The unwanted

MagicSean

Following on from the riot thread and to a lesser extent the death penalty one, there's been talk of evicting tenants from council houses if they were involved in the riots. I can't really see the long term benefit in this strategy. Those people cannot support themselves and will either be given another home by another council or will live on the streets. You might think they deserve it and you could be right. But if you put that aside is it not a situation were you are just shifting the problem around the country indefinitely? If a family is determined to be ***** wherever they go will eviction make any difference?

So I was wondering, should there be a system whereby citizenship can be revoked and a person can be expelled from the country? I'm talking about repeat offenders with multiple convictions who do nothing but drain society, either by robbing others or taking up prison spaces. It could also be implemented as an alternative to the death penalty.

Basically it's a matter of saying "We as a society do not want you in our community anymore. You can leave the country for good or spend the rest of your life in solitary confinement."

pragmatic1

Yep. I have zero sympathy for scumbags. They just make life harder than it has to be.

southsiderosie

Why would other countries want your scumbags?

Magic Beans

Great idea. :rolleyes: How can they leave the country with a passport? Who will take them?

the keen edge

southsiderosie wrote: »

Why would other countries want your scumbags?

To satisfy the global scumbag shortage silly.

A certain number of scumbags are required in every country in order for it to work properly.

Socially we need some scumbags.

MagicSean

southsiderosie wrote: »

Why would other countries want your scumbags?

They can use them as cheap labour for all I care

Magic Beans wrote: »

Great idea. :rolleyes: How can they leave the country with a passport? Who will take them?

That wouldn't really be our problem. The option is there for them to find somewhere else that will take them or go to prison.

Guill

Send them all to an island somewhere, i think there is a movie in that. Oh wait...

Magic Beans

If they can't leave then they are still our problem.

looky loo

Put them all in a rocket, blast it into outer space......its the only way to be sure!...

Logical Fallacy

Seriously, AH just gets dumber by the day

Herb Powell

Quite the fuccked up idea

twinQuins

There's one colossal problem with your idea: if their only citizenship is revoked where the **** are they going to go? No, forget where, how are they going to be deported when they have no citizenship?
And what would happen to the property they own? Would that all be seized? If not how can they keep it if they're not citizens of that country and, as such, can't be sent anywhere else?

I can't even imagine the legal and bureaucratic nightmare that would come of having a bunch of people with no nationality.

But this is a pisstake, right? I mean no one could honestly come up with such a ridiculously stupid idea right?


Right?

The Internet Explorer

A great bunch of lads.

MagicSean

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

Seriously, AH just gets dumber by the day

Yet you continue to read and post on it.

sdanseo

I don't agree that citizenship should be revokable unless a person leaves the country and clearly intends not to return, or takes up citizenship somewhere else after they gained Irish citizenship.

However, anyone not a citizen who is found guilty of committing a serious crime in this country, or anyone committing repeated minor crimes on say, a three-strikes type rule, should be immediately deported for ten years.

MagicSean

twinQuins wrote: »

There's one colossal problem with your idea: if their only citizenship is revoked where the **** are they going to go? No, forget where, how are they going to be deported when they have no citizenship?
And what would happen to the property they own? Would that all be seized? If not how can they keep it if they're not citizens of that country and, as such, can't be sent anywhere else?

I can't even imagine the legal and bureaucratic nightmare that would come of having a bunch of people with no nationality.

But this is a pisstake, right? I mean no one could honestly come up with such a ridiculously stupid idea right?


Right?

Deportation is probably the wrong word to use. It's an option given to them. Leave the country or go to prison. I've seen judges give the option to foreign folk before so it's not really unheard of.

I don't get your point about property. As far as I know you don't have to be a citizen to own property. Or they can sell it.

It may be difficult to implement but so was the Criminal Assets Bureau and that worked out for the better. Just because something might be difficult it doesn't mean it should be avoided, especially if the benefits outweigh the costs.

My name is URL

Maybe if the courts and prisons weren't filled with people who have committed trivial crimes, there'd be more resources and space to punish those who are actually a threat to society. What sort of deterrent is there for potential criminals when just the other day, our Justice Minister said that serious offenders are likely to be released earlier because of overcrowding? This country is still run by idiots, and the people that vote for them.

goat2

the three guys who were interviewed while wearing hoodies and scarves around their faces, commenting while pointing at the flats, guess they came from them, dont deserve to be in them, they were big men behind the scarves, wonder what way they will behave when they are caught (crying wolfe i guess) one saying it was like christmas with his new tv, the three wearing top of the range new shoes that they thieved, one of them saying he stole nappies for his baby, i wonder what the generation after them will be like, if that is the kind of parent he is, it is frightning

MagicSean

My name is URL wrote: »

Maybe if the courts and prisons weren't filled with people who have committed trivial crimes, there'd be more resources and space to punish those who are actually a threat to society. What sort of deterrent is there for potential criminals when just the other day, our Justice Minister said that serious offenders are likely to be released earlier because of overcrowding? This country is still run by idiots, and the people that vote for them.

What seems like a trivial crime to you may not be to the vicitm. A simple theft or burglary can have drastic effects on the victim in some cases.

If the repeat offenders were not taking up room there would be a better chance of rehabilitating those that want to change as there would be much less strain on resources.

The alternative is to build more prisons to hold the long term servers or new facilities for low risk prisoners with minimum security.

goat2 wrote: »

the three guys who were interviewed while wearing hoodies and scarves around their faces, commenting while pointing at the flats, guess they came from them, dont deserve to be in them, they were big men behind the scarves, wonder what way they will behave when they are caught (crying wolfe i guess) one saying it was like christmas with his new tv, the three wearing top of the range new shoes that they thieved, one of them saying he stole nappies for his baby, i wonder what the generation after them will be like, if that is the kind of parent he is, it is frightning

One of them told the reporter he had emailed his CV to the Comet store. Shouldn't be too hard to find.

twinQuins

Seanbeag1 wrote: »

Deportation is probably the wrong word to use. It's an option given to them. Leave the country or go to prison. I've seen judges give the option to foreign folk before so it's not really unheard of.

I've highlighted the key words there. If you revoke the citizenship of an English person and they only have English citizenship you can't just turf them out. You can't really do anything with them as it's simply a situation that has never (well, there was one rather unique situation in France that's not really applicable though) happened.

What do you propose are done with such people? Just hope that another country takes them in and gives them citizenship? Because I really don't see that happening.

I don't get your point about property. As far as I know you don't have to be a citizen to own property. Or they can sell it.

So just like that all their property is seized? So not only are you stripping them of their only citizenship, they'll also have no property?

It may be difficult to implement but so was the Criminal Assets Bureau and that worked out for the better. Just because something might be difficult it doesn't mean it should be avoided, especially if the benefits outweigh the costs.

I don't think you understand how CAB works. They don't seize a person's entire assets, which is, as far as I can see, what you're saying here. They seize assets that are criminal.

In this case, the people legally own their assets so I don't see how they could be legally seized and if they could you're opening a very, very dangerous precedent.
But I'd rather concentrate on how you plan to deal with people who have no citizenship.

Stinicker

I suggest we depot them to Somalia, which is effectively a no-mans land with no functioning Government, last time we did this by sending convicts to Van Diemans Land it turned out very well. Somalia could be colonised by our unwanted and after a few decades of them oppressing the "native savages" like happened in Australia with the aboriginies you'd get a nice new civilised country.

Or it could descend into chaos too who knows!

D1stant

Psst France. C'mere you wouldnt mind taking Larry Murphy and a few thousand other knackers off us would ya? Ta

The King of Moo

We should build camps in the countryside where they'd all have to do hard labour, and be made to concentrate hard on everything they've done, concentrate on the crimes they've committed, concentrate on why they became scumbags and so forth.

I wonder what we could call these camps...

I can't wait till all the furore over the riots dies down and hopefully the daily scumbag threads dwindle away when people forget about this fad and find some other target.

My name is URL

Seanbeag1 wrote: »

What seems like a trivial crime to you may not be to the vicitm. A simple theft or burglary can have drastic effects on the victim in some cases.

Crimes in which people are victimised are not the ones which I'd consider to be trivial. Being found in possession of drugs, or failing to pay a TV licence etc, are. And so much time is spent on processing and imprisoning people for those sort of crimes that there is simply less time, money and resources available to adequately deal with more serious offences.

MagicSean

twinQuins wrote: »

I've highlighted the key words there. If you revoke the citizenship of an English person and they only have English citizenship you can't just turf them out. You can't really do anything with them as it's simply a situation that has never (well, there was one rather unique situation in France that's not really applicable though) happened.

What do you propose are done with such people? Just hope that another country takes them in and gives them citizenship? Because I really don't see that happening.

You may be right. Maybe they should be allowed keep their citizenship if it is their sole citizenship.

twinQuins wrote: »

So just like that all their property is seized? So not only are you stripping them of their only citizenship, they'll also have no property?

I don't know where you are getting this from. I never mentioned seizing their property. You brought that up. I don't see what would prevent them from owning property even if they were no longer a citizen.

twinQuins wrote: »

I don't think you understand how CAB works. They don't seize a person's entire assets, which is, as far as I can see, what you're saying here. They seize assets that are criminal.

In this case, the people legally own their assets so I don't see how they could be legally seized and if they could you're opening a very, very dangerous precedent.
But I'd rather concentrate on how you plan to deal with people who have no citizenship.

I don't think you get my point about CAB. I wasn't talking about what they do. I used them as an example of something which was difficult to implement but was well worth it. Again, nothing to do with seizing their property.

MagicSean

My name is URL wrote: »

Crimes in which people are victimised are not the ones which I'd consider to be trivial. Being found in possession of drugs, or failing to pay a TV licence etc, are. And so much time is spent on processing and imprisoning people for those sort of crimes that there is simply less time, money and resources available to adequately deal with more serious offences.

Well in that we are in agreement. Simple posession in small quantity, tv licence, civil debts, dog licence. None of these should come near prison. But I would doubt there is that many of them. I've yet to see one person being sent to prison for any of them.

MagicSean

D1stant wrote: »

Psst France. C'mere you wouldnt mind taking Larry Murphy and a few thousand other knackers off us would ya? Ta

Isn't Larry Murphy in Holland? They didn't seem to mind. Plenty of our crime lords in Spain too. No problem there.

Sonnenblumen

Seanbeag1 wrote: »

Following on from the riot thread and to a lesser extent the death penalty one, there's been talk of evicting tenants from council houses if they were involved in the riots. I can't really see the long term benefit in this strategy. Those people cannot support themselves and will either be given another home by another council or will live on the streets. You might think they deserve it and you could be right. But if you put that aside is it not a situation were you are just shifting the problem around the country indefinitely? If a family is determined to be ***** wherever they go will eviction make any difference?

So I was wondering, should there be a system whereby citizenship can be revoked and a person can be expelled from the country? I'm talking about repeat offenders with multiple convictions who do nothing but drain society, either by robbing others or taking up prison spaces. It could also be implemented as an alternative to the death penalty.

Basically it's a matter of saying "We as a society do not want you in our community anymore. You can leave the country for good or spend the rest of your life in solitary confinement."

Yeah, put them on a train.

twinQuins

Seanbeag1 wrote: »

You may be right. Maybe they should be allowed keep their citizenship if it is their sole citizenship.

The alternative is treading entirely new legal waters and, as I've said, I can't even begin to imagine what it would entail.

I don't know where you are getting this from. I never mentioned seizing their property. You brought that up. I don't see what would prevent them from owning property even if they were no longer a citizen.

Okay, I think I haven't been clear: if you revoke their citizenship, what will become of their house (presuming it's privately owned) and all their belongings in it? If they're no longer citizens would they be allowed to reside in it? If so what would be the point of revoking their citizenship?
And if you can't deport them where would they go? Would they be left in the streets? Would you set up communal housing (self-defeating somewhat)? Jail them?

In any case, I think this should make apparent the problems inherent with revoking someone's sole citizenship.

MagicSean

twinQuins wrote: »

The alternative is treading entirely new legal waters and, as I've said, I can't even begin to imagine what it would entail.



Okay, I think I haven't been clear: if you revoke their citizenship, what will become of their house (presuming it's privately owned) and all their belongings in it? If they're no longer citizens would they be allowed to reside in it? If so what would be the point of revoking their citizenship?
And if you can't deport them where would they go? Would they be left in the streets? Would you set up communal housing (self-defeating somewhat)? Jail them?

In any case, I think this should make apparent the problems inherent with revoking someone's sole citizenship.

In the unlikely event that they own the house, they can sell their house, rent it out, leave it idle. Their citizenship status wouldn't really affect their ownership.

As i said, deport was the wrong word because it implies bringing them somewhere in specific. Expel would be a more accurate word. Find another country or go to prison for good. Leave it to them to find an alternative country.

MagicSean

Sonnenblumen wrote: »

Yeah, put them on a train.

It appears you are attempting to make some reference to the holocaust. I would hope not because I would consider it disgusting if you were to compare the persecution of the Jews to the punishment of convicted criminals.

twinQuins

Seanbeag1 wrote: »

[...]Expel would be a more accurate word. Find another country or go to prison for good. Leave it to them to find an alternative country.

Okay but considering that they have no passport and no nationality I'd like you to tell me how, exactly, they would go about doing that.

Fremen

That is a fúcking brilliant idea! Just send them to another country!

While we're at it, let's build some nuclear plants and ship the waste to another country! Export our debts to another country!

It's a flawless plan. Yep, cannot see one single flaw.

JuliusCaesar

Stinicker wrote: »

I suggest we depot them to Somalia, which is effectively a no-mans land with no functioning Government, last time we did this by sending convicts to Van Diemans Land it turned out very well. Somalia could be colonised by our unwanted and after a few decades of them oppressing the "native savages" like happened in Australia with the aboriginies you'd get a nice new civilised country.

From here:

The total Tasmanian Aborigines population was estimated at between 5000 - 10,000 people at the time of European settlement in 1803. However due to persecution and disease from the white settlers and Australian convicts the population dwindled to less than 300 by 1833. The entire Tasmanian Aboriginal population was then moved to Flinders Island where the population sadly continued to decrease. The last remaining full-blooded Tasmanian Aborigine is generally agreed to be Truganini who died in 1876

MagicSean

twinQuins wrote: »

Okay but considering that they have no passport and no nationality I'd like you to tell me how, exactly, they would go about doing that.

I already conceded that they should be allowed keep their citizenship if it is their sole citizenship. It would make the whole thing easier to implement, requiring only a small constitutional ammendment and piece of legislation.

Fremen

Seanbeag1 wrote: »

Well in that we are in agreement. Simple posession in small quantity, tv licence, civil debts, dog licence. None of these should come near prison. But I would doubt there is that many of them. I've yet to see one person being sent to prison for any of them.

Ok, let me drop the sarcasm. Just because an idea pops into your head, it doesn't follow that the idea is a good idea.

Out of interest, have you ever actually looked at prison statistics?

twinQuins

So, they keep their citizenship but are expelled... where? How? Who will take them? What incentive would be offered; basically, why would they take them?
What kind of status would they have? They're not refugees and they're not asylum seekers so would you be willing to create a whole new class under international law? How would you convince the international community to do so?

Let's say no country is willing to take them, what then? Jail?

MagicSean

Fremen wrote: »

Ok, let me drop the sarcasm. Just because an idea pops into your head, it doesn't follow that the idea is a good idea.

Out of interest, have you ever actually looked at prison statistics?

No. I had difficulty finding useful statistics on this matter. My opinion is based on personal experience.

twinQuins wrote: »

So, they keep their citizenship but are expelled... where? How? Who will take them? What incentive would be offered; basically, why would they take them?
What kind of status would they have? They're not refugees and they're not asylum seekers so would you be willing to create a whole new class under international law? How would you convince the international community to do so?

Let's say no country is willing to take them, what then? Jail?

You don't need a new class under international law. The judge gives the convicted criminal an option. Leave the country or go to jail for life. i think you are overcomplicating the matter. If they retain their citizenship they can travel freely to another EU country for one thing.

odnauq

The King of Moo wrote: »

We should build camps in the countryside where they'd all have to do hard labour, and be made to concentrate hard on everything they've done, concentrate on the crimes they've committed, concentrate on why they became scumbags and so forth.

I wonder what we could call these camps...


They were called Industrial Schools

Fremen

Seanbeag1 wrote: »

No. I had difficulty finding useful statistics on this matter. My opinion is based on random guesswork.

Here you go. Note that about 25 - 30% of prison commitals are for non-payment of fines (edit: and road traffic offences).

My name is URL

Seanbeag1 wrote: »

It appears you are attempting to make some reference to the holocaust. I would hope not because I would consider it disgusting if you were to compare the persecution of the Jews to the punishment of convicted criminals.

It happens quite a bit. Read any local newspaper on any given week and you'll see mention of somebody being in court for non-payment of a fine/tax/licence fee. It's not just the courts time that is wasted.. the Gardai could be doing better things than acting as debt collectors for the state.

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/courts/3500-jailed-for-not-paying-fines-2042095.html

twinQuins

First off, expulsion implies a certain level of coercion which is where assigning them some new class under international law comes from. If they're being forced to leave their country and cannot return... well, it's not very clear cut.
Now, let's say for whatever reason they have to be deported from the country they go to, what then? Just ship them off to another country?

What if your new law doesn't fall under freedom of movement (let's say, for the sake of argument, due to the fact that they're doing so under duress)?

You may think I'm overcomplicating this but I think you just haven't fully thought it through.

Sonnenblumen

Seanbeag1 wrote: »

It appears you are attempting to make some reference to the holocaust. I would hope not because I would consider it disgusting if you were to compare the persecution of the Jews to the punishment of convicted criminals.

It appears you're thinking through your ass.

Fremen

For the record, the UK tried something like this in the past, as did the Russians (but with far nastier consequences).

MagicSean

My name is URL wrote: »

It happens quite a bit. Read any local newspaper on any given week and you'll see mention of somebody being in court for non-payment of a fine/tax/licence fee. It's not just the courts time that is wasted.. the Gardai could be doing better things than acting as debt collectors for the state.

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/courts/3500-jailed-for-not-paying-fines-2042095.html

Non payment of fines which follow a criminal conviction are handled by Gardaí and result in prison time and deservedly so in my opinion. A fine upon conviction is an option. Pay cash or go to jail. If a person chooses jail instead of payment I can't see the problem in this. I don't see it as a waste either. What is the alternative?

twinQuins wrote: »

First off, expulsion implies a certain level of coercion which is where assigning them some new class under international law comes from. If they're being forced to leave their country and cannot return... well, it's not very clear cut.
Now, let's say for whatever reason they have to be deported from the country they go to, what then? Just ship them off to another country?

What if your new law doesn't fall under freedom of movement (let's say, for the sake of argument, due to the fact that they're doing so under duress)?

You may think I'm overcomplicating this but I think you just haven't fully thought it through.

If I was told I could go to jail or leave the country I would not consider myself to be coerced. I would be delighted with the opportunity to avoid prison. I'm not saying their wouldn't be some hurdles in the implementation but I don't see why that should bar its consideration.

Your talking about shipping them off. I'm talking about giving them a choice. Do your time or leave the country. If your that big of a scumbag that you can't find a country willing to take you then you belong in jail.

Sonnenblumen wrote: »

It appears you're thinking through your ass.

Are you going to deny it was a reference to the holocaust or are insults and vague criticisms the extent of your intellectual capacity?

Fremen wrote: »

For the record, the UK tried something like this in the past, as did the Russians (but with far nastier consequences).

Australia is doing ok for itself.

Fremen

Seanbeag1 wrote: »

Australia is doing ok for itself.

Never said it wasn't. Siberia, on the other hand, not so much.

My name is URL

Seanbeag1 wrote: »

Non payment of fines which follow a criminal conviction are handled by Gardaí and result in prison time and deservedly so in my opinion. A fine upon conviction is an option. Pay cash or go to jail. If a person chooses jail instead of payment I can't see the problem in this. I don't see it as a waste either. What is the alternative?

There's plenty of alternatives. Community service being the most obvious. Do you not see the idiocy in sending somebody to jail at a cost of €100,000 per year for not paying a €1,000 fine?

MagicSean

My name is URL wrote: »

There's plenty of alternatives. Community service being the most obvious. Do you not see the idiocy in sending somebody to jail at a cost of €100,000 per year for not paying a €1,000 fine?

And if they don't do the community service?

4Sheets

Think its over? Its not it will fester,,the olympics could be a dodgy affair.I know a country that could take them? Ireland why not.we are the basketcases beholden to the EU and the UK and the IMF!!.I have a feeling Brixton was torched for reason and the rebuild will be a modern area prob high rent..

Hot off the press..new UK gangsta rap..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i9iBIy_YASI

Logical Fallacy

Seanbeag1 wrote: »

Yet you continue to read and post on it.

Well of course, the title was pretty innocuous, so i had me a look see to find out who, or what, was this "unwanted".

And if i didn't imply how moronic the essence of your thread was I was pretty certain you wouldn't be able to work it out on your own.

Thankfully there are more than a few people trying to point out the folly of your half baked mental excretion so this thread is actually restoring my faith somewhat.

stovelid

Cut off benefits to rioters is also a top idea.

That way they'll finally just instantly get a well-paid professional job and not resort to even more criminality to earn money.