Scrutable

Surely there's something wrong with the system when someone who's twice been denied asylum, commits a sex offence, and is THEN granted asylum.

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.

At the moment, refoulment is not a sentencing option for any crime, regardless of how distasteful it may be.

It doesn't have to be a sentancing option for the crime. But the asylum process should be updated to automatically reject applicants for reasons such as this.

Also "distasteful" is a weird way of describing sexual offences. I think they're rather more than distasteful.

Conversion to Christianity vouched for by a priest I read. About time we stopped taking people’s religion as mitigation for their criminal record as well.

Tristan wrote: Fri Feb 02, 2024 10:35 am It doesn't have to be a sentancing option for the crime. But the asylum process should be updated to automatically reject applicants for reasons such as this.

I'm not really sure whether this means you think people should be returned (which wouldn't be a criminal sentence but would amount to the same thing) or if their asylum application should be rejected and they should then just be left to their own devices in this country?

discovolante wrote: Fri Feb 02, 2024 11:04 am

Tristan wrote: Fri Feb 02, 2024 10:35 am It doesn't have to be a sentancing option for the crime. But the asylum process should be updated to automatically reject applicants for reasons such as this.

I'm not really sure whether this means you think people should be returned (which wouldn't be a criminal sentence but would amount to the same thing) or if their asylum application should be rejected and they should then just be left to their own devices in this country?

Rejected and returned.

That does already apply for convictions with >1 year sentences.

This person had a lesser sentence so his asylum claim was unaffected.

Christian priests are gullible, by definition they believe ridiculous claims.

Tristan wrote: Fri Feb 02, 2024 11:10 am

discovolante wrote: Fri Feb 02, 2024 11:04 am

Tristan wrote: Fri Feb 02, 2024 10:35 am It doesn't have to be a sentancing option for the crime. But the asylum process should be updated to automatically reject applicants for reasons such as this.

I'm not really sure whether this means you think people should be returned (which wouldn't be a criminal sentence but would amount to the same thing) or if their asylum application should be rejected and they should then just be left to their own devices in this country?

Rejected and returned.

I find these situations really horrible and difficult tbh. Regardless of anyone's sense of morality about what an offender should or shouldn't be subjected to (not commenting on this case in particular, but people commit violent crimes for all sorts of reasons), they're presumably still a risk to people in their own country, possibly more so in certain circumstances. In which case it's not just about what happens to them. Countries actively try to get people extradited back to them to try, or sentence, them for offences allegedly committed in that country. It's a mess whichever way you slice it.

Tristan wrote: Fri Feb 02, 2024 11:10 am

discovolante wrote: Fri Feb 02, 2024 11:04 am

Tristan wrote: Fri Feb 02, 2024 10:35 am It doesn't have to be a sentancing option for the crime. But the asylum process should be updated to automatically reject applicants for reasons such as this.

I'm not really sure whether this means you think people should be returned (which wouldn't be a criminal sentence but would amount to the same thing) or if their asylum application should be rejected and they should then just be left to their own devices in this country?

Rejected and returned.

So you want to apply what may well be a death sentence for certain classes of people, but not others, based on immigration status.

I do not think what happens to violent criminals or those convicted of sexual offences whilst claiming asylum (not necessarily after it’s granted) should be our problem. They can easily avoid that outcome by not doing the thing.

Doing 40mph in a 30? Pay the fine.
Shoplifted a couple of times? Do the community service or whatever.
Commit a sexual or violent crime? Bye bye and good luck.

As far as I can tell, the current guidelines state that:

Where a person has been convicted of an offence and sentenced to a period of
imprisonment of less than 12 months, you must refuse the application unless 5 years
have passed since the end of their sentence. If they are applying for settlement you
must refuse a person with a sentence in this category unless 7 years have passed
since the end of the sentence.

However, for entry clearance and leave to enter applications, you must always
consider whether there are any very compelling factors that amount to an
exceptional reason why the application should be granted, even though fewer than
the required number of years have passed since the end of their sentence.

The rules were tightened up on 2000, before that a criminal offence of less than 12 months didn't result in an automatic refusal.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... nality.pdf

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.

We don't know anything about either the sex offence(s) this man committed or the details of his asylum claims and why they were respectively rejected and accepted, and whether that was done correctly or incorrectly according to the rules, and until we do it would be foolish and dangerous to draw the conclusion that there's something wrong with the rules.

I have no doubt that lots and lots of people will be expressing the same views as Tristan right now though, and I understand why because the crime is horrific. But I don't think decisions made in horror and fury are likely to be good ones.

nekomatic wrote: Fri Feb 02, 2024 12:30 pm 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.

lpm wrote: Fri Feb 02, 2024 11:28 am Christian priests are gullible, by definition they believe ridiculous claims.

Far from all are gullible. Many are cynical, preying on the gullibility of others, prepared to act out a role.

[I wrote something longer and deleted it in the light of intervening replies.]

Basically, what nekomatic said. This incident will be used by those ignorant of base rates to demonise asylum seekers, migrants, people with Muslim names, and brown people generally.

sTeamTraen wrote: Fri Feb 02, 2024 4:23 pm This incident will be has been used by those ignorant of base rates to demonise asylum seekers, migrants, people with Muslim names, and brown people generally.

FIFY

Here's a Telegraph columnist yesterday - clicky

sTeamTraen wrote: Fri Feb 02, 2024 4:23 pm [I wrote something longer and deleted it in the light of intervening replies.]

Basically, what nekomatic said. This incident will be used by those ignorant of base rates to demonise asylum seekers, migrants, people with Muslim names, and brown people generally.

Yes it will. That doesn't mean it can't also be discussed by others too. If all it takes to shut down discussion is to say "yeah, but some bigots will capitalise on it" then the bigots win.

It's possible to be pro-immigration, pro-asylum, pro-"brown people generally" etc. etc. whilst also saying "but something's clearly wrong in a case like this."

To go back to something I said earlier, if you make someone 'not your problem' you make them someone else's problem. In this case, potentially women in Afghanistan. This guy could find himself without the opportunity to cause harm to women in Afghanistan, I don't know, but if we're talking about how 'cases like this' should be dealt with, I don't think you can ignore the possibility that washing your hands of the problem doesn't mean it won't create the same problem elsewhere.

Ok, so yes it's a problem. But why should it be ours? The UK has a much stronger duty of care to it's own citizens than those of other countries.

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.

Tristan wrote: Fri Feb 02, 2024 5:38 pm Ok, so yes it's a problem. But why should it be ours? The UK has a much stronger duty of care to it's own citizens than those of other countries.

Why? Are citizens of other countries less human than UK citizens?

Of course they’re no less human. But it should not be controversial to say that the a government has more of a duty of care to its own citizens. That’s kind of the point of them.

Well, it's not controversial in that it reflects the current dominant political framework, but you don't necessarily have to accept the nation state as the fundamental foundation of human rights. It's also not particularly out there to think that we should be equally concerned for his potential future victims no matter where they live in the world. The focus seemed to be more on whether and how he should be punished due to his nationality and immigration status, regardless of whether or not that leads to him posing more of a risk in future.

I guess though that when you're referring to the victims and not the perpetrator, by 'citizens' you mean people currently living in the UK regardless of their immigration status, because as far as I know we don't know anything about the status of his victims (I'm not getting into speculation here, just not making assumptions).

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.