Murderer Not Deported

[iamnumerate]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/6956088.stm

Last Updated: Tuesday, 21 August 2007, 06:17 GMT 07:17 UK

E-mail this to a friend Printable version

Appeal over teacher killer ruling

Learco Chindamo

Learco Chindamo came to the UK when he was six

The government will challenge "robustly" the decision to allow the man who knifed head teacher Philip Lawrence to death to stay in the UK.

Home Office Minister Tony McNulty said Learco Chindamo had forfeited his rights because of the seriousness of the crime he committed.

The 26-year-old is serving a life sentence for the 1995 killing.

His lawyers argued that deporting him to Italy, where he was born, would breach his human rights.

Chindamo, who was jailed for life in 1996 with a minimum 12-year term, could be released early next year if the Parole Board decides it is safe to do so.

Definetly one person who should not be allowed to add to the housing demand. However I do not understand why the government tried to deport him. Did they not know understand their own law ?

[i_godzuki]

I've little sympathy for him, but he has spent 20 years of his 26 years in Britain. He's a murderer but a home grown one.

[Unexpected]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/6956088.stm

Definetly one person who should not be allowed to add to the housing demand. However I do not understand why the government tried to deport him. Did they not know understand their own law ?

Are you saying you think he should be deported or should not be deported?

[IDN]

he shouldnt be allowed out- he murdered someone and yet he could walk the streets in a few weeks - it doesnt sound right does it?

[OzzMosiz]

He took the life away from another person, therefore he should no longer have human rights in this country.

[iamnumerate]

Are you saying you think he should be deported or should not be deported?

I think he should have been deported because I don't agree with the human rights legisation as it currently is.

However I don't think they should have tried to deport because it was going to fail, they should have changed the law and then deported him.

[itsme]

The irony will be when he gets released and is kept in comfort by the British tax payer, and guess what?

Mrs Lawrence and her children will be funding the killer via their taxes!.....

And a further irony is that Mrs Lawrence has helped fund her husbands killers defence via her taxes used to fund the legal aid system.

perhaps we should be looking at the milking of our legal aid system by lawyers??

[Solvent Celt]

Out! His feet shouldn't touch the floor.

[Guest AuntJess]

The irony will be when he gets released and is kept in comfort by the British tax payer, and guess what?

Mrs Lawrence and her children will be funding the killer via their taxes!.....

And a further irony is that Mrs Lawrence has helped fund her husbands killers defence via her taxes used to fund the legal aid system.

perhaps we should be looking at the milking of our legal aid system by lawyers??

One of my pals reckons that lawyers are the lowest form of life. I would not be so sweeping but I think a good few of them would defend Old Nick himself if the price was right!

[patprimer74]

... but I think a good few of them would defend Old Nick himself if the price was right!

Of course they would - they don't have a choice. It's called the 'taxi-rank system' - you should read about it. You'll obviously learn a lot.

p

[itsme]

Of course they would - they don't have a choice. It's called the 'taxi-rank system' - you should read about it. You'll obviously learn a lot.

p

defending the indefensible and exercising no conscience in the pursuit of money.........

[Guest AuntJess]

Of course they would - they don't have a choice. It's called the 'taxi-rank system' - you should read about it. You'll obviously learn a lot.

p

Good idea. I'll ask the pal I mentioned. She lectures in criminal law.

[The Ayatollah Buggeri]

Out! His feet shouldn't touch the floor.

Agreed. When you're suspended from a gallows, they generally don't.

[patprimer74]

defending the indefensible and exercising no conscience in the pursuit of money.........

Guilty until proven innocent, d'you mean?

And how will you decide, before the trial ,who deserves expert help in defending themselves? Or will you not allow anyone to have representation leaving the highly articulate guilty to talk themselves out of trouble and let the innocent cretin hang?

So that's your 'justice'!

p

[patprimer74]

...anyone else is just trying to make a B-5hit case about his 'human rights', end of discussion.

Whatever you say, Bu||$hitter. Whatever you say.

p

[patprimer74]

he shouldnt be allowed out- he murdered someone and yet he could walk the streets in a few weeks - it doesnt sound right does it?

This decision had nothing to do with whether he will be allowed out - that's up to the Parole Board, in due course. If they do decide to allow him out it'll be on licence for the rest of his life and he can be taken back in at any time.

And, I'll stick my neck out and say 'Yes, it does sound right' assuming that the Parole Board thinks it's safe to do so. The alternative is that you keep him in jail for the rest of his days, costing about £750 per week. I can think of lots of better ways of spending £36,000 a year, probably for another 50 years - that's about £1.8 million - than on some obsessive wish for vengeance.

"Ah!", you say,"But he should have hanged, in the first place!" Possibly. But there's little point in discussing that in this case because parliament has voted, time after time, against Capital Punishment and there's no serious political party that I know of who advocates its return.

If you don't think that, after 12 years, he should be considered for parole, then how would you deal with people found guilty of even more 'heinous' crimes?

What would you do with someone who murdered two people?

And, someone who murdered five people?

What about someone who rapes a little girl and then murders her?

What about someone who makes a habit of murdering people, like the Yorkshire Ripper?

And, what about people who set up death camps and kill people by the hundreds?

Will you treat them all the same - either hanging or actual life imprisonment? That would be a bit generous to the mass murderer, wouldn't it? If I'd murdered one person and knew that the punishment would be the same, I'd carry on killing. I might get away if I kill the person who recognises me or the policeman who comes to arrest me. So, why not?

This subject is complicated. Flippant one-liners don't answer the question.

p

[patprimer74]

However I do not understand why the government tried to deport him.

Quite simple, Innumerate! To shut up the gutter press who'll do their best to blame 'the government' for anything that gives the impression of treating foreigners as if they were equal to British people. The government can now give the impression that it's someone else's fault. Clever, aye?

Thanks to the moronic press - you know the ones I mean - the taxes of the Hardworking British Families (!) will be wasted on unwinnable court cases costing hundreds of thousands of pounds. Never mind! The press cretins will then feel satisfied that the point has been clearly made -

1. Our criminals are a lot better than foreign criminals.

2. When British criminals are let out on parole, they mustn't receive any extra punishment. After all, they're our British murderers! But, if the criminal has just a touch of the tarbrush, even if he only lived in another country for five minutes, then we must add another punishment. Otherwise, these foreign criminals will start thinking they're as good as our own home-grown criminals. And, that won't do, will it?

So, Innumerate, that's why the government tried to deport him and may well spend another few hundred thousand pounds on an appeal - just to satisfy the brainless gutter press. Makes you proud to be British, doesn't it?

p

[patprimer74]

This decision had nothing to do with whether he will be allowed out - that's up to the Parole Board, in due course. If they do decide to allow him out it'll be on licence for the rest of his life and he can be taken back in at any time.

And, I'll stick my neck out and say 'Yes, it does sound right' assuming that the Parole Board thinks it's safe to do so. The alternative is that you keep him in jail for the rest of his days, costing about £750 per week. I can think of lots of better ways of spending £36,000 a year, probably for another 50 years - that's about £1.8 million - than on some obsessive wish for vengeance.

"Ah!", you say,"But he should have hanged, in the first place!" Possibly. But there's little point in discussing that in this case because parliament has voted, time after time, against Capital Punishment and there's no serious political party that I know of who advocates its return.

If you don't think that, after 12 years, he should be considered for parole, then how would you deal with people found guilty of even more 'heinous' crimes?

What would you do with someone who murdered two people?

And, someone who murdered five people?

What about someone who rapes a little girl and then murders her?

What about someone who makes a habit of murdering people, like the Yorkshire Ripper?

And, what about people who set up death camps and kill people by the hundreds?

Will you treat them all the same - either hanging or actual life imprisonment? That would be a bit generous to the mass murderer, wouldn't it? If I'd murdered one person and knew that the punishment would be the same, I'd carry on killing. I might get away if I kill the person who recognises me or the policeman who comes to arrest me. So, why not?

This subject is complicated. Flippant one-liners don't answer the question.

p

Wot! No takers?

p

[Guest tbatst2000]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/6956088.stm

Definetly one person who should not be allowed to add to the housing demand. However I do not understand why the government tried to deport him. Did they not know understand their own law ?

I can't decide who is worse, him or his lawyer. It's not that I don't think he should have legal representation, but for a lawyer to make the kind of insutations about Frances Lawrence that he made on the tv the other night is downright despicable. Hmm, thinking about it again, everything before the but is a lie as journalists sometimes say, he shouldn't have legal representation, he should be throw out of the country - if the Italians don't want him, then we should dump him in a war zone somewhere and leave him to fend for himself. This pervertion of the human rights act, which has not happened in other countries that have incorporated it into their own legal systems, makes me sick partly because of the protection it seems to give to crooks but also because it's singularly failed to protect honest people against the government (which is primarily what the origianl European convention on human rights was all about).

[Guest d23]

I can't decide who is worse, him or his lawyer. It's not that I don't think he should have legal representation, but for a lawyer to make the kind of insutations about Frances Lawrence that he made on the tv the other night is downright despicable. Hmm, thinking about it again, everything before the but is a lie as journalists sometimes say, he shouldn't have legal representation, he should be throw out of the country - if the Italians don't want him, then we should dump him in a war zone somewhere and leave him to fend for himself. This pervertion of the human rights act, which has not happened in other countries that have incorporated it into their own legal systems, makes me sick partly because of the protection it seems to give to crooks but also because it's singularly failed to protect honest people against the government (which is primarily what the origianl European convention on human rights was all about).

yes the perfect remedy for protecting people against the government is to take away their right to legal reprensentation

would it be you who decided who got acess to a lawyer under this new legislation?

[Guest tbatst2000]

Wot! No takers?

p

Sigh, people don't go to the internet for rational debate, you should know that by now! Retributive vs reformative justice is a complex subject as you point out, I guess the thing that riles people in general (me included) is the way that the edge cases, like this one, seem to prevent obvious solutions for spurious reasons. I take the point that this guy has lived in the UK for most of his life and would listen to an argument that said he'd been punished enough by his prison sentence (although I think 12 years isn't long enough given some people familiar with the details seem to be saying he's still quite a risk) and shouldn't therefore be further punished by being deported to a country where he doesn't even speak the language (I hear houses are quite reasonably priced in Italy thought). What really greats though is to have to listen to some totally bogus argument about human rights. Human rights are about freedom from persecution for your beliefs, about the right not to be locked up without charge and a fair trial, really basic deeply important things like that, not some retarded hoodlum's right not to have to go and live in Italy ffs. The people that wrote the European convention on human rights in the aftermath of the Holocaust and everything else that went on in the second world war will be turning in their graves knowing what it's being used for now.

[Goldmember]

Why is the media highlighting so many cases of foreign criminals now?

Except for the Telegraph, the newspapers as one Independent journalist wrote, as he was leaving for a job in PR, have made "consistent losses" for the last 15 years. The only reason to buy a newspaper is for the influence.

The government are screwing up left, right and centre. Time to deflect anger away from them.

[Guest tbatst2000]

yes the perfect remedy for protecting people against the government is to take away their right to legal reprensentation

would it be you who decided who got acess to a lawyer under this new legislation?

I see my attempt at humour has failed as usual No, of course I don't think he shouldn't have legal representation but I do think his current lawyer should be ashamed of himself for behaving the way he has.

[Guest d23]

Agreed. When you're suspended from a gallows, they generally don't.

seeing as this guy didn't fit half of your criteria for being given the death penalty I'm not sure how that statements relevant

2. The offender EITHER committed an unusually large number of murders (e.g. Shipman or Hindley), AND/OR offended in a uniquely sociopathic way (e.g. someone like David Bieber or Scott Peterson), AND/OR was sexually motivated (e.g. Ian Huntley).

5. The relatives and/or close friends (defined as someone significantly affected by the death) of the victim want the death penalty.

6. A majority of jurors recommend the death penalty.

and I'm doubtful this has been proved either

3. There is a significant risk, on a balance of probabilities, that the murderer would be motivated to reoffend if given the opportunity to do so.

this is an emotive subject; the way Frances Lawrence has had to suffer is horrific and I disagree with the sentence he got and the subsequent way in which he escaped deportation but I do not think he should be murdered by the state either.

[patprimer74]

Sigh, people don't go to the internet for rational debate, you should know that by now! Retributive vs reformative justice is a complex subject as you point out, I guess the thing that riles people in general (me included) is the way that the edge cases, like this one, seem to prevent obvious solutions for spurious reasons. I take the point that this guy has lived in the UK for most of his life and would listen to an argument that said he'd been punished enough by his prison sentence (although I think 12 years isn't long enough given some people familiar with the details seem to be saying he's still quite a risk) and shouldn't therefore be further punished by being deported to a country where he doesn't even speak the language (I hear houses are quite reasonably priced in Italy thought). What really greats though is to have to listen to some totally bogus argument about human rights. Human rights are about freedom from persecution for your beliefs, about the right not to be locked up without charge and a fair trial, really basic deeply important things like that, not some retarded hoodlum's right not to have to go and live in Italy ffs. The people that wrote the European convention on human rights in the aftermath of the Holocaust and everything else that went on in the second world war will be turning in their graves knowing what it's being used for now.

Where did you get the idea from that this decision had anything to do with human rights legislation? It didn't, as far as I know.

p