Clapham attacker had sex offence conviction and subsequent asylum granted

Discussions about serious topics, for serious people
User avatar
discovolante
Stummy Beige
Posts: 4056
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:10 pm

Re: Clapham attacker had sex offence conviction and subsequent asylum granted

Post by discovolante » Thu Feb 08, 2024 7:13 pm

Tristan wrote:
Thu Feb 08, 2024 3:05 pm
discovolante wrote:
Thu Feb 08, 2024 2:02 pm
On a less 'meta' note though, if you're not prepared to even acknowledge that certain decisions - whether they're regarding criminal sentences/protection of people here or decisions to remove someone from the country altogether - may have adverse consequences for the women who have already been and might in the future affected by the perpetrator's actions, then it looks to me like you don't actually care about any of them at all.
But I don't think anyone's refusing to acknowledge that. It's just where the responsibility lies for that lies, and to what extent, that people are arguing about.
But it's comments like:
Tristan wrote:
Fri Feb 02, 2024 5:38 pm
Ok, so yes it's a problem. But why should it be ours?
That give me the impression that you really don't care very much about what happens to them, and you're really just concerned about the burden of responsibility.
To defy the laws of tradition is a crusade only of the brave.

Bewildered
Fuzzable
Posts: 251
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2019 2:51 pm

Re: Clapham attacker had sex offence conviction and subsequent asylum granted

Post by Bewildered » Fri Feb 09, 2024 3:01 am

Woodchopper wrote:
Thu Feb 08, 2024 12:14 pm
discovolante wrote:
Thu Feb 08, 2024 9:06 am
OK I'm going to ask this one again.

If someone has caused harm in the UK - let's say sexual and violent assaults against women and children - and is at risk of causing harm to that same group in whatever country they have come from (even though there may well be a risk to them that might mean they won't be able to cause any harm, we won't always know for sure if that will be the case), do we think about the harm they might cause in that country (messy as that is), or do we ignore it because it's happening somewhere else?
I realize that you disagree with me, but I still think that this comes down to different approaches to morality and responsibility.

If someone looks at it from the perspective of harm caused then of course every human life should count equally.

But seen from the perspective of responsibility, people are most responsible for things that they can directly control or influence. They are less responsible for things which are an indirect consequence of their actions, and the further and more indirect the consequences the more that personal responsibility is diluted.

You're welcome to disagree with me, but IMHO this is how everyone lives their everyday lives. Taking full responsibility for every indirect consequences would be impossible, and most people would see that as an unreasonable burden to place on anyone's shoulders.

This isn't to say that there are no responsibilities at all for indirect consequences. People should still try to buy low carbon products or boycott goods that benefit horrible regimes. But the more indirect the consequences the more complicated it gets.
There are lots of things I wanted to respond to in this thread but let me just try this one first. I don’t really follow how you think the trolly problem and responsibility apply here. It always a bit subjective how you determine control or action vs inaction, e.g. in the traditional trolly problem there is very little difference between pushing the lever and choosing not to push the lever. In the real world often the distinction is more obvious, but in this example I think it’s actually murkier. Are you really saying the uk is less controlling or actively causing the
problem if they release and then deport a known sex offender to another country rather than simply release them and not move them somewhere? It feels to me that the trolly problem applies the other way around, ie deporting them is like pulling the lever and leaving them in the uk is like not pulling it. Not that I think this is a good argument either way, because in principle I think the UK has responsibility in both cases (I know you were not arguing in principle, just saying this to be clear I’m not making such an argument the opposite way around). Regarding the psychology probably the distinction is too murky to play a big role in people’s thinking.

I think the point is more about what groups we feel responsibility for (and maybe this is really what you mean and you just see it as essentially the same?), as per disco’s analogy of saving a drowning man vs saving someone you have never met and indeed I think we do all make decisions like that regularly. However I don’t think it’s very natural to expand your horizons to the level of a whole nation , but not beyond, even though I such thinking is highly prevalent in our time, and I just don’t feel that way at all myself. see my earlier reply to her for more waffling/details on this.

Bewildered
Fuzzable
Posts: 251
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2019 2:51 pm

Re: Clapham attacker had sex offence conviction and subsequent asylum granted

Post by Bewildered » Fri Feb 09, 2024 4:10 am

Tristan wrote:
Sat Feb 03, 2024 12:23 am
The nationality of the specific victims in this case is far less relevant. This man was a risk to people in this country, most of whom are citizens. He is not a citizen. I believe we have less of a duty of care towards him. As such, having failed in his claim twice and then being found guilty of a sexual offence and hence his risk level being significantly higher, we should be able to cancel his claim and send him back.

Feel free to offer a viable alternative to the nation state. Good luck with that.
You really do not have to choose between the a nation state and deciding for a particular action to value the lives of non-citizens living in a distant country as much as uk citizens living in the uk. We can as a nation state decide that moving dangerous waste to another country so it poses a risk to their people and not our citizens is a bad thing to do and we won’t do it. We can decide that seizing some limited resource needed to save lives and then using it only for our citizens is grossly selfish and we should instead share it internationally according to need. And we can decide deporting potentially dangerous criminals to another country just to protect our people from the same risk is a bad thing and not something we want to do.

Tristan wrote:
Thu Feb 08, 2024 12:38 pm
dyqik wrote:
Thu Feb 08, 2024 12:29 pm
That's an outright racist statement
With all due respect, f.ck off.

To claim a government's responsibility is not first and foremost to it's citizens is just laughable. Unless you want to go back to earlier in this conversation where there's some imagined utopia where nation states aren't a thing and we've found an entirely different way of governing human affairs.
Regarding this nation state argument, I think it’s a good defense against dyqik’s accusation of racism. I’m not sure if you thought I was implying that in an earlier post and that’s why you made that sarcastic post or if you really thought I was bragging / virtue signalling (if you read the whole post I think it’s obvious I wasn’t) or if you were just being an a..eh.le. Anyway regardless, yes nations exist and are primarily concerned with their own citizens in terms of immigration / work rights, defense and protections of citizens abroad etc, so there is already a selected group even if justifying it is hard to do in principle.

However just because there are some situations where treating people differently is an inherent part of the international order and the concept of nation states, does not create the dichotomy you appear to be implying. Ie it does not mean you have to give up on the nation state and invent some other structure before the UK can ever treat other people’s lives as holding the same value as those of UK citizens in any particular situation.

noggins
Snowbonk
Posts: 558
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2019 1:30 pm

Re: Clapham attacker had sex offence conviction and subsequent asylum granted

Post by noggins » Fri Feb 09, 2024 1:45 pm

I would happily deport a Prigozhin to Ukraine for execution, wouldn't yous?

User avatar
JQH
After Pie
Posts: 2126
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 3:30 pm
Location: Sar Flandan

Re: Clapham attacker had sex offence conviction and subsequent asylum granted

Post by JQH » Fri Feb 09, 2024 3:06 pm

No. If you're against capital punishment, which I am, you don't get to abandon your principles because you don't like the person unfer threat.
And remember that if you botch the exit, the carnival of reaction may be coming to a town near you.

Fintan O'Toole

User avatar
jimbob
Light of Blast
Posts: 5242
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 4:04 pm
Location: High Peak/Manchester

Re: Clapham attacker had sex offence conviction and subsequent asylum granted

Post by jimbob » Fri Feb 09, 2024 10:39 pm

JQH wrote:
Fri Feb 09, 2024 3:06 pm
No. If you're against capital punishment, which I am, you don't get to abandon your principles because you don't like the person unfer threat.
Indeed.
In my opinion There is sometimes an argument for capital punishment of dictators but that's not because of justice but pragmatic prevention of risk. For example, if Putin were to be deposed, he would probably pose a risk as long as he remained alive.
Have you considered stupidity as an explanation

User avatar
Martin_B
After Pie
Posts: 1610
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:20 pm
Location: Perth, WA

Re: Clapham attacker had sex offence conviction and subsequent asylum granted

Post by Martin_B » Fri Feb 09, 2024 11:09 pm

jimbob wrote:
Fri Feb 09, 2024 10:39 pm
JQH wrote:
Fri Feb 09, 2024 3:06 pm
No. If you're against capital punishment, which I am, you don't get to abandon your principles because you don't like the person unfer threat.
Indeed.
In my opinion There is sometimes an argument for capital punishment of dictators but that's not because of justice but pragmatic prevention of risk. For example, if Putin were to be deposed, he would probably pose a risk as long as he remained alive.
On the other hand, killing him would make him a martyr to his followers.
"My interest is in the future, because I'm going to spend the rest of my life there"

noggins
Snowbonk
Posts: 558
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2019 1:30 pm

Re: Clapham attacker had sex offence conviction and subsequent asylum granted

Post by noggins » Sat Feb 10, 2024 5:24 pm

JQH wrote:
Fri Feb 09, 2024 3:06 pm
No. If you're against capital punishment, which I am, you don't get to abandon your principles because you don't like the person unfer threat.
Or, you could be against capital punishment in your own state, but not consider it crucial enough to impose on others, and/or recognise the sheer necessity to permanently end dangerous threats.

User avatar
jimbob
Light of Blast
Posts: 5242
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 4:04 pm
Location: High Peak/Manchester

Re: Clapham attacker had sex offence conviction and subsequent asylum granted

Post by jimbob » Sat Feb 10, 2024 7:57 pm

Martin_B wrote:
Fri Feb 09, 2024 11:09 pm
jimbob wrote:
Fri Feb 09, 2024 10:39 pm
JQH wrote:
Fri Feb 09, 2024 3:06 pm
No. If you're against capital punishment, which I am, you don't get to abandon your principles because you don't like the person unfer threat.
Indeed.
In my opinion There is sometimes an argument for capital punishment of dictators but that's not because of justice but pragmatic prevention of risk. For example, if Putin were to be deposed, he would probably pose a risk as long as he remained alive.
On the other hand, killing him would make him a martyr to his followers.
Yes, which is about the balance of risks and not the ethical reasons
Have you considered stupidity as an explanation

User avatar
dyqik
Princess POW
Posts: 7410
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:19 pm
Location: Masshole
Contact:

Re: Clapham attacker had sex offence conviction and subsequent asylum granted

Post by dyqik » Sat Feb 10, 2024 9:07 pm

jimbob wrote:
Sat Feb 10, 2024 7:57 pm
Martin_B wrote:
Fri Feb 09, 2024 11:09 pm
jimbob wrote:
Fri Feb 09, 2024 10:39 pm


Indeed.
In my opinion There is sometimes an argument for capital punishment of dictators but that's not because of justice but pragmatic prevention of risk. For example, if Putin were to be deposed, he would probably pose a risk as long as he remained alive.
On the other hand, killing him would make him a martyr to his followers.
Yes, which is about the balance of risks and not the ethical reasons
There's always the traditional exile to St Helena.

And jailed dictators quickly lose followers, as they gain the reputation for losing and become irrelevant.

Post Reply