Phillip Lawrence's killer and his human rights

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/6955071.stm
Discuss...

Hmmm. Tough one. On the one hand, I can see the family's point. On the other, he was legally in the UK for quite some time. Plus, as an EU state, can we really keep an Italian person out when they don't actually have to show a passport to gain enty?

Also, we have paid for his incarceration for the past 10 or so years, if he is reformed and gets a job, shouldn't the UK benefit from his tax money to try and repay that?

It is a tough one..the "human rights" argument seems a little weak in many senses - on either count...if he had a legal right to be here.... it is difficult not to feel the emotion of the family; had he been a British born citizen, then the whole thing wouldnt have come to this point however.

Of course as to whether anyone who commits murder should be out at all is a whole separate debate. Which is probably the crux of the family's pain.

What's the point in deporting someone to a country where they've never lived and have no family infrastructure. This guy being 'nominally' Italian is irrelevant - he's served his time, and if the parole board say it's OK to let him out, then let him out.

His partial 'foreigness' is a red herring. If the killer had been any other 15 year old kid at that school, he'd be getting out round about now and the Lawrence family would have to deal with it - just as other victims of crime have to. I don't want to sound unsympathetic, but shipping this guy off to Italy won't make any positive difference. He can hop on the next Ryanair flight back again.

I am with the family on this one, send him back.

But I doubt he was a member of a gang back before he moved here, can't it be argued that it was british cultural influence that affected him? Not Italian?

One of the key reasons people reoffend is because they leave prison with no support network. If this guy's family stood by him and will help him when he gets out then why send him to a country he doesn't know.

It's harsh, but the feelings of the family of the deceased aren't the priority here. The families of other victims have to live with their killers being around the UK after their release. Why is this different?

This bloke's rights are secondary to me. His rights went out the window the moment he knifed that poor teacher to death. Hes an Italian national with an Italian passport - send the fukker back - scum.

WormThatTurned wrote:

This bloke's rights are secondary to me. His rights went out the window the moment he knifed that poor teacher to death. Hes an Italian national with an Italian passport - send the fukker back - scum.

What's the point?

Did you read the original link that Helen posted? If the people they interviewed are to be believed, this kid looks like one of the few that are set to come out of the prison system better than they went in. We lock people up in the hope that they spend a long time thinking about what they did wrong and come out determined to never do something like that again.

They do the crime, they serve their time and when they come out again, we as an allegedly civilised society, should give them a chance to prove they are reformed. Not just assume that every ex-offender is a scum bag looking for the first opportunity to get locked up again.

Why is this guy any different from all the other murderers who've completed their sentences?

What a shame we can't deport all the bad guys to Australia any more.

My neighbour runs a delivery company and recently took a chance on giving a job to a guy who'd just spent 18 years inside for murder. That's the way justice works - you do wrong, you get punished, you admit your errors and you get another chance.

I don't have the stats but I've been told that murder has the lowest re-offending rate of any of the major crimes. Very rarely does anyone do it twice - most get 'carried away', make one big mistake and after a long time inside, they aren't going to do it again.

Yes, what a shame we cant deport foreigners who commit murder on our soil. The two main things I take from this whole thing are ;

1. Why is he out after 12 years anyway ? He should serve at least double that.
2. What is the point of the human rights act ? I'd scrap it and revise our own bill of rights.

1 - I'd agree with you.
2 - There is quite a big point to the human rights act.

But regardless, he is an EU citizen and as such, whether we deport him or not, he is allowed into the country without going through passport control How would the UK enforce it?

Of course there is a different perspective on the killer today....on bbc.co.uk among others.



I think the whole Human Rights thing is vastly misunderstood by the public at large.

I think the issue has certainly centred around the wrong issue, i.e. that of deportation, (which sounds pretty unenforceable) rather than that of whether the punishment fits the crime etc.

WormThatTurned wrote:

Yes, what a shame we cant deport foreigners who commit murder on our soil. The two main things I take from this whole thing are ;

1. Why is he out after 12 years anyway ? He should serve at least double that.
2. What is the point of the human rights act ? I'd scrap it and revise our own bill of rights.

Funny that the same people who ask 'why is he out' are often the first to say 'why are the prisons so full'. He'll be out because he'll have served a large part of his life sentence. Better to ask why some killers get out in 7 or 8 - 12 is a pretty long stretch and if you consider his age when he did his crime, he's spent almost half his life inside.

Human rights - I've not mentioned them once in this discussion. I don't see this as a rights issue - it's just a case of one more bad guy getting let out. My question is why should he be any different from the others.

The basis issue behind this controversy (in my mind) is whether or not the family of the victim have any say in justice. And, like it or not, the answer is, always has been and probably always should be 'no or not much'.

koshkha wrote:

The basis issue behind this controversy (in my mind) is whether or not the family of the victim have any say in justice. And, like it or not, the answer is, always has been and probably always should be 'no or not much'.

I would agree with that. If if was me, I know I would not be of sound mind to make a fair judgement and I would be crying for him to be hung from the rooftop.

However, that is not in the interest of society and it is socity that will (and rightly should) judge and dole out punishment/rehabilitation - not the victims.

koshkha wrote:

WormThatTurned wrote:

Yes, what a shame we cant deport foreigners who commit murder on our soil. The two main things I take from this whole thing are ;

1. Why is he out after 12 years anyway ? He should serve at least double that.
2. What is the point of the human rights act ? I'd scrap it and revise our own bill of rights.

Funny that the same people who ask 'why is he out' are often the first to say 'why are the prisons so full'. He'll be out because he'll have served a large part of his life sentence. Better to ask why some killers get out in 7 or 8 - 12 is a pretty long stretch and if you consider his age when he did his crime, he's spent almost half his life inside.

7 or 8 or 12 years to me isnt a life sentence and isnt a deterrent to murder. This boy even if he was a teenager at the time should serve at least 25 years.

Those boys that murdered Jamie Bulger are out and have been given different names. For what they did, they should be still inside too.

Personally Id like to see capital punishment return. But it never will.

Lets try and not take this off topic. I'm sure we have discussed CP before and this is a different issue.

An asylum seeker ,who admitted he shot at us in Afghanistan for the Taliban, is being allowed to stay on in Scotland with full housing and heating until his case is heard. What case! Hes the enemey-he has addmited he was in the Taliban!.What is he doing here!