Danger To Whose Public?
There's Britain at it again. Simply no end to its liberal-left empathy for the underdog. And the underdog can be represented by a ravening, rabidly-infected hound whose psychosis may have him inflicting death upon unwary, normal others within society. But his rights must, above all, be protected.Truly, what a society. In concern for the well-being of one individual, a malefactor no less, the safety and security of the majority is placed on tender hold.
Two British pre-teens whose "toxic home life" had outfitted them to assume the mantle of psychopaths pursuing the path of vicious violence - lured two other youngsters to where they could rob, beat and stab the 10 and 9 year-olds, force them to commit sexually degrading acts - were initially charged with attempted murder as a result of the serious injury inflicted on their victims.
A horrified but sympathetic judge has sentenced them to "at least" five years in custody. Of course, children so young cannot be publicly named; they must be shielded and protected.
These young brutes demonstrated not one iota of remorse, one having informed the questioning police that he had been bored, therefore had been inspired to commit those brutal offences. Offensive to people at large, to the judiciary, to the children victimized, but a tedium-relief for the two brothers.
Whoops, here's another one. The Telegraph did an expose on killers and pedophiles and other offenders dangerous to society who had skilfully made use of the Human Rights Act to avoid deportation to their home countries.
The Immigration Minister reported a record 5,400 such foreign criminals had been deported in 2008. Yet other disclosures include the information that the country's Asylum and Immigration Tribunal makes it their business to overturn the Home Office's deportation intentions of foreign criminals, once they have served their sentences.
A paranoid schizophrenic born in Iraq who emigrated to Britain as a youth murdered two doctors, but thanks to the AIT he will not be deported to Iraq once he is released from the secure hospital where he has spent the last 19 years in detention. He killed two National Health Service consultants for good enough reason, for who could not respond to a "command from Allah"?
Now he is set to be freed from incarceration.
However, it is unreasonable to return him to the country of his birth, according to the AIT, for once there, it is not seen to be likely that he would receive the drugs capable of controlling his mental illness.
"If his present treatment ... were to be discontinued, as would most likely be the case if he were to be removed to Iraq, the potential consequences would be extremely serious for (Laith Alani) himself, and potentially life-threatening for innocent third parties around him in the event of his likely, indeed almost inevitable, relapse into a state of paranoid schizophrenia."
There we have it. A compassionate refugee board has the full interests of those whom they represent uppermost in mind. The larger picture, that of a released inmate deciding he no longer requires the medications that kept him under control while in hospital, and thus sending him off on another killing spree, victimizing other Britons seems of little concern.
But deportation would conceivably breach Laith Alani's "right to a private and family life".
The widow of one of the medical doctors Mr. Alani murdered feels otherwise. "I think he should be deported. I argued that at the time of the trial. I think he is going to be a danger to people in Britain. He is a dangerous man."
Oh well. That's her impression, isn't it?
Labels: Biology, Britain, Health, Human Rights, Justice
posted by Pieface @ Monday, January 25, 2010
<< Home