YD Scuba Diving Forums banner
1 - 20 of 117 Posts

·
This is my happy face!!
Joined
·
2,640 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 · (Edited)
I find it incredible that a person who has murdered an innocent man, is deemed to have greater rights than the widow and family of the man murdered! :angry:

I am of course referring to the murderer of Philip Lawrence who has won his case to stay in the UK as and when he is released from prison. This potentially could be next year.

Unreal!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,795 Posts
He is not being assigned greater rights, just equal. As an EU citizen, he can return anyway. Why waste taxpayers money flying him to a country he does not know?

I am more concerned as to whether he is a danger to the public. THAT is what should matter.

Adrian
 

·
This is my happy face!!
Joined
·
2,640 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
Gonna disagree there, Adrain. He is being given greater rights. The murdered man obviously has no rights now, and his family have less rights as they will have to live in the knowledge that the murderer is free. Hardly equality.

With regard to his EU status, I believe we can issue a banning order, so he couldn't return.

I'm sure the taxpayer wouldn't mind the few hundred quid to get rid of a murderer.

Whether he is safe or not is up to the parole people, but that would be less of an issue if he were out of the UK.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,601 Posts
I think a big issue here is that we dont lock people up for long enough. I dont think there should be the option of 50% remission or an early release if you behave yourself. The initial sentance should always stand, eg 30yrs should mean 30yrs, if you behave yourself you get out after 30years. If you dont you stay in longer.

I never thought i'd be the type of person to say it, but more Police and more prisions.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,215 Posts
It has always seemed to me society is generally becoming more self centred and egocentric. The difficulty that I have with the Human Rights legislation is that it gives all rights to individuals and seems to hold them above the rights of people as a society.
 

·
Proud to be "small minded" in the face of credulit
Joined
·
2,910 Posts
Gonna disagree there, Adrain. He is being given greater rights. The murdered man obviously has no rights now, and his family have less rights as they will have to live in the knowledge that the murderer is free. Hardly equality.

With regard to his EU status, I believe we can issue a banning order, so he couldn't return.

I'm sure the taxpayer wouldn't mind the few hundred quid to get rid of a murderer.

Whether he is safe or not is up to the parole people, but that would be less of an issue if he were out of the UK.
Do you know, I was just waiting for this to crop up.

As odious as the murderer is, he committed the crime when he was a child. He speaks English, not Italian. His family is here, not there.

I just don't see what the justification was for the deportation attempt. It could never have worked under British law.

IMO, one of the things that marks out a civilised society is how it treats its transgressors. Here we don't stone people for adultery or cut people's hands off for shoplifting. Similarly, as much as it would be nice to wash our hands of a murderer, to send a man to an unknown (to him) country because of something he did when he was a child is a bizarre concept.

Why not find a large island on the other side of the world, peopled by those who don't have firearms? We could subjugate the indigenous population and send all our rejects there. Sounds like a plan to me.
 

·
This is my happy face!!
Joined
·
2,640 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
Do you know, I was just waiting for this to crop up.

As odious as the murderer is, he committed the crime when he was a child. He speaks English, not Italian. His family is here, not there.
I don't see the point?

I just don't see what the justification was for the deportation attempt. It could never have worked under British law.
The justification would be that a foreign national has commited a murder, and as a nation we should have the right to determine whether they say in this country or not. This case is based on the HRA which is patently flawed. "If someone is resident (legally) for 10 yrs, they cannot be deported unless a risk to National Security". Crap legislation.

IMO, one of the things that marks out a civilised society is how it treats its transgressors. Here we don't stone people for adultery or cut people's hands off for shoplifting. Similarly, as much as it would be nice to wash our hands of a murderer, to send a man to an unknown (to him) country because of something he did when he was a child is a bizarre concept.

Why not find a large island on the other side of the world, peopled by those who don't have firearms? We could subjugate the indigenous population and send all our rejects there. Sounds like a plan to me.

As opposed to the rights of the victims and their families? I think they should always get precedence.
 

·
I provide much-needed sarcasm.
Joined
·
4,099 Posts
He is not being assigned greater rights, just equal. As an EU citizen, he can return anyway.
That's not actually true. Member countries can exclude EU citizens on grounds of public health, public security or public policy. He'd have to argue in court whether being a convicted murderer was sufficient grounds.

Jason
 

·
PADI Internet Specialty Diver
Joined
·
10,679 Posts
....The justification would be that a foreign national has commited a murder, and as a nation we should have the right to determine whether they say in this country or not. .....
He like you is European, an EU citizen, not foreign at all. If he was American or Swiss then yes send him home, they are keen enough to do it to us.

Chris
 

·
Madame Wheelie-Bin
Joined
·
5,067 Posts
As opposed to the rights of the victims and their families? I think they should always get precedence.
I agree with Geoff here. A close member of my family was the victim in a horrible situation and the offender was protected by the state, by social services, because he was only 15. He changed our lives forever, and he was the one they looked after. I normally switch off on discussions like this because it's still raw, even after 13 years, because we still suffer the consequences of his actions. But Geoff is right.

In my humble opinion the murderer should lose ALL rights to anything, even after doing his time. He took a life. And he's going to be walking around eventually a free man. The guy he murdered isn't.

Before it happened to "us" I was of the opinion they do their time in prison, they have the right to a free life. But now I'm not so sure. The family and survivors have to live with the situation forever. They have a life sentence. Where's the justice in that?
 

·
Proud to be "small minded" in the face of credulit
Joined
·
2,910 Posts
I don't see the point?
What, that an adult should continue to be punished for a crime he comitted when he was a child, even though he's served his sentence? How many people do you know who never broke the law as a child?

There are, of course, degrees of offfence. This one was heinous, but if that's the argument then there are all sorts of problems with where to draw the line.

The justification would be that a foreign national has commited a murder, and as a nation we should have the right to determine whether they say in this country or not. This case is based on the HRA which is patently flawed. "If someone is resident (legally) for 10 yrs, they cannot be deported unless a risk to National Security". Crap legislation.
It's hardly in the same league as an adult Albanian people trafficker who's murdered somebody. Remember that this person was a child. He's served his sentence.

This brings us to an interesting point - what is prison for? Just for punishment? If so, is the punishment over when the sentence has been served? Did the original judge put a tariff on the sentence that mentioned deportation?

I think prison serves several functions; punishment, prevention from re-offending, rehabilitation, and society's revenge. In this case, what do you think has been achieved?

Punishment? Seems so, but not enough for everybody's taste.
Rehabilitation? Apparently successful. There seems to be a belief that he'll not re-offend.
Prevention from re-offending? Well, as far as I know he didn't kill anybody else.
Revenge? Not enough, obviously, but that's a matter for the original trial judge and not the tabloid press.


As opposed to the rights of the victims and their families? I think they should always get precedence.
There's always a balance to be struck. It will ALWAYS seem that victims' families get a raw deal unless stoneing is suddenly re-introduced. Now the only group widely in favour if that are those calling for a global Caliphate. We know how popular they are.
 

·
I provide much-needed sarcasm.
Joined
·
4,099 Posts
He like you is European, an EU citizen, not foreign at all. If he was American or Swiss then yes send him home, they are keen enough to do it to us.
EU citizens do not have the same rights as UK citizens. They can't vote in Parliamentary elections for a start. They can be deported. The Germans deported plenty of EU citizens during the last World Cup.

Jason
 

·
Madame Wheelie-Bin
Joined
·
5,067 Posts
What, that an adult should continue to be punished for a crime he comitted when he was a child, even though he's served his sentence? How many people do you know who never broke the law as a child?

There's always a balance to be struck. It will ALWAYS seem that victims' families get a raw deal unless stoneing is suddenly re-introduced. Now the only group widely in favour if that are those calling for a global Caliphate. We know how popular they are.
And until you're the victim of a truly heinous crime you'll always feel like that, however if you do become a victim you will learn to live with the crime but you will serve a sentence because of it for life. It never really leaves you. Not totally.
 

·
nearly new member.
Joined
·
411 Posts
I saw Phillip Lawrence's widow on TV this morning. What a heart wrenching discussion that was. I can see both sides - she was promised deportation by the judge - her words not mine - and he is entitled to human rights law but do kjnow that victim's are victims for life and the perpetrator (sp?) doesn't appear to
have to suffer all through life.

IMHO I think I am on her side that I wouldn't want my children walking in the same country as their father's murderer.

Interesting discussion.
 

·
nearly new member.
Joined
·
411 Posts
I saw Phillip Lawrence's widow on TV this morning. What a heart wrenching discussion that was. I can see both sides - she was promised deportation by the judge - her words not mine - and he is entitled to human rights law but do kjnow that victim's are victims for life and the perpetrator (sp?) doesn't appear to
have to suffer all through life.

IMHO I think I am on her side that I wouldn't want my children walking in the same country as their father's murderer.

Interesting discussion.
 

·
Proud to be "small minded" in the face of credulit
Joined
·
2,910 Posts
And until you're the victim of a truly heinous crime you'll always feel like that, however if you do become a victim you will learn to live with the crime but you will serve a sentence because of it for life. It never really leaves you. Not totally.
I believe you. I hope that I will never experience it. I suspect that if something like that were to happen to me I would want nothing more than to rip out the throat of whoever did it.

However, this sort of thing has happend to people close to me. It's terrible and I've seen a parent's life destroyed by the murder of his son. What really damaged this man was that his son's killer wasn't convicted.

I still don't accept that a fifteen year old's crime should stick with him for life. That's a bit too Old Testament for me.
 

·
This is my happy face!!
Joined
·
2,640 Posts
Discussion Starter · #18 ·
What, that an adult should continue to be punished for a crime he comitted when he was a child, even though he's served his sentence? How many people do you know who never broke the law as a child?
Not murderers! And as far as the 'child' goes, he was a 15 year old who was beating up (as part of a gang) a younger child, and was carrying a knife which he used to stab Philip Lawrence. Not exactly childlike behaviour.

It's hardly in the same league as an adult Albanian people trafficker who's murdered somebody. Remember that this person was a child. He's served his sentence.
I don't see the difference. A murder is a murder! And again, your child reference I believe is spurious.

This brings us to an interesting point - what is prison for? Just for punishment? If so, is the punishment over when the sentence has been served? Did the original judge put a tariff on the sentence that mentioned deportation?
I doubt that in 1995 it was deemed necessary as the HRA wasn't in place (I don't think). I may be wrong.

I think prison serves several functions; punishment, prevention from re-offending, rehabilitation, and society's revenge. In this case, what do you think has been achieved?
Punishment? Seems so, but not enough for everybody's taste.
Rehabilitation? Apparently successful. There seems to be a belief that he'll not re-offend.
Prevention from re-offending? Well, as far as I know he didn't kill anybody else.
Revenge? Not enough, obviously, but that's a matter for the original trial judge and not the tabloid press.
I'm not trying to get into a prison - punishment vs rehabilitation discussion. If after his sentence is served he is deemed to be safe, and is released then fine. But do not allow him to hide behind legislation and suggest that he shouldn't have his rights infringed, when the Lawrence family will never 'serve' their sentence.


There's always a balance to be struck. It will ALWAYS seem that victims' families get a raw deal unless stoneing is suddenly re-introduced. Now the only group widely in favour if that are those calling for a global Caliphate. We know how popular they are.
Don't know why you refer to stoning, island where criminals are sent etc. I'm not suggesting that at all.
 

·
Madame Wheelie-Bin
Joined
·
5,067 Posts
I still don't accept that a fifteen year old's crime should stick with him for life. That's a bit too Old Testament for me.
Whether he's 15 or 55, his crime WILL stick with the victim for life. Where's the justice in that? The victims do have a life sentence. And society should NEVER forget that. There isn't a day that goes by when it isn't remembered. You may not cry or grieve every day, but you remember. And sometimes you remember as vividly as the day it happened. The victims are innocent yet serve a life sentence.

And 5 years after the event I bumped into the guy who did this to my family. He smirked at me. He was 15 when it happened and was 20 and he smirked knowingly at me.

Forgive me for being "Old Testament" won't you?
 
1 - 20 of 117 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top