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.