Clapham attacker had sex offence conviction and subsequent asylum granted

[Bewildered]

The issue isn't recidivism as such. There is such a low conviction rate for sexual offenses that convictions aren't a useful guide to offending. The problem is that what we do know suggests that people who commit sex offenses tend to do so multiple times. The biggest risk factor is whether someone has done it before. So if someone has been convicted there is a good chance that they will still be motivated to commit further sex offences after they are released.

The problem is that psychologists, criminologists and the people involved in incarceration have spent getting on for a century trying to find out how to reduce re-offending among adult sex offenders. But they haven't had much success. There are treatment and therapy programmes, but they don't appear to have a dramatic effect, especially if longer time periods after the programme ends are taken into account. I mention adults because it does appear to be possible to successfully work with children.

So it doesn't look like there will be ways to reliably prevent reoffending anytime soon.

Ill add that someone who committed a sex offence while their asylum claim was being assessed would seem to have a serious lack of impulse control. Something which IMHO would be an argument against granting them asylum.

Regarding the last paragraph, this doesn’t make sense to me. I think it’s a basis for a harsher sentence for the crime (it affects how likely they are to continue to pose a risk to the public upon release) but not for an asylum claim which should depend an whether they are indeed in need of asylum, not whether they are a good person or will benefit the country.

To explain the context, in terms of international law, refugees have always had an obligation to obey the laws of whatever country they find themselves in. See for example the 1951 refugee convention which in Article 1 specifically excluides from refugee status anyone who:

has committed a serious non-political crime outside the country of refuge prior to his admission to that country as a refugee;

Article 2 goes on to state that:

Every refugee has duties to the country in which he finds himself, which require in particular that he conform to its laws and regulations as well as to measures taken for the maintenance of public order.

Article 33 prohibits the expulsion or return of a refugee:

in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where his life or freedom would be threatened on account of his race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion.

However, an explicit exception is made for:

a refugee whom there are reasonable grounds for regarding as a danger to the security of the country in which he is, or who, having been convicted by a final judgement of a particularly serious crime, constitutes a danger to the community of that country.

So in terms of the earlier discussion, international law at least explicitly provides for sending someone to a place where they might be tortured or killed, if there were reasonable grounds for suspicion that the refugee had committed a serious crime.

Such principles are not only present in the refugee convention.

For example, Article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that:

1. Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.

2. This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

These aspects are reflected in the Statute of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees which also in Article 7d explicitly excludes from refugee status those for whom:

there are serious reasons for considering that he has committed a crime covered by the provisions of treaties of extradition or a crime mentioned in article VI of the London Charter of the International Military Tribunal or by the provisions of article 14, paragraph 2, of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Alternatively, Article 1(5) of the Organization of African Unity's Convention Governing the Specific Aspects of Refugee Problems in Africa similarly excludes from refugee status people who have committed serious crimes (in the same manner as the refugee convention).

Certainly the above do not cover all and any crimes and exclusion is limited to serious offences. It is up to each state to decide where that threshold lies. We can debate whether the type of sex offences committed by the man in question should count as a serious enough crime. We can also debate whether it would be moral to expel a refugee who had committed crimes that do cross the threshold of seriousness.

But the overall principle is well established that at some point a refugee could be expelled if they have committed a serious crime.

Thanks! Just to be clear we can separate this question into 1) what we think the law should be and 2) what the law is. The view I was expressing was about what I think the law *should* be. I honestly don’t know what the law says and you are someone I generally trust on that though I will check the links and look for myself when I have time.

But as a quick question on 2) since I can’t looking to yet, it seems like you and dyqik are completely disagreeing on this point of fact (compare e.g. his last post to Tristan vs the exception you quote) without ever actually quoting each other and commenting on it. Yet you both seem quite sure and tbh I’d just believe and accept either one of you here, if the others posts weren’t in the same thread and I didn’t have the time / ability to check myself. Or am I missing some subtlety and you are both technically correct but saying different things?

[Tristan]

Nobody here is supporting capital punishment.

You did in your original post when you called for automatic return to country of origin of those convicted of serious offences, with no chance of asylum, regardless of the dangers to claimant.

No I didn't.

Surely we should be able to cancel any ongoing claim on conviction for certain crimes (violent and sex related ones are the obvious ones) and just return the person to their country of origin. Whatever risk they're at in that country is, frankly, not our problem at that point.

That is a call for a criminal sentence to include capital punishment.

No it isn't.

[dyqik]

Nobody here is supporting capital punishment.

You did in your original post when you called for automatic return to country of origin of those convicted of serious offences, with no chance of asylum, regardless of the dangers to claimant.

No I didn't.

Surely we should be able to cancel any ongoing claim on conviction for certain crimes (violent and sex related ones are the obvious ones) and just return the person to their country of origin. Whatever risk they're at in that country is, frankly, not our problem at that point.

That is a call for a criminal sentence to include capital punishment.

No it isn't.

Yes, it is. I've explained why, at length. Your words are explicitly calling for those convicted of certain crimes to be returned to their country of origin even if they face a certainty of execution or torture there, as an automatic consequence of receiving a guilty verdict. That is capital punishment.

It doesn't stop being capital punishment if it's carried out by proxy.

[Woodchopper]

Thanks! Just to be clear we can separate this question into 1) what we think the law should be and 2) what the law is. The view I was expressing was about what I think the law *should* be. I honestly don’t know what the law says and you are someone I generally trust on that though I will check the links and look for myself when I have time.

The details of national law and especially that found in the UK are another matter and disco is much better at that than I am.

I agree with the distinction and I suggest that it could be expanded to:

- The law (which is often a matter of discussion)
- The interpretation of the law by officials, police officers etc
- What the law should be in a utopian sense
- How the law could realistically be reformed

There are also moral arguments irrespective of the law. For example I would probably find it very difficult to expel someone to somewhere like Afghanistan even if that would be lawful and in line with government policy.

As for the current case, I think we just don't know enough to be able to make firm judgements about what should have happened. Abdul Shokoor Ezedi seems to be an utterly despicable man, but that's with the benefit of hindsight. I don't know enough about what was understood in previous years when he was being sentenced or his asylum application was being assessed.

But as a quick question on 2) since I can’t looking to yet, it seems like you and dyqik are completely disagreeing on this point of fact (compare e.g. his last post to Tristan vs the exception you quote) without ever actually quoting each other and commenting on it. Yet you both seem quite sure and tbh I’d just believe and accept either one of you here, if the others posts weren’t in the same thread and I didn’t have the time / ability to check myself. Or am I missing some subtlety and you are both technically correct but saying different things?

Seeing as you ask, I haven't quoted dyqik directly because I don't understand the point that he's making. This is certainly my own failing but I'm uncertain as to whether he's arguing for how things are, or how they should be, or if he's making a legal or moral argument.

[noggins]

Well I agree with Tristan. If an asylum seeker is going to be a significant net harm to the UK, they can f.ck off and die.

[nekomatic]

Please do share your algorithm for predicting whether someone is going to be a significant net harm to the UK.

[noggins]

Eg If their politics are even viler than the regime persecuting them.

[discovolante]

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?

[Tristan]

We weight it less in our consideration.

[nekomatic]

Eg If their politics are even viler than the regime persecuting them.

Please do explain how you define 'vile' and how you propose to measure it? I'm assuming we're still discussing the premise that Abdul Ezedi should have been refused asylum because we should have known in some way that he was going to go on to commit a horrific crime, or is this a more general point now? It's already been explained that the rules already require rejecting people who have committed serious crimes (> 1 year sentence) or recent less serious crimes, so if you want a serious discussion please go into a bit more detail on what you think is wrong and maybe how to fix it to your satisfaction. Otherwise I might draw some inferences about what your own politics are, and I'd hate to do that incorrectly.

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?

You're right of course, but I've avoided relying on this because I suspect the people it's aimed at are proud of not caring about it. A bit like when people call Suella Braverman 'cruel', all it does is make her smile that she's riled another lily-livered lefty.

[Woodchopper]

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.

[Tristan]

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.

I would add to this that a government's duties are first and foremost to its citizens, followed by those in their country, followed by those outside... etc etc. Hence my earlier reply to Disco.

[dyqik]

That's an outright racist/nativist statement in the context of protecting people under a state's jurisdiction from torture or execution.

It's a statement that you believe that the right to life depends on the place of birth of a person and on their immigration status.

Either you believe that all humans have the right to life, or you do not believe in any human rights.

[discovolante]

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.

To be honest, I fully recognise how complicated this is (hence one of my posts earlier), I'm just a bit disturbed by a few posts in this thread that read to me as if they just don't care. I.e. the primary concern is punishment/retribution and immigration policy rather than the other people affected. It's an attitude that makes me uncomfortable. I'm not getting into the weeds of the law and specific policies, for now at least.

[Tristan]

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.

[dyqik]

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.

As I've explained above, I'm not talking about some utopia without nation states. You're arguing against the current situation (since 1982) in the United States, declaring it unthinkable. US constitutional rights apply to all persons on US soil. That includes the right to not be sentenced to torture (although execution hasn't caught up yet).

So you f.ck off.

[Woodchopper]

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.

As I've explained above, I'm not talking about some utopia without nation states. You're arguing against the current situation (since 1982) in the United States, declaring it unthinkable. US constitutional rights apply to all persons on US soil. That includes the right to not be sentenced to torture (although execution hasn't caught up yet).

That applies to torture that would take place on US territory. The situation in territories controlled by the US government is less clear (eg Guantanamo) or if it were carried out abroad by member of the US armed forces (eg Abu Ghraib).

That constitutional protection doesn't apply to torture or murder that might take place abroad. It is legal for US authorities to deport people who would likely face death or torture abroad. They do that regularly. It may well be happening as you read this.

You can read more here:

When Deportation Is a Death Sentence
Hundreds of thousands of immigrants in the U.S. may face violence and murder in their home countries. What happens when they are forced to return?

The US Deported Them, Ignoring Their Pleas. Then They Were Killed

US deporting more and more people to Eritrea - a country it says tortures and kills its citizens

I could post more examples.

Note this is a point about what the law is in the US. I'm not making an argument about how I think things should be.

[El Pollo Diablo]

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.

I would add to this that a government's duties are first and foremost to its citizens, followed by those in their country, followed by those outside... etc etc. Hence my earlier reply to Disco.

I would argue that a government's duties first and foremost are to the rule of law. And refoulement is against international law.

[Woodchopper]

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.

I would add to this that a government's duties are first and foremost to its citizens, followed by those in their country, followed by those outside... etc etc. Hence my earlier reply to Disco.

I would argue that a government's duties first and foremost are to the rule of law. And refoulement is against international law.

As noted upthread, there is a specific exemption in international law if a refugee has committed a serious crime. In that circumstance refoulement is permitted.

[Point is about what the situation is, not about what I think it should be]

[discovolante]

I just want to make another comment to try and put what I've said in some context. It's a bit removed from the general discussion and might make it even more muddled, who knows, but I'll give it a go. I'm a solicitor (yes, snore...) and I work in litigation, primarily representing people in relation to the way they're being treated by public bodies in respect of their rights. Not immigration or criminal law though. Anyway, as far as the law surrounding these issues is concerned, it's clear as day that there's a constant tension between the law, morality and the reality on the ground. They don't fit together all that well. They may work better than some alternatives, but it doesn't mean that they work. And part of my job, and the jobs of other people doing similar work to me, as well as the courts, is in part to continually interpret and develop the law in light of those tensions. There are limits and boundaries of course, but 'what currently is' and 'what should be' aren't completely irrelevant. So to say 'that's how it is, so we can ignore the consequences' sits badly with me.

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.

[dyqik]

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.

As I've explained above, I'm not talking about some utopia without nation states. You're arguing against the current situation (since 1982) in the United States, declaring it unthinkable. US constitutional rights apply to all persons on US soil. That includes the right to not be sentenced to torture (although execution hasn't caught up yet).

That applies to torture that would take place on US territory. The situation in territories controlled by the US government is less clear (eg Guantanamo) or if it were carried out abroad by member of the US armed forces (eg Abu Ghraib).

That constitutional protection doesn't apply to torture or murder that might take place abroad. It is legal for US authorities to deport people who would likely face death or torture abroad. They do that regularly. It may well be happening as you read this.

That's not relevant. My point is that there is no need to remove nation states to have human rights apply equally to everyone on the soil of that nation.

The flaws in US human right laws are a separate issue.

Guantanamo was set up to evade the equal constitutional rights on US soil legalities - it's not on US soil, and the detainees there did not pass through US soil to get there. This is obviously a violation of the principle of human rights, but not the letter of the US Constitution. It's also not relevant to the case of asylum seekers, as asylum seekers are generally required to be on the soil of the country they are seeking asylum from

[Tristan]

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.

[Tristan]

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.

[dyqik]

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.

Indeed.

My position is that if a criminal isn't safe to be released to the UK streets at the end of their sentence, then the sentence was inappropriate or efforts at rehabilitation were inadequate. This is true regardless of immigration status. If a criminal isn't safe to be released, then they would be unsafe regardless of their immigration status. If we can't take the risk of recidivism into account when releasing a British citizen at the end of their maximum sentence, then we can't take it into account when releasing an asylum seeker.

Asylum claims should be assessed based on the risk to the individual, not on their risk to the public. We have criminal law and e.g. involuntary mental health procedures to deal with the safety of the public, and that's where the responsibility for public safety lies.

[dyqik]

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.

Indeed.

My position is that if a criminal isn't safe to be released to the UK streets at the end of their sentence, then the sentence was inappropriate or efforts at rehabilitation were inadequate. This is true regardless of immigration status. If a criminal isn't safe to be released, then they would be unsafe regardless of their immigration status. If we can't take the risk of recidivism into account when releasing a British citizen at the end of their maximum sentence, then we can't take it into account when releasing an asylum seeker.

Asylum claims should be assessed based on the risk to the individual, not on their risk to the public. We have criminal law and e.g. involuntary mental health procedures to deal with the safety of the public, and that's where the responsibility for public safety lies.

I should say that I'm fine with criminal records being taken into account in asylum decisions, but they should be asylum decisions first, and not supplemental criminal punishments, which is what happens if rejection of an asylum claim is automatic if there is a certain criminal record. There should still be an opportunity for the risk to the individual to be assessed and mitigated.