Compensation for child rapist's lengthy detention

[caravel]

Another example of our great justice system, and the asylum system.

[Fragony]

Saddest is that he will no doubt get it, being a victim of the cruel brittish society first and being sexually troubled second, and of course, most importantly, the poor guy being very very traumatised which is not fun at all. I see a great task for numerous social workers here, or any other moneysponch that have the extremily important job of juggling with tax-money

[Kralizec]

Could have been worse. He could have been released upon completing his sentence, with the polite request of reporting at the airport for deportation a couple of months later.

Come to think of it, I don't really see what could have been done better. Forced deportation to a country that's in a state of anarchy?

[Banquo's Ghost]

Could have been worse. He could have been released upon completing his sentence, with the polite request of reporting at the airport for deportation a couple of months later.

Come to think of it, I don't really see what could have been done better. Forced deportation to a country that's in a state of anarchy?

That's the challenge of cases like this.

The extraordinary decision is to award him compensation for the extended detention. Clearly, it would have been dangerous for him to be sent back to Somalia. Moreover, he did not want to go.

If he did not wish to accept the choice of deportation (as the law requires for a criminal non-citizen) then de facto he has to accept the restrictions that then arise - to whit, detention. If he doesn't want to be detained further to protect society, he can chose to return to his war-torn but not particulary dangerous (to him as an individual, as opposed to a political dissident who might be actively targetted) country.

If he wants to be safe in jail, fine. There are those who will complain about the cost of keeping him in jail, but I support his right to be safe. But I also support the right of citizens to be safe from this convicted armed rapist - either by taking him out of the country, or keeping him locked up. He's lucky he gets the choice.

There is no case for compensation.

[Vuk]

That's the challenge of cases like this.

The extraordinary decision is to award him compensation for the extended detention. Clearly, it would have been dangerous for him to be sent back to Somalia. Moreover, he did not want to go.

If he did not wish to accept the choice of deportation (as the law requires for a criminal non-citizen) then de facto he has to accept the restrictions that then arise - to whit, detention. If he doesn't want to be detained further to protect society, he can chose to return to his war-torn but not particulary dangerous (to him as an individual, as opposed to a political dissident who might be actively targetted) country.

If he wants to be safe in jail, fine. There are those who will complain about the cost of keeping him in jail, but I support his right to be safe. But I also support the right of citizens to be safe from this convicted armed rapist - either by taking him out of the country, or keeping him locked up. He's lucky he gets the choice.

There is no case for compensation.

If you put him to death you will keep the rest of society safe, not have to pay for him, and, keep his fellow prisoners safe. It is because of people like him that prisoners have to worry about being sexually abused. If you just put the dirtbags to death, there would be hardly any crime, and society would be a hell of a lot safer.

[Banquo's Ghost]

If you put him to death you will keep the rest of society safe, not have to pay for him, and, keep his fellow prisoners safe. It is because of people like him that prisoners have to worry about being sexually abused. If you just put the dirtbags to death, there would be hardly any crime, and society would be a hell of a lot safer.

Prisoners have to worry about sexual abuse?

Is that all "dirtbags" that should be put to death, or is there a crime which merits mere imprisonment?

I'd be interested in seeing any evidence you have of a country that executes criminals and where there is consequently hardly any crime. China, for example, executes many thousands of convicts each year and is not noticeably crime free.

[Crazed Rabbit]

This fool has become his own jailor; he files appeals and then complain that they take time.

One question, though:

The Somali national completed his eight-year prison sentence for the rape of a 13-year-old girl more than three years ago, but continues to be detained under immigration laws as the Government attempts to arrange for his removal back to Somalia.

The 30-year-old arrived in the UK in May 1995 and was convicted three years later. The court heard the Home Office takes the view he will now soon be removed. There was also a high risk of him absconding if released into the community, and that he would be a danger to the public if he did abscond.

If I read that correctly, he was convicted in 1998 and sentenced to 8 years, but his sentence ended three years ago, or in 2003. Unless I'm mistaken, 2003-1998 is five years for raping a 13 year old...

@BG- Doesn't Thailand or some other southeastern Asian state have really low crime due to very severe punishments?

CR

[Vuk]

Prisoners have to worry about sexual abuse?

Is that all "dirtbags" that should be put to death, or is there a crime which merits mere imprisonment?

I'd be interested in seeing any evidence you have of a country that executes criminals and where there is consequently hardly any crime. China, for example, executes many thousands of convicts each year and is not noticeably crime free.

China's problems are not its excecutions and cannot be solved be excecutions...but the less said about that the better...
No one is going to want to go rape, degrade and humiliate some poor girl if they know they will be killed for it. Likewise, a murderer. While it would not stop crime completely, it would really help!
Yes, prisoners do have to look out for that.
No, I think that a thief should have to pay back double/seven times what he stole, depending on the occasion. The rules are all laid down in The Bible. (ooooo....That evil book.....).

[Banquo's Ghost]

If I read that correctly, he was convicted in 1998 and sentenced to 8 years, but his sentence ended three agos, or in 2003. Unless I'm mistaken, 2003-1998 is five years for raping a 13 year old...

Sadly, the UK has a system where most criminals are given a sentence, but expect to serve only half of that time. Yes, it is very bizarre. I have yet to understand any rationale for it except that the prisons are full to bursting - so logically, let the little darlings free.

@BG- Doesn't Thailand or some other southeastern Asian state have really low crime due to very severe punishments?

I believe you're thinking of Singapore, which has one of the highest execution rates per capita (70 out of a population of 4 million in 2005) and one of the lowest crime rates. If Vuk had caught me with that one, I would have had a hard time eating crow.

Except Singapore is widely acknowledged as being an unusual society, with very restrictive social norms (perhaps the conservative's paradise, perhaps not) and most researchers find it difficult to extrapolate to other countries. But its experience is certainly a good argument on the capital side.

Everywhere else the death penalty applies shows conflicting data on deterrence. In 2005, 94 per cent of all known executions took place in China, Iran, Saudi Arabia and the USA - not happy company for the US, and none of these are known for their low crime rates.

[Scurvy]

If you put him to death you will keep the rest of society safe, not have to pay for him, and, keep his fellow prisoners safe. It is because of people like him that prisoners have to worry about being sexually abused. If you just put the dirtbags to death, there would be hardly any crime, and society would be a hell of a lot safer.

--> lets just kill off all the car owners in the UK, no more car crashes, so society would be a hell of a lot safer

Sadly, the UK has a system where most criminals are given a sentence, but expect to serve only half of that time. Yes, it is very bizarre. I have yet to understand any rationale for it except that the prisons are full to bursting - so logically, let the little darlings free.

They have to serve half of it - and get let out if they have behaved well. Why keep someone in prison when they might change --> we are talking mainly about fairly low level crime, like theft or vioent behavior, its very rare for mass murderers or rapists to be let out particularly early...

you have to give people a chance, the primary reason for a prisons existance is to reform people, letting them out early gives them a chance, and although sadly some don't integrate back into society, the majority do (you only here about the bad ones)

[rory_20_uk]

I was under the impression that reoffending is close to, if not over 50% at the moment. So, it's nearly odds on they'll reoffend.

Of course bieng poor in society that has free healthcare, free schools, subsidised housing and handouts for the unemployed is very difficult. Obviously more should be done by the workers to help those that can't or won't help themselves.

[Fragony]

you have to give people a chance, the primary reason for a prisons existance is to reform people, letting them out early gives them a chance, and although sadly some don't integrate back into society, the majority do (you only here about the bad ones)

Because the innocent ones suffer when system fails, and we put them away to protect the good ones. Prison isn't about rehabilitation, why should it be, it's about taking a certain amount of time from someones life. I don't know where you gotten the idea that it works for most people, probably at school I'd say knowing at least how it works here after reading some of the material that is forcefed to our youths, but it simply isn't true.

[Scurvy]

I was under the impression that reoffending is close to, if not over 50% at the moment. So, it's nearly odds on they'll reoffend.

Of course bieng poor in society that has free healthcare, free schools, subsidised housing and handouts for the unemployed is very difficult. Obviously more should be done by the workers to help those that can't or won't help themselves.

reoffending for minor offences, which is bad, but longer sentances help nothing, you just delay the reoffending by a few years, the answer is to rehabilitate people in prison (something that we completely fail to do).. not keep them in prison at the taxpayers expense...

--> more should be done to help those that cant help themselves... free healthcare that is dreadfully innefficient, free schools that are useless at teaching anything, bad quality housing and free houndouts due to the fact that it is very difficult to get a job when you have poor education, lack of qualifications and limited skills, a lot more should be done...

Because the innocent ones suffer when system fails, and we put them away to protect the good ones. Prison isn't about rehabilitation, why should it be, it's about taking a certain amount of time from someones life.

prison should be about rehabilitation, what is the point in just taking time out of someones life?! it costs money, and when they do get let out they reoffend, prison should be to help people, i agree with serious offences, like murder or rape it should be much stricter. Prisons are filling up (to beyond capacity) this might stop if we concentrate more on "educating" people, and giving them greater prospects and libing standards, not by stuffing them all out of site, and then complaing about paying for them...

probably at school I'd say knowing at least how it works here after reading some of the material that is forcefed to our youths, but it simply isn't true.

thats not very nice... --> horribly patronizing/condecending ;

[Fragony]

thats not very nice... --> horribly patronizing/condecending

Would never patronize you, unless I was really angry, but I am not. Just a little dissapointed

[Reenk Roink]

I'd be interested in seeing any evidence you have of a country that executes criminals and where there is consequently hardly any crime. China, for example, executes many thousands of convicts each year and is not noticeably crime free.

Singapore and Saudi Arabia.

You're right though, that other countries like China have high execution rates and high crimes. There's more to most things than a simplistic cause-effect.

[Vuk]

reoffending for minor offences, which is bad, but longer sentances help nothing, you just delay the reoffending by a few years, the answer is to rehabilitate people in prison (something that we completely fail to do).. not keep them in prison at the taxpayers expense...

--> more should be done to help those that cant help themselves... free healthcare that is dreadfully innefficient, free schools that are useless at teaching anything, bad quality housing and free houndouts due to the fact that it is very difficult to get a job when you have poor education, lack of qualifications and limited skills, a lot more should be done...



prison should be about rehabilitation, what is the point in just taking time out of someones life?! it costs money, and when they do get let out they reoffend, prison should be to help people, i agree with serious offences, like murder or rape it should be much stricter. Prisons are filling up (to beyond capacity) this might stop if we concentrate more on "educating" people, and giving them greater prospects and libing standards, not by stuffing them all out of site, and then complaing about paying for them...



thats not very nice... --> horribly patronizing/condecending ;

I used to work in crime statistics (last year I quit to go to school full time), and I tell you that in America, the reoffender rate is a lot higher (around 70%). The reoffender rate for serious crimes (such as rape and murder) is closer to 73%. That is made off of raw data and not processed in any way as to distort.
As for lack of money being an excuse for crime, I can tell you, I probably grew up in much worse circumstances than most criminals, and I have never even gotten a speeding offence! I grew up in antarctican Wisconsin, and remember spending winters in second hand shoes because me mother could not afford boots. My father died when I was young and I had to work since I was very young. But I did work, not steal. I am white and a male, so because of all the affirmitive action bull, I had a hard time getting a job, even when I was much better qualified. Without giving away to much personal info, let me just put it like this: Poverty is no excuse for crime! As for prisons, they would not be needed if we put rape and murder victims to death. There are a host of other punishments to give small offenders. Jails are nessacarry to hold suspects temporaraly, but prisons are torturous and unnessacary. Scum should be put to death so they can't hurt other people (including people in their prison)!

[Reenk Roink]

I am white and a male, so because of all the affirmitive action bull, I had a hard time getting a job, even when I was much better qualified.

Now this is a statement I will vehemently contest. Exactly how were you passed over because of Affirmative Action? Be specific.

First, let it be known that I do not agree with the practice of affirmative action at all. But it is well known that black and hispanic people face noticible discriminations in all ranges of things.

There was a documentary that followed a black man and a white man, both from the same background, education, and career pathway (they were good friends from college) as they just went around town doing normal stuff. They even looked alike, similar hair, glasses, and a shirt and tie... It was eye opening:

The white man was noticibly greeted more politely in several stores he went into. The black man was given less attention by the same employees at the same stores. The only break from this general pattern was when both men entered a CD store. The black man was trailed.

The white man was offered a significantly lower down payment ($2500 to $3000) on a car than the black man by the same employee for the same car.

The black man and white man were walking down the same road late at night. The black man was a block in front of the white man. A police car that made routine patrols on the street clearly slowed down for the black man and the officer took quite a glance at him. The white man was simply passed over at normal speed. Also, another man in the car actually stopped and commented to the black man: "Wrong part of town ain't it?"

When inquiring about a job in a dry cleaning store, the white man got a positive answer from a current employer. The same employeer told the black man that: "I don't know anything about jobs".

Trust me buddy, Affirmative Action is overinflated. Implicit Racism is ignored...

[Scurvy]

As for lack of money being an excuse for crime, I can tell you, I probably grew up in much worse circumstances than most criminals, But I did work, not steal. .

You are an exception, the majority of people in poverty struggle, if it was a small minority then fine, but such a large amount of people do end up in criminality. You can;t seriosuly tell me that the majority of people in poverty are just lazy, and revert to crime simply because they feel like it, poverty does bring crime, its not an excuse in itself, but its a cause.. its shown all over the place that areas of relative poor have higher rates of crime, that means that something has to be done to change those areas to keep crime down,

I am white and a male, so because of all the affirmitive action bull, I had a hard time getting a job, even when I was much better qualified. Without giving away to much personal info,

Basically what Reenk said, (i actually agree with afirmative action) apart from that i think you would have a harder time getting a job, and am sympathetic, the black man might get treated worse in general, but in terms of actually being employed is greatly (and rightly - he would never get a job without it) helped by affirmative action.

As for prisons, they would not be needed if we put rape and murder victims to death.
Scum should be put to death so they can't hurt other people (including people in their prison)!

lets just kill loads of people and the problem will solve itself? people are not scum by birth, as stated before the majority of criminal come from poor backgrounds etc etc, you have to take out the causes of crime, not just kill the criminals, and then wait for more criminals to appear.



--> thanks for stats, i never realised roffending was quite that high

[Banquo's Ghost]

I used to work in crime statistics (last year I quit to go to school full time), and I tell you that in America, the reoffender rate is a lot higher (around 70%). The reoffender rate for serious crimes (such as rape and murder) is closer to 73%. That is made off of raw data and not processed in any way as to distort.

Vuk, old fruit, how do you square those figures with the fact that the USA does put murderers to death?

[Mithrandir]

--> lets just kill off all the car owners in the UK, no more car crashes, so society would be a hell of a lot safer

Rapists are guilty of a crime they intentionally commited. Car crashes are (almost) never intentional.

I'm not for killing rapists.
I'm all for castrating them

[Vuk]

Rapists are guilty of a crime they intentionally commited. Car crashes are (almost) never intentional.

I'm not for killing rapists.
I'm all for castrating them

Now if I didn't know better, I'd say that was sadistic...

Now this is a statement I will vehemently contest. Exactly how were you passed over because of Affirmative Action? Be specific.

First, let it be known that I do not agree with the practice of affirmative action at all. But it is well known that black and hispanic people face noticible discriminations in all ranges of things.

There was a documentary that followed a black man and a white man, both from the same background, education, and career pathway (they were good friends from college) as they just went around town doing normal stuff. They even looked alike, similar hair, glasses, and a shirt and tie... It was eye opening:

The white man was noticibly greeted more politely in several stores he went into. The black man was given less attention by the same employees at the same stores. The only break from this general pattern was when both men entered a CD store. The black man was trailed.

The white man was offered a significantly lower down payment ($2500 to $3000) on a car than the black man by the same employee for the same car.

The black man and white man were walking down the same road late at night. The black man was a block in front of the white man. A police car that made routine patrols on the street clearly slowed down for the black man and the officer took quite a glance at him. The white man was simply passed over at normal speed. Also, another man in the car actually stopped and commented to the black man: "Wrong part of town ain't it?"

When inquiring about a job in a dry cleaning store, the white man got a positive answer from a current employer. The same employeer told the black man that: "I don't know anything about jobs".

Trust me buddy, Affirmative Action is overinflated. Implicit Racism is ignored...

"Now this is a statement I will vehemently contest. Exactly how were you passed over because of Affirmative Action? Be specific."

My best friend got the job over me. I am not dumb enough to give away personal information, so please don't ask. She was a hispanic, and she got the job because they wanted to get more women and minorities into math and statistics. AA is nonsense. If they want the best employees, they should hire the best regardless of their sex or ethnicity, or race. If they want to give the job to someone in a bag financial position, again they shouldn't take race or sex into account. I was in a much worse position than some of the people who got hired, and new the job better. If someone is in financial trouble and you want to help them out, do it. You can't discriminate against race or sex. That defeats the whole purpose. As for AA being over-inflated, I can tell you from experience that that is a load of it. As for that documentary, it was made to illistrate that point, of course it's going to. If they wanted to prove that blacks were really aliens you would have seen little anttenas sprouting out of the black guy's head!

You are an exception, the majority of people in poverty struggle, if it was a small minority then fine, but such a large amount of people do end up in criminality. You can;t seriosuly tell me that the majority of people in poverty are just lazy, and revert to crime simply because they feel like it, poverty does bring crime, its not an excuse in itself, but its a cause.. its shown all over the place that areas of relative poor have higher rates of crime, that means that something has to be done to change those areas to keep crime down,

Basically what Reenk said, (i actually agree with afirmative action) apart from that i think you would have a harder time getting a job, and am sympathetic, the black man might get treated worse in general, but in terms of actually being employed is greatly (and rightly - he would never get a job without it) helped by affirmative action.

lets just kill loads of people and the problem will solve itself? people are not scum by birth, as stated before the majority of criminal come from poor backgrounds etc etc, you have to take out the causes of crime, not just kill the criminals, and then wait for more criminals to appear.



--> thanks for stats, i never realised roffending was quite that high

The causes of crime are those people! They are the criminals! It is hard to live a poor life, but that is no excuse to be a criminal. Let me ask you something. I grew up in a very poor part of town, was very poor, and only had one mother. I hardly ever came into contact with anyone outside of town, and rarely with anyone inside of town. I have had a bad old meany life that I could sit down and cry about forever (or just kill someone and make it all better). If I said enough is enough, tied you down, raped you, sodomized you, burnt you, and dumped you in the river, would feel justice has been served if I am put in prison for ten years and get a load of councilling that freaks me up even more before I am let loose on society again? Some times you just gotta think about yourself in these situations.

Vuk, old fruit, how do you square those figures with the fact that the USA does put murderers to death?

Only a few states, and a very small percentage of criminals deserving it. Ask the girls families what they think oughtta happen.
P.S. I am not old, being but 32.

[Mithrandir]

Now if I didn't know better, I'd say that was sadistic...

Not sadistic, it takes away their sex drive and part of the agression.

[King Henry V]

They have to serve half of it - and get let out if they have behaved well. Why keep someone in prison when they might change --> we are talking mainly about fairly low level crime, like theft or vioent behavior, its very rare for mass murderers or rapists to be let out particularly early...

I think you'll find that rapists and murderers also have the option to be left significantly early. If someone is sentenced for a so called "life" sentence for murder (20 years), then if he behaves himself well, he can be released in about 13 years. Nice that, isn't it? Someone's life is worth 13 years. Seems quite cheap when you think about it.
The primary role of prison is to be protect the public from the dangers posed by criminals. Rehabilitation has only a secondary place.

[KrooK]

nice guys, really nice
in Poland there were similar case.
rapist and murdered of 18-years-old girl sued her parents cause they called him animal
luckily MJ told him something that could be shortly tell "get lost" :)

[rory_20_uk]

Locking people up is currently expensive. There is no need for it to be so.

I agree that schools are in many cases a waste of time, as they teach people thinsg that they have no need to know, and not skills that will get them a job.

But then there are many that think that the hard graft that they will have to do is not worth it. Better be a criminal and live well and risk getting caught than struggle all one's life.

Rebhab is all very well. But there are those that wasted all their time at school doing whatever they devided was more fun. That cost a lot of money. So in prison we then need to spend more to hope that they'll now decide to learn something and not do exactly the same thing again.

Rehabilitation appears IMO to be right up there with communism. It is something that should work, and when it is shown not to work it is evident that it is not bieng done enough.

People are good at making cost / benefit decisions. If the chances of getting caught are 90% and the penalty severe, the act will have to be amazingly great to make the risk accaptable. If the risk is low and the penalty minor, then why not? That's where we are at the moment. Making the penalty even less is not likely to reduce crime.

Significant penalties such as penal batallions or labour batallions would alter the perception of cost / benefit. As would having shorter sentences for many crimes, but make the conditions in jail very unpleasant.

[Samurai Waki]

I'm willing to meet the Pro-Execution Pro-Life Parties halfway. Why don't we just perform labatomy's on anyone who goes through the prison system? They get their frontal lobe whacked off, and set free. No More reoffending, and no more lengthy prison terms. Just a horde of mindless idiots, that suck on straws for the rest of their life. C'mon, it can't be more expensive than the prison system is anyway.

[Banquo's Ghost]

I'm willing to meet the Pro-Execution Pro-Life Parties halfway. Why don't we just perform labatomy's on anyone who goes through the prison system? They get their frontal lobe whacked off, and set free. No More reoffending, and no more lengthy prison terms. Just a horde of mindless idiots, that suck on straws for the rest of their life. C'mon, it can't be more expensive than the prison system is anyway.

I dunno, Congress seems pretty costly to me.

[caravel]

Now if I didn't know better, I'd say that was sadistic...

A serial rapist/child molester is sadistic. Castration would probably provide a deterrent to stop them re-offending, and to make others think twice before doing the same, but only for those repeat offenders. The problem is that under current laws and sentencing, no real deterrent exists apart from a short spell in the nick. Which for real criminals is a walk in the park and for rapists is usual very cushy, in isolation for their own protection. Another problem is the date rape myth and binge drink rape apathy. A large proportion of the public, juries and even judges appear to be placing part of the blame on the victim for the rape if that victim is e.g. an inebriated woman, walking home alone from a night out, wearing "scanty" clothing. Basically a large proportion of people seem to think such a person is "asking for it". A worrying attitude. Recent studies also show that the use of date rape drugs are much less common than was previously thought, making the most likely culprit for the loss of all memory to be alcohol. It seems to me that many men see a drunk woman (now much more common than a few years ago) as an easy victim, that won't be taken seriously by a court or jury.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Another problem is the date rape myth and binge drink rape apathy. A large proportion of the public, juries and even judges appear to be placing part of the blame on the victim for the rape if that victim is e.g. an inebriated woman, walking home alone from a night out, wearing "scanty" clothing. Basically a large proportion of people seem to think such a person is "asking for it". A worrying attitude. Recent studies also show that the use of date rape drugs are much less common than was previously thought, making the most likely culprit for the loss of all memory to be alcohol. It seems to me that many men see a drunk woman (now much more common than a few years ago) as an easy victim, that won't be taken seriously by a court or jury.

Alcohol and rape have been thorny issues for some time. The challenge for prosecutors is that the crime has to be proven "beyond all reasonable doubt" just as with every other crime.

Since most allegations of rape take place in privacy, with just the two people involved as witnesses, most of these trials come down to the reliability of each individual's story. If a woman has been drinking, she will often have a sketchy or incomplete memory of what happened - and there is likely to be a series of events where both parties enjoyed an attraction to each other, but not necessarily to the point of sexual activity. At some point during this sequence, the woman may have wanted to stop.

For a jury, alcohol clearly confuses the issue. Was consent understood or denied? Is there some degree of culpability through too much drink? Were the events clearly recalled?

Since a man is on trial for a very serious crime, with very serious consequences, juries will often err on the side of acquittal. If the crime cannot be proven beyond reasonable doubt with no independent witnesses and the plaintiff admitting to impairment of senses, how could they find otherwise?

I don't see any way of overcoming this. Research shows it is women jurists as well as men (more so in fact) that condemn drunkeness in their peers. The point of juries is to reflect wider societal attitudes in the court room. Whilst a woman has a clear and inalienable right to say no, and be supported, defendants have the right to a fair trial and a rigorous standard of proof for the case against them.

Perhaps the answer is not to try to jig the trial process in favour of one side or another through legislation, but for everyone to use alcohol responsibly and so have their wits about them.

[Scurvy]

Perhaps the answer is not to try to jig the trial process in favour of one side or another through legislation, but for everyone to use alcohol responsibly and so have their wits about them.

Exactly