Should all convicted criminals be sent back to their original place of birth?

[Doingtheboxerbeat]

As the title suggests, or should they be punished where the crime was committed, regardless of citizenship?

Lots of people believe that Shamina Begum should never be allowed to return to the UK but should that work the other way too? And what should happen once the time has been served?

Shamina Begum was born in the UK so...

She should be allowed back to the UK to face the consequences of her actions.

I don't have sympathy with her behaviour in the slightest, but it isn't right for the government to simply wash their hands. She comes across as someone incredibly naive and easily influenced.

If she was allowed back in the UK, there is no doubt she'd be (rightly) monitored closely and if she has changed, she'll have the opportunity to prove it. If not, she'd be dealt with under the criminal justice system for the rest of her life anyway.

Do you mean should not be sent to their country of birth? Shemima should come back home and face justice here. UK can't be exporting it's problem citizens. In any case, by international law, every one has a right to citizenship. A right to family (her family is here). These are human rights and apply even to so called terrorists as the UK likes to remind the global South. It's a disgrace that UK can just flaunt this.

So with that in mind, what about criminals who commit crimes here, sentenced here and then after their release?

@GingerScallop

Do you mean should not be sent to their country of birth? Shemima should come back home and face justice here. UK can't be exporting it's problem citizens. In any case, by international law, every one has a right to citizenship. A right to family (her family is here). These are human rights and apply even to so called terrorists as the UK likes to remind the global South. It's a disgrace that UK can just flaunt this.

So are you suggesting that it is one rule for her based on her crime? And that they are just making it up as they go along?

@RedMarauder

Shamina Begum was born in the UK so...

That was precisely my point....

In normal circumstances, I think you should be tried and potentially punished wherever you broke the law.
BUT
If the law or the legal system was very corrupt and the arrest appeared wrongful, I would struggle to stand by.

You also mentioned Shamina Begum. I think that is a very different case.
There are people on here arguing that adults in their early 20s are still children really and should be forgiven for their actions. Shamina Begum was 15 when she got caught up in Isis and left home. The 'Prevent' strategy talks of people being effectively groomed into extremist views. That is surely what happened to this 15 year old?
Serious repeat criminals here are given the opportunity for rehabilitation. Yet this young woman, who was a teenage schoolgirl when she joined Isis, is not even allowed back to face justice, or to be put through a deradicalisation programme here.

Yes, I welcome all Australians

Did I get it right?

@Scarby9

In normal circumstances, I think you should be tried and potentially punished wherever you broke the law. BUT If the law or the legal system was very corrupt and the arrest appeared wrongful, I would struggle to stand by.

You also mentioned Shamina Begum. I think that is a very different case.
There are people on here arguing that adults in their early 20s are still children really and should be forgiven for their actions. Shamina Begum was 15 when she got caught up in Isis and left home. The 'Prevent' strategy talks of people being effectively groomed into extremist views. That is surely what happened to this 15 year old?
Serious repeat criminals here are given the opportunity for rehabilitation. Yet this young woman, who was a teenage schoolgirl when she joined Isis, is not even allowed back to face justice, or to be put through a deradicalisation programme here.

Well quite. So my question is, if refuge from another country who came here when young, became a citizen of this country and committed an act of terrorism, do we then send them back to their country of origin?

@RonaldMcDonald

Yes, I welcome all Australians

Did I get it right?

You are spot on 🌟, well done.

She has the right to return because she is a British citizen (or was, and should still be). Read your passport. The Queen says. Nothing to do with her crimes.

If she comes back, she will likely face charges. But that's not the question.

Separately the UK shouldn't dump its undesirables on majority world countries without the means to deal with them.

@MrsTerryPratchett

She has the right to return because she is a British citizen (or was, and should still be). Read your passport. The Queen says. Nothing to do with her crimes.

If she comes back, she will likely face charges. But that's not the question.

Separately the UK shouldn't dump its undesirables on majority world countries without the means to deal with them.

I agree with you. The reason I posted this was the overwhelming double standards from the replies from another previous thread - if that was patently obvious 😖.

I think the whole Begum thing is nonsense dreamt up by the Red Tops and then actioned by the blardy govt in a likely illegal or some might argue utterly immoral way.
A cursory glance at her age and circumstances prior to leaving GB show she should be returned and given support ( the sort she should have had prior to her leaving )
Sorry but this all seems so blardy obvious

OP, in answer to your subsequent question about a refugee coming young to this country, gaining citizenship then committing a crime - should they be sent back to their country of birth?

No, because a) the crime was committed here and b) they ate a British citizen.

ARE a British citizen!
I wasn't actually considering the crime of cannibalism...

@Scarby9

OP, in answer to your subsequent question about a refugee coming young to this country, gaining citizenship then committing a crime - should they be sent back to their country of birth?

No, because a) the crime was committed here and b) they ate a British citizen.

So it's agreed - definite double standards.

In what way double standards?
I think I said the same thing in each situation?

@Scarby9 I jumped the gun a bit there 😬.

I mean I understand why people in the UK don’t want Shamima Begum to return given her affiliation with ISIL but it’s not really ethically right to cancel her citizenship is it?

In Australia since 2014 any visa holder (except those on humanitarian ones) can be deported back to their country of origin for failing the ‘character test’. This means anyone who is convicted of an offence that carries a maximum penalty of two or more years in prison, whether they were actually sentenced to prison or not. It has resulted in a few very unfair and ethical outcomes. I remember the case of one woman who was born in a war torn Eastern European country in the 60’s and had migrated to Australia as a toddler. She had a difficult childhood, suffered mental illness and spent most of her adult life drug addicted and consequently was never in the right headspace to apply for Australian citizenship of which she was entitled to. She was deported to a strange country without a welfare system where she knew no one and did not speak the language. Absolutely outrageous.

@RonaldMcDonald

I think the whole Begum thing is nonsense dreamt up by the Red Tops and then actioned by the blardy govt in a likely illegal or some might argue utterly immoral way. A cursory glance at her age and circumstances prior to leaving GB show she should be returned and given support ( the sort she should have had prior to her leaving ) Sorry but this all seems so blardy obvious

It's so depressing how many people aggree with the decision.

@Crikeycroc

I mean I understand why people in the UK don’t want Shamima Begum to return given her affiliation with ISIL but it’s not really ethically right to cancel her citizenship is it?

In Australia since 2014 any visa holder (except those on humanitarian ones) can be deported back to their country of origin for failing the ‘character test’. This means anyone who is convicted of an offence that carries a maximum penalty of two or more years in prison, whether they were actually sentenced to prison or not. It has resulted in a few very unfair and ethical outcomes. I remember the case of one woman who was born in a war torn Eastern European country in the 60’s and had migrated to Australia as a toddler. She had a difficult childhood, suffered mental illness and spent most of her adult life drug addicted and consequently was never in the right headspace to apply for Australian citizenship of which she was entitled to. She was deported to a strange country without a welfare system where she knew no one and did not speak the language. Absolutely outrageous.

Do you think that Australia might have over corrected due to it being former penal colony 🤔? And yes, that is totally disgusting.

No, because a) the crime was committed here and b) they ate a British citizen.

TBF even bleeding heart liberal me might send cannibals somewhere else.

I think you are conflating a few things here. While deals are sometimes struck to have a criminal return to their home country to serve a sentence the default usually is to leave them in the country the act was committed in. Usually the justification it that the citizens of the country they were convicted in have the right to know that they are being punished in the way agreed on at the trial.
Secondly removing someone’s citizenship while it should be a rare act (and not just done to any and all criminals) is an important power to have remain. It’s a different issue than where a criminal serves their time as removing citizenship is not necessarily punishment for a criminal act. Eg you could lose citizenship for being a member of the mafia even if not convicted of some kind of racketeering type charge or if you lied to become a citizen even without being convicted of fraud.
I’d like to see her return for the trial to fight for reinstatement of her passport because I’d like to know why Javier considered it such an open and shut case. I’d also like to know if she really does have the right to Bangladeshi citizenship as nobody should be rendered stateless.