Clapham attacker had sex offence conviction and subsequent asylum granted

[dyqik]

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.

There's a very simple alternative. Human rights apply equally to all people within the jurisdiction of the state. You seem to disagree with that idea. You think that citizens have more human rights than non-citizens.

A crime committed in the UK is sentenced in the UK, and the sentence is served in the UK. You don't get to add an extra sentence of deportation to a dangerous country on top of that which would be served by a UK citizen.

[Grumble]

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.

There's a very simple alternative. Human rights apply equally to all people within the jurisdiction of the state. You seem to disagree with that idea. You think that citizens have more human rights than non-citizens.

A crime committed in the UK is sentenced in the UK, and the sentence is served in the UK. You don't get to add an extra sentence of deportation to a dangerous country on top of that which would be served by a UK citizen.

We do, and we have. Whether it’s right or wrong is up for debate but I think you’d be hard pressed to find a country where that isn’t the case.

[discovolante]

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.

Tristan, I am not talking about his rights. I'm talking about the risk he might pose, particularly to other women, if he was returned to Afghanistan. It's entirely possible that the risk would be zero (as I've said, I'm talking about this case as an example of a general position rather than trying to guess exactly what might happen to him), but if it isn't then my concern is about the risk he could pose anywhere. It seems like in this post I've just quoted you started to respond to that point but then swerved back to it being about him. Although, in pointing out that most people in this country are citizens you do seem to be saying that the risk he poses to citizens of this country is more important than the risk to non-citizens? Where would other refugees fall in that assessment?

[discovolante]

Disco and nekomatic have already very clearly made most of the points I'd like to make.

I think it's absolutely right that consideration should be given, at a later date, as to whether the rules on immigration were correctly applied in this case and it may also be appropriate to consider (but not just based on this one case) whether the rules are as they should be or need amending. But it concerns me that there is so much focus on and discussion of immigration in this case that the fundamental point that this is another instance of violence against women is being lost.

I agree with this by the way - just in case I get more sidetracked.

[Tristan]

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.

Tristan, I am not talking about his rights. I'm talking about the risk he might pose, particularly to other women, if he was returned to Afghanistan. It's entirely possible that the risk would be zero (as I've said, I'm talking about this case as an example of a general position rather than trying to guess exactly what might happen to him), but if it isn't then my concern is about the risk he could pose anywhere. It seems like in this post I've just quoted you started to respond to that point but then swerved back to it being about him. Although, in pointing out that most people in this country are citizens you do seem to be saying that the risk he poses to citizens of this country is more important than the risk to non-citizens? Where would other refugees fall in that assessment?

Again, the UK (like any other) government has more of a duty of care to the people in its country, primarily because the vast majority of them are citizens, than they do to others. (They also have more of a duty of care to British citizens overseas than to other people overseas). That’s its job.

In this case they have a decision to make on whether to allow someone to remain in the country and the risk they post to people in the country is a very relevant factor. We already accept this principle with normal immigration in that we can refuse visas to people with criminal records. We don’t say “but what about the risk to people in his/her home country if we don’t accept him/her?”.

To go back to DYQIK’s point about sentencing. This isn’t about adding an extra sentence or extra punishment. It’s about choosing whether to accept this person into our society or not. We should have the right to say “no”.

As a friend elsewhere said: “If you find a man all sad and alone on the street having a sh.t time and he asks for help, but he says "just so you know... I am a rapist though", you don't let him in the house with your partner and kids. You just don't. It's not worth the risk.”

[Woodchopper]

People are raising what seem to be two aspects of the classic trolly problem used by moral philosophers.

On one hand, as disco points out, if we take a global perspective, then granting asylum to the sex offender might be the way to get to the greatest good for the greatest number of people. The asylum seeker will have a better life, and he might go on to commit sex offences wherever he is, so from a global perspective it may not matter where the victims are located.

On the other hand, from the perspective of the civil servant making the assessment, if they keep the legal status of the asylum seeker as it is then he will get deported as part of the normal course of events for someone without a valid permit (in Britain and pretty much everywhere else). But if that civil servant changes the legal status and grants the asylum seeker the right to live in Britain permanently then subsequent sex offences in Britain are a consequence of that decision. In addition, as Tristan points out, it is also relevant that the civil servant's main responsibility it to other citizens in the UK. As far as the rest of the world goes, its not her or his problem.

The trolly problem is very widely used because while everyone will probably have an opinion, there isn't a definitively correct answer. This discussion seems to be an example of one in which people can hold very different opinions from, presumably, looking at the issue from different perspectives.

Focus on the consequences of taking an action is also pretty mainstream. For example, I spend some time grappling with the ethics of human subject research. There the emphasis is very much on avoiding actions that could conceivably have negative outcomes for specific people, and definitely not on what outcomes from a global perspective would result in the greatest good for the greatest number of people.

[Opti]

The focus that is being concentrated on this particular offence being committed by an asylum seeker is masking the fact that the UK in particular has a big problem with male violence against women. Given this particular offender had already had contact with the forces of law and order regarding a sexual offence perhaps demonstrates that the initial offence was treated with less seriousness than it deserved.

[dyqik]

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.

There's a very simple alternative. Human rights apply equally to all people within the jurisdiction of the state. You seem to disagree with that idea. You think that citizens have more human rights than non-citizens.

A crime committed in the UK is sentenced in the UK, and the sentence is served in the UK. You don't get to add an extra sentence of deportation to a dangerous country on top of that which would be served by a UK citizen.

We do, and we have. Whether it’s right or wrong is up for debate but I think you’d be hard pressed to find a country where that isn’t the case.

No, we don't. Not as a criminal sentence.

Torture and execution are not acceptable criminal sentences in the UK. Those calling for automatic return to the home country, regardless of the merits of the asylum claim, are calling for reasonable expectation of capital punishment to be added as a possible extra criminal sentence for some criminals, based on the immigration status of the criminal, and the other details of their asylum case.

That violates the principle of equal standing before the law. It also violates the right to life, which applies to everyone, even sentenced criminals.

Criminal records do get taken into account in adjudicating asylum claims and granting of right to remain. But if a criminal record imposed by a UK court automatically causes a claim to fail and the applicant to be returned to their home country, even where that applicant has a well justified fear of torture or capital punishment, the UK criminal justice system becomes complicit in torture and execution. Something that we as a nation have decided is unacceptable.

We don't extradite people to countries where they can expect execution or torture as punishment for crimes committed there, and so we also shouldn't send people to places where they can expect execution or torture, as a punishment for crimes committed in the UK.

[snoozeofreason]

IANAL but my understanding is that deportation of foreigners* following a criminal offence, as a general principle, is covered by sections 32 and 33 of the UK Borders Act 2007. Section 32 establishes that, by default, a foreign national who has been sentenced to more than 12 months detention should be deported. Section 33 sets out possible exceptions to that default, including cases where deportation would breach various international conventions to which the UK is signatory.

The Clapham attacker's sentence was for less than 12 months, so section 32 wouldn't have applied. If he had been sentenced to more than 12 months then it's not obvious whether any of the exceptions in section 33 would have applied because at the time of the offences he had twice been denied asylum.

*Foreigners here means people who do not have British or Irish Citizenship.

[discovolante]

People are raising what seem to be two aspects of the classic trolly problem used by moral philosophers.

On one hand, as disco points out, if we take a global perspective, then granting asylum to the sex offender might be the way to get to the greatest good for the greatest number of people. The asylum seeker will have a better life, and he might go on to commit sex offences wherever he is, so from a global perspective it may not matter where the victims are located.

On the other hand, from the perspective of the civil servant making the assessment, if they keep the legal status of the asylum seeker as it is then he will get deported as part of the normal course of events for someone without a valid permit (in Britain and pretty much everywhere else). But if that civil servant changes the legal status and grants the asylum seeker the right to live in Britain permanently then subsequent sex offences in Britain are a consequence of that decision. In addition, as Tristan points out, it is also relevant that the civil servant's main responsibility it to other citizens in the UK. As far as the rest of the world goes, its not her or his problem.

The trolly problem is very widely used because while everyone will probably have an opinion, there isn't a definitively correct answer. This discussion seems to be an example of one in which people can hold very different opinions from, presumably, looking at the issue from different perspectives.

Focus on the consequences of taking an action is also pretty mainstream. For example, I spend some time grappling with the ethics of human subject research. There the emphasis is very much on avoiding actions that could conceivably have negative outcomes for specific people, and definitely not on what outcomes from a global perspective would result in the greatest good for the greatest number of people.

I don't think what I'm saying is an example of the trolley problem, or really that utilitarian in the particular way you're describing. I'm not really taking this man's human rights and quality of life into account here. Although - even though I'm generally trying to avoid too much speculation about exactly what would happen to him - if he's found and successfully tried and convicted, presumably it'll be for GBH or s29 OAPA (plus whatever else), both of which attract a life sentence, and he'd presumably do a decent stretch before he was eligible for parole. Which might be better than what he'd face in Afghanistan but it's still not a walk in the park.

Possibly my point is a version of Peter Singer's analogy of jumping into a pond and ruining your suit to save a drowning child, and donating the value of the suit to save a child you've never met. That gets taken further of course (e.g. the money may stretch further elsewhere) and although I think the general idea that a life that you have no personal connection with is objectively just as valuable as one where you do have that connection is fairly sound, taken to certain logical extremes it gets quite absurd and arguably harmful (but that's a whole other thread...paging Will McAskill). What concerns me about Tristan's position (which is probably closer to your trolley problem analogy) is that he seems to be treating the state's right to worry itself about its own citizens more than others as some kind of immutable truth or moral state that can't be questioned. Like Singer and utilitarianism, any philosophical position, especially a dominant one - such as the sovereignty of the state over the rights of individuals - should be continually questioned, even if each time it's ultimately accepted as the least worst way of keeping society ticking over. Otherwise you can get to some dangerous places. What Tristan seems to be doing is saying, well - the state should have the right and duty to expel this man, and the consequences of doing so can be completely ignored, and there's no need to question this because it's the status quo. Even the people in this country who aren't citizens only really benefit from this protection in a kind of collateral way, according to him. Nekomatic, Bagpuss, Opti and me have all raised concerns about the risks posed to women and children generally (albeit from slightly different perspectives) but Tristan, despite having started the thread expressing shock at the offences this man has apparently committed, just doesn't seem to be all that concerned about what happens to anyone else if he's removed from the UK, as long as we, i.e. people living in the UK, don't have to worry about it.

[Fishnut]

Disco and nekomatic have already very clearly made most of the points I'd like to make.

I think it's absolutely right that consideration should be given, at a later date, as to whether the rules on immigration were correctly applied in this case and it may also be appropriate to consider (but not just based on this one case) whether the rules are as they should be or need amending. But it concerns me that there is so much focus on and discussion of immigration in this case that the fundamental point that this is another instance of violence against women is being lost.

I feel like this point is worth reiterating.

According to the Acid Survivors Trust International (ASTI), the UK now has the highest number of recorded attacks in the world.

The UK now has the highest number of recorded attacks in the world, with a 69% rise in the number of attacks in 2022. Acid attacks peaked in 2017, with 941 recorded cases. The figures then steadily dropped to reach 421 in 2021. This can be partly attributed to the Offensive Weapons Act coming into effect and the introduction of stricter controls on the availability of acid and other corrosive substances, alongside increased public awareness around the repercussions that perpetrators face if caught.

However, 2022 saw 710 cases reported to the Police. Acid attacks in the UK have been historically linked with gang violence, with most victims being male, but the trend has now reversed, with the number of female victims surpassing male victims for the first time. This signals a rise in violence against women and girls. On a regional level, the highest number of attacks can be seen in Northumbria, which is followed by London.

[sTeamTraen]

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.

There's a very simple alternative. Human rights apply equally to all people within the jurisdiction of the state. You seem to disagree with that idea. You think that citizens have more human rights than non-citizens.

A crime committed in the UK is sentenced in the UK, and the sentence is served in the UK. You don't get to add an extra sentence of deportation to a dangerous country on top of that which would be served by a UK citizen.

I don't have a huge problem with the idea that a government can deport a foreigner who has committed a criminal act. I just want them to do it using some sort of objective criteria, which is what "was sentenced to a year or more in jail" does. If the rule is going to be "a year or more in jail, or any sexual offence, or anything that gets the Daily Express in a tizzy", to me that just says that sentencing for sexual offences should be higher, cf. what Opti said.

Another issue here is that the system has to be able to deal with millions of offenders and thousands of serious ones. Focusing on any individual case is always going to throw up apparent absurdities. Just yesterday I read about a murder case where one of the two defendants got a minimum term of 22 years and the other got 20. I presume that this sort of subtlety makes sense when you look at the whole picture, but in any given case it does has a feel of meaninglessness about it. But that's why we hopefully have laws made, and sentencing guidelines written, in as dispassionate setting as possible. That does not mean that murder or sexual assault are not awful things, but they happen quite a bit, and we have to deal with that as a society. (I read once, maybe even before the Internet, that 10 million people in the UK have a conviction for something other than a motoring offence. Assuming most of those are men, that's about one in three adult males. Lawbreaking is part of life, not a meteorite strike.

[Bewildered]

People are raising what seem to be two aspects of the classic trolly problem used by moral philosophers.

On one hand, as disco points out, if we take a global perspective, then granting asylum to the sex offender might be the way to get to the greatest good for the greatest number of people. The asylum seeker will have a better life, and he might go on to commit sex offences wherever he is, so from a global perspective it may not matter where the victims are located.

On the other hand, from the perspective of the civil servant making the assessment, if they keep the legal status of the asylum seeker as it is then he will get deported as part of the normal course of events for someone without a valid permit (in Britain and pretty much everywhere else). But if that civil servant changes the legal status and grants the asylum seeker the right to live in Britain permanently then subsequent sex offences in Britain are a consequence of that decision. In addition, as Tristan points out, it is also relevant that the civil servant's main responsibility it to other citizens in the UK. As far as the rest of the world goes, its not her or his problem.

The trolly problem is very widely used because while everyone will probably have an opinion, there isn't a definitively correct answer. This discussion seems to be an example of one in which people can hold very different opinions from, presumably, looking at the issue from different perspectives.

Focus on the consequences of taking an action is also pretty mainstream. For example, I spend some time grappling with the ethics of human subject research. There the emphasis is very much on avoiding actions that could conceivably have negative outcomes for specific people, and definitely not on what outcomes from a global perspective would result in the greatest good for the greatest number of people.

I don't think what I'm saying is an example of the trolley problem, or really that utilitarian in the particular way you're describing. I'm not really taking this man's human rights and quality of life into account here. Although - even though I'm generally trying to avoid too much speculation about exactly what would happen to him - if he's found and successfully tried and convicted, presumably it'll be for GBH or s29 OAPA (plus whatever else), both of which attract a life sentence, and he'd presumably do a decent stretch before he was eligible for parole. Which might be better than what he'd face in Afghanistan but it's still not a walk in the park.

Possibly my point is a version of Peter Singer's analogy of jumping into a pond and ruining your suit to save a drowning child, and donating the value of the suit to save a child you've never met. That gets taken further of course (e.g. the money may stretch further elsewhere) and although I think the general idea that a life that you have no personal connection with is objectively just as valuable as one where you do have that connection is fairly sound, taken to certain logical extremes it gets quite absurd and arguably harmful (but that's a whole other thread...paging Will McAskill). What concerns me about Tristan's position (which is probably closer to your trolley problem analogy) is that he seems to be treating the state's right to worry itself about its own citizens more than others as some kind of immutable truth or moral state that can't be questioned. Like Singer and utilitarianism, any philosophical position, especially a dominant one - such as the sovereignty of the state over the rights of individuals - should be continually questioned, even if each time it's ultimately accepted as the least worst way of keeping society ticking over. Otherwise you can get to some dangerous places. What Tristan seems to be doing is saying, well - the state should have the right and duty to expel this man, and the consequences of doing so can be completely ignored, and there's no need to question this because it's the status quo. Even the people in this country who aren't citizens only really benefit from this protection in a kind of collateral way, according to him. Nekomatic, Bagpuss, Opti and me have all raised concerns about the risks posed to women and children generally (albeit from slightly different perspectives) but Tristan, despite having started the thread expressing shock at the offences this man has apparently committed, just doesn't seem to be all that concerned about what happens to anyone else if he's removed from the UK, as long as we, i.e. people living in the UK, don't have to worry about it.

Hmm… actually to me your argument, or maybe my own version of it because I agree with you, is actually very different to the comparison in the suite / drowning child analogy you described. The crucial difference being we also don’t have a close personal connection with the victims or possible future victims, they just happen to live in Britain like most people on here do (I think, I’m one of the exceptions though) or are most likely to be British citizens (again I *think* like most people on here). I do understand caring more about your family and friends and people you know or to some extent people you just see in your daily life. it’s not a just basis for law but I understand it and strongly feel it and I think am in real life making decisions similar to ruining my suit to save a child I see in front of me vs donating to a cause that would save a child I don’t know. What I am doing is not from any (attempt at a) rational thought out system of morals or justice, it’s just a response to my emotions, empathy and a maybe a sense of urgency in that specific analogy. But for uk laws we are already dealing with people I have no connection with and for laws for society we need to go beyond personal perspectives. So for me anyway if it’s just people in the UK and not people I personally know I am already intellectualising things by extrapolating from my feelings to how other people I have never met might feel and trying to base my opinion on some kind of principles and my understanding of “fairness”. Or more ambitiously trying to form some kind of thought out system of justice or behavior, one which is objective rather than based on my own view point and feelings. And when doing any of that, I find it impossible to distinguish between people in the UK and people in another country. To me it makes no more sense than to base things on the color of someone’s skin or their gender or other irrelevant characteristics most people (here at least, I hope) would find a horrible basis for differentiating and call out as bigoted.

[Bewildered]

The logic seems to be that someone who is known to be a sex offender has a higher likelihood of going on to commit a horrific crime like this one, so if someone who is known to be a sex offender applies for asylum then they should be rejected and removed in order to protect us from the possible horrific crime. But if that's the argument, the vast majority of known sex offenders are not people who were granted asylum, so a far more effective use of effort would probably be to look at how we can prevent sex offenders in general from going on to commit horrific crimes, rather than fixating on the very small proportion of crimes we could stop by rejecting a few asylum seekers.

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.

[Tristan]

What concerns me about Tristan's position (which is probably closer to your trolley problem analogy) is that he seems to be treating the state's right to worry itself about its own citizens more than others as some kind of immutable truth or moral state that can't be questioned.

I’m not saying it can’t be questioned, but if we have to come up with an entirely new way governing every aspect of our society globally every time we face an issue then we’re not going to get anywhere anytime soon.

Feel free to suggest an alternative setup to the nation state that has responsibility for its citizens without risk of causing more issues than it solves.

I find it impossible to distinguish between people in the UK and people in another country. To me it makes no more sense than to base things on the color of someone’s skin or their gender or other irrelevant characteristics most people (here at least, I hope) would find a horrible basis for differentiating and call out as bigoted.

All praise St Bewildered, truly the most morally pure of people.

[Bewildered]

What concerns me about Tristan's position (which is probably closer to your trolley problem analogy) is that he seems to be treating the state's right to worry itself about its own citizens more than others as some kind of immutable truth or moral state that can't be questioned.

I’m not saying it can’t be questioned, but if we have to come up with an entirely new way governing every aspect of our society globally every time we face an issue then we’re not going to get anywhere anytime soon.

Feel free to suggest an alternative setup to the nation state that has responsibility for its citizens without risk of causing more issues than it solves.

I find it impossible to distinguish between people in the UK and people in another country. To me it makes no more sense than to base things on the color of someone’s skin or their gender or other irrelevant characteristics most people (here at least, I hope) would find a horrible basis for differentiating and call out as bigoted.

All praise St Bewildered, truly the most morally pure of people.

I was just going to politely point out that I didn’t write the first part you quote and then I saw the last sentence. f.ck you for the empty sarcasm.

[Tristan]

Gah, no edit button. Messed up nested quotes. First quote was of course meant to be Disco. 2nd one was St Bewildered.

[discovolante]

This is tiring. It's an attitude thing, Tristan, not an 'I know how to solve all the worlds problems and you don't' thing. I said upthread that it's a mess and I find it difficult.

You'll deny it, but there's a lot of righteous fury and very little actual consideration for the people who have been or might be affected. Multiple people have pointed out that part of the problem may have been that his initial sentence may not have reflected the severity of his actions. But anyway, I've got work to do this afternoon and a busy week ahead, so I'm out for now.

[El Pollo Diablo]

The focus that is being concentrated on this particular offence being committed by an asylum seeker is masking the fact that the UK in particular has a big problem with male violence against women. Given this particular offender had already had contact with the forces of law and order regarding a sexual offence perhaps demonstrates that the initial offence was treated with less seriousness than it deserved.

This is the correct answer. The fact that this horrendous attack has become a lightning rod for an argument about immigration policy, rather than about how men repeatedly and deliberately commit terrible acts of violence like this, is deeply frustrating.

[Tristan]

The focus that is being concentrated on this particular offence being committed by an asylum seeker is masking the fact that the UK in particular has a big problem with male violence against women. Given this particular offender had already had contact with the forces of law and order regarding a sexual offence perhaps demonstrates that the initial offence was treated with less seriousness than it deserved.

This is the correct answer. The fact that this horrendous attack has become a lightning rod for an argument about immigration policy, rather than about how men repeatedly and deliberately commit terrible acts of violence like this, is deeply frustrating.

Why not both?

[snoozeofreason]

There is a danger that this case will act as a lightning rod for people who don't like immigrants. There is also a danger that it will act as a lightning rod for people who do like the idea of mandatory sentencing requirements. The fact that the attacker got suspended sentences for his previous offences will probably result in calls to remove or severely restrict courts' discretion to suspend sentences in cases of sexual assault (possibly without anyone being that interested in why the sentences were suspended or what conditions were attached to them). Sexual assault is a very broadly defined category of offences and if courts had no discretion to suspend sentences a large number of people would end up serving short prison sentences. Most of these people would be men but there would be a number of women caught up as well. Very few of these offenders would get the opportunity to do courses addressing their offending behaviour while in prison because it is something the prison service finds difficult to do. It's unlikely that there would be any benefit to society from these prison sentences. If I was to draw any lesson from the case, at least based on the evidence so far available, it would be that it is a good idea to rein in the temptation to draw lessons from high-profile cases.

[Woodchopper]

The logic seems to be that someone who is known to be a sex offender has a higher likelihood of going on to commit a horrific crime like this one, so if someone who is known to be a sex offender applies for asylum then they should be rejected and removed in order to protect us from the possible horrific crime. But if that's the argument, the vast majority of known sex offenders are not people who were granted asylum, so a far more effective use of effort would probably be to look at how we can prevent sex offenders in general from going on to commit horrific crimes, rather than fixating on the very small proportion of crimes we could stop by rejecting a few asylum seekers.

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.

[dyqik]

None of that is relevant, because even serious criminals have the right to life and freedom from capital punishment.

Unless you support capital punishment.

[Tristan]

Nobody here is supporting capital punishment.

[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.

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.

Not only is it immoral, and illegal under conventions that the UK has signed, it's also counter-productive, as it could provide reasons for a jury to not convict a person.