If they're more educated/motivated/skilled than a British person, then they will benefit our economy. If they're not, why would they be employed in preference (the answer is not "because they're cheaper"; if it's legal employment there's the minimum wage)?

The very-very-cheap, slave-wage labour is perpetuated by these people not being allowed to work legally, so they're forced into something much less pleasant. If a Brit applying for a job feels it's not suitably reimbursed for his skills, he (or she) is quite welcome to try and get a job elsewhere.

[Matabiri]

Originally posted by richardm

The problem as perceived by the Government is that there are a number of people sneaking into this country without going through the proper legal process. If they are intercepted, they claim that they are refugees seeking asylum - even though many of them have passed through a number of safe European countries en route to the UK.

The logical conclusion to draw from that is that they are intent on disappearing into the country somewhere. To do what? Work illegally, with all that that implies?

What does that imply? If they're willing to work in the apparently appalling conditions generated by the gangs, it must still be better than whatever alternative they're getting away from.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by richardm


I don't think anyone is saying that we should kick out people who want to work as a matter of course.

The problem as perceived by the Government is that there are a number of people sneaking into this country without going through the proper legal process. If they are intercepted, they claim that they are refugees seeking asylum - even though many of them have passed through a number of safe European countries en route to the UK.

The logical conclusion to draw from that is that they are intent on disappearing into the country somewhere. To do what? Work illegally, with all that that implies?

You could argue that, just as drug prohibition correlates with with the criminality associated with illegal drug use, that prohibitions on immigration correlates with the black market in immigration and labour, so introducing further restrictive legislation to address the black market problem will only make it worse.

And if Jesus was an asylum-seeker, he wouldn't get into Australia (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/3246952.stm)! :)

[Jon_in_london]

Well, seems the Aussies have sorted their stuff out then...;)

[richardm]

Originally posted by BillyTK


You could argue that, just as drug prohibition correlates with with the criminality associated with illegal drug use, that prohibitions on immigration correlates with the black market in immigration and labour, so introducing further restrictive legislation to address the black market problem will only make it worse.


Actually, I think the black labour market wouldn't go away if we had completely unfettered immigration.

Unless we completely strike the various laws that control taxes, wages and working conditions there will always be plenty of employers ready to circumvent them, and plenty of people sufficiently desperate to take the jobs on offer.

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by Matabiri


What does that imply? If they're willing to work in the apparently appalling conditions generated by the gangs, it must still be better than whatever alternative they're getting away from.

They arent always willing. Often they would love to go home but have no choice for fear of retribution from the gangs.

[richardm]

Originally posted by Matabiri


What does that imply? If they're willing to work in the apparently appalling conditions generated by the gangs, it must still be better than whatever alternative they're getting away from.

It implies that they are working without the full protection of the health and safety law, minimum wage requirements etc. etc. that they should entitled to.

And who says it is better than what they're getting away from ? Perhaps they thought it would be when they set off, but there is a big surprise waiting for them.

Thing is, because they're completely under the radar we have no way of checking up on them.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by richardm


Actually, I think the black labour market wouldn't go away if we had completely unfettered immigration.

Unless we completely strike the various laws that control taxes, wages and working conditions there will always be plenty of employers ready to circumvent them, and plenty of people sufficiently desperate to take the jobs on offer.
I think you're right. Libertarianism, anybody? ;)

[richardm]

Originally posted by BillyTK

I think you're right. Libertarianism, anybody? ;)

Thank you, no. ;)

[Matabiri]

Originally posted by richardm

Thing is, because they're completely under the radar we have no way of checking up on them.

And why are they completely under the radar? Because they're here illegally and are afraid of deportation etc. If we can sort out that fear, then (hopefully) they wouldn't be under the radar.

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by Matabiri



Redefine illegal immigrants as legal immigrants. No problem.


:rolleyes:
Oh sure, perhaps if we pardon all criminals it will solve our prison overcrowding problems? Hell, lets just ditch the law altogether then we wont even have to pay for a police force!

Lookee you: Legal immigrants go through a process of vetting for good reasons. If you cant think of the reasons yourself then I really despair of you Matabiri. Consider this a test.

[richardm]

Originally posted by Matabiri


And why are they completely under the radar? Because they're here illegally and are afraid of deportation etc. If we can sort out that fear, then (hopefully) they wouldn't be under the radar.

So you do think there should be no immigration restrictions at all?

Or should we only allow in people who are able to work and who have jobs lined up already?

Do you think that if they don't match those criteria they should be eligible for State benefits? Why/why not?

Thanks!

[Matabiri]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london


:rolleyes:
Oh sure, perhaps if we pardon all criminals it will solve our prison overcrowding problems? Hell, lets just ditch the law altogether then we wont even have to pay for a police force!


Mmh hm. Good idea. You've totally represented my viewpoint there. I couldn't have summed it up any better myself.


Lookee you: Legal immigrants go through a process of vetting for good reasons. If you cant think of the reasons yourself then I really despair of you Matabiri. Consider this a test.

We want people here who will contribute to the country. Someone ready and willing to work will definitely do that.

I didn't advocate unfettered immigration; I said I couldn't understand why people who were willing and qualified to work were prevented from working. Obviously that's a different situation from someone who turns up to take advantage of the benefits system/NHS/whatever.

Mind you, I'm sure there are plenty of good, honest British-born scabs who have no intention of ever working and who sponge off the state. Can we deport them if we catch them?

You said on the other thread, about St Hilda's, that there was never any grounds for discrimination on anything but merit, but here you're advocating discrimination on grounds of being or not being British. How is being British a measure of merit?

[Matabiri]

Originally posted by richardm


So you do think there should be no immigration restrictions at all?


My original point was that I couldn't understand why anyone should be prevented from working if they were willing and able. If they're willing, able, and get a job, they should be allowed to stay, regardless of situation, because they're contributing to the economy.

On the other hand, I don't want people who haven't contributed to society gathering the benefits of our society.

I've admittedly been sidetracked...



Or should we only allow in people who are able to work and who have jobs lined up already?

If they've already got jobs lined up, that should count strongly in their favour.

[QUOTE]

Do you think that if they don't match those criteria they should be eligible for State benefits? Why/why not?

Thanks!

If they're not going to contribute, they should be ineligible. How you judge whether they can contribute is open for discussion, but getting a job is a pretty good sign that they will.

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by Matabiri


Mmh hm. Good idea. You've totally represented my viewpoint there. I couldn't have summed it up any better myself.


Glad to hear it.

Originally posted by Matabiri

I didn't advocate unfettered immigration; I said I couldn't understand why people who were willing and qualified to work were prevented from working. Obviously that's a different situation from someone who turns up to take advantage of the benefits system/NHS/whatever.


yes you did:

"Redefine illegal immigrants as legal immigrants. No problem."
-Matabiri

And how do you know they are willing and qualified when they arrived illegally inside a container from from Calais?



Mind you, I'm sure there are plenty of good, honest British-born scabs who have no intention of ever working and who sponge off the state. Can we deport them if we catch them?


If they are scabs they are neither good nor honest. The rest of this paragraph is therefore void and invalid.


You said on the other thread, about St Hilda's, that there was never any grounds for discrimination on anything but merit, but here you're advocating discrimination on grounds of being or not being British. How is being British a measure of merit?


Yes, being British is a measure of merit, just as if I went to a foreign country I might be denied a position on the basis of my nationality. This is country is the only one where I can get a job on merit alone and untill this changes, nationality will contnue to be a valid basis for discrimination.

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by Matabiri

...................... If they're willing, able, and get a job, they should be allowed to stay, regardless of situation, because they're contributing to the economy.
.................................................. .
If they're not going to contribute, they should be ineligible. How you judge whether they can contribute is open for discussion, but getting a job is a pretty good sign that they will.

And if the person is illegal, how are you going to determine (before the person has arrived and claims asylum when challenged) whether or not they are willing and qualified to work and..........oops................
By the way you still havent answered my question as to why legal immigrants are subject to vetting before they are issued a work permit/leave to remain.

[Matabiri]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london

yes you did:

"Redefine illegal immigrants as legal immigrants. No problem."
-Matabiri

If they are scabs they are neither good nor honest. The rest of this paragraph is therefore void and invalid.


I very nearly at one or two points pointed out that I was being sarcastic, but was sure you'd pick it up...

Originally posted by Jon_in_london


Yes, being British is a measure of merit, just as if I went to a foreign country I might be denied a position on the basis of my nationality. This is country is the only one where I can get a job on merit alone and untill this changes, nationality will contnue to be a valid basis for discrimination.

Why is being British a measure of merit?

[Matabiri]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london


By the way you still havent answered my question as to why legal immigrants are subject to vetting before they are issued a work permit/leave to remain.

I thought I had:

We want people here who will contribute to the country.

The vetting is to try and insure the'll contribute more than they consume.

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by Matabiri

The vetting is to try and insure the'll contribute more than they consume.

So why are you advocating awarding illegal immigrants work permits?

[Matabiri]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london


So why are you advocating awarding illegal immigrants work permits?

If they work, they're contributing to society.

Is that terribly, terribly hard to understand?

[Ed]

It seems that for a person to reap the benefits of a society they must play by society's rules. It seems that we have people asking to be part yet their first action was to break the law. It seems like an odd position to take to suggest that bad behavior be rewarded.

[Matabiri]

Originally posted by Ed
It seems that for a person to reap the benefits of a society they must play by society's rules. It seems that we have people asking to be part yet their first action was to break the law. It seems like an odd position to take to suggest that bad behavior be rewarded.

I agree with your first point. I'm trying to argue that depriving someone of the right to earn a living shouldn't be one of those rules.

Oh, and sorry your "Death Penalty" thread has become an immigration thread, by the way...

[Ed]

Originally posted by Matabiri


I agree with your first point. I'm trying to argue that depriving someone of the right to earn a living shouldn't be one of those rules.

Oh, and sorry your "Death Penalty" thread has become an immigration thread, by the way...

That's cool, a thread by anyother name, etc.

To your point, are you suggesting that if a person shows up, hale and fit, he is owed employment? Or that he should compete on a level playing field with those that observe our laws?

I think that our laws regarding entry trump the right of an illeagel to work. They are the guest, after all.

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by Matabiri


If they work, they're contributing to society.

Is that terribly, terribly hard to understand?

So. You accpet that there is a good reason for having immigration laws but you dont think there is any point in enforcing those laws?

[Darat]

Originally posted by Tony


The victim's family isn’t deciding guilt or innocence, just the ultimate punishment.

And can you imagine the outrage if say a religious family turned around and said "we can not judge him/her that is for god to do so let him/her free"?

[Matabiri]

Originally posted by Ed

To your point, are you suggesting that if a person shows up, hale and fit, he is owed employment? Or that he should compete on a level playing field with those that observe our laws?

I think that our laws regarding entry trump the right of an illeagel to work. They are the guest, after all.

I'm not saying "owed employment". No-one is "owed" employment. And the issue of "observing our laws" is a red herring, because I'm trying to say that I think the law is bad and should be changed.

Originally posted by Ed

So. You accpet that there is a good reason for having immigration laws but you dont think there is any point in enforcing those laws?


I'm proposing a change to those laws to make them fairer. Please actually listen.

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by Matabiri


I'm proposing a change to those laws to make them fairer. Please actually listen.

So you propose the scrapping of all immigration laws?

[Darat]

Originally posted by Matabiri


I agree with your first point. I'm trying to argue that depriving someone of the right to earn a living shouldn't be one of those rules.

Oh, and sorry your "Death Penalty" thread has become an immigration thread, by the way...

But they have chosen to come to the UK, we are not talking about refugees here (who we should accept) but people who want to come to the UK for economic reasons.

Surely it is not unreasonable for them to accept the laws of the country they want to move to?

[Matabiri]

Originally posted by Darat


But they have chosen to come to the UK, we are not talking about refugees here (who we should accept) but people who want to come to the UK for economic reasons.

Surely it is not unreasonable for them to accept the laws of the country they want to move to?

But one of those laws shouldn't be to deprive them of the right to work.

And no, Jon, I'm not proposing scrapping all immigration laws. Have you actually read and tried to understand anything I've said, or are you listening to another argument in your own head?

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by Matabiri

And no, Jon, I'm not proposing scrapping all immigration laws. Have you actually read and tried to understand anything I've said, or are you listening to another argument in your own head?

Oh yes, I have been reading. Im trying to figure out what you are banging on about.

You say all illegal immigrants should have the right to work (and therefore have right of residency) Yet you accept that the immigration laws are there for a good reason. Yet you dont think the laws should be enforced.

:confused:

[Darat]

Originally posted by Matabiri


But one of those laws shouldn't be to deprive them of the right to work.

And no, Jon, I'm not proposing scrapping all immigration laws. Have you actually read and tried to understand anything I've said, or are you listening to another argument in your own head?

But they know that law exists before they try to come to this country! So why have they tried to come to this country in the first place knowing this?

Someone coming to this country should be given the same rights as everyone else - providing that they have entered the country through the "correct channels".

The only people who are being “deprived” of these rights are people who have not met our criteria for immigration and therefore are not going to be “UK” citizens. Since we deprive many people in the world these rights should we perhaps now start paying for the medical care for someone, in say the USA, because we are “depriving” then of a right we give to UK citizens?

(Again I want to stress this should only apply to economic immigration, I am all for being as generous as possible to refugees.)