Should Learco Chindamo stay in the UK?

Neil you wouldn't go back, you only do it to the person thats committed the crime .Jim yes they normally send back foreigners to their country of origin but your right Italy might not want him. Steve, they are already talking about dropping the Human rights bill and going for something more manageable .Plus if they sent every single crimial home just think we wouldnt have to build so many houses taking up green belt .Its an enviromently good move

It really depends on how you wish to cure these types of social ills. Humans are essentially machines, and something has gone wrong in them when they commit these acts so what do we do? To use an analogy, what do you do when your car breaks down? Do you do like Basil Fawlty and give it a stern warning and then thrash it to death with a branch or do you open the bonnet and see what's wrong with the engine and try to fix it? That scene in Fawlty Towers was so funny precisely because it was so ridiculous but since we too are machines and we know that those same forms of punishments in and of themselves do not work at reforming a person, it is every bit as ridiculous to think we can make a person better by punishing them as it is to think Basil could've fixed his car by doing what he did. The only real way to reform these types of people and to reduce and as best we can prevent crime is to get inside their heads, find out what has gone wrong and try to fix it.

Now obviously I'm not saying we do away with punishments or long sentences at all. These people should be locked up and while they are locked up they should be treated and when they have demonstrated they are fit for release back into society then they should be allowed out. For some people, the dangerous sociopaths and psychopaths that may mean never being released and for others who committed terrible crimes for other reason, they could be let out after a couple of years. That may sound bad but if a person has truly changed and is no longer a danger to society is it justifiable to keep him or her locked up in prison when that person in a very real way isn't the same person who comitted the crime?

I'm not putting my neck out one way or the other because if somebody killed somebody I loved and then was let out after six months I'm sure I would be furious, in fact if somebody killed somebody I loved I would probably do my best to kill that person myself, but objectively speaking I think it's something that should be taken seriously. I just think a change has to take place in how we deal with criminals and doing more of the same isn't going to improve things.


It's hard for me to disagree with that because obviously I instinctively feel a repulsion toward murderers but I just don't know if that's the best and most humane way to deal with these people. It may well be, I would just like to see things done differently and compare the results.

I agree that more money should be spent on children and health and things to benefit the decent, law abiding people of a nation first and foremost and then what's left over should go to the attention of the criminals.

He came here when he was 6, and has been raised here just like you or me - but as a product of our society he ended up doing something like this. What responsibility should Italy have to him? If it was someone who, as an adult, had conciously decided to come into this country then fair enough, send them back to where they came from - but if someone comes over here as a child, and they are raised here, they have as much right as you or I do to stay.

We live in a civilised society, one which has rules and regulations, borders and boundaries, and if we choose to live in this society we elect to live by these rules. Right? If someone then goes and breaks one of these rules, knowing that they are doing it, then why should they be given another chance and a shorted punishment just because they're 'a new person'? And truly how often do you think people change all that much anyway? Of course there's no such thing as people re-offending

Yes, sometimes a person might make a bad decision, but when it's something like violent attack or as far as murder, it isn't just like littering or something petty - you've hurt or killed another member of the society. As such, knowing what could happen to you upon doing this, you should be punished. Not to mention that anyone can just claim to have changed and put on a show, and then get out and do it again.

If someone had murdered someone I loved I'd want them locked up for the rest of their life so that they couldn't even potentially harm anyone else.

Of course, and that's why this guy should not be deported.

Well that riases bigger questions about how much control a person has over their actions. What if a person is suffering from a medical condition which causes his testosterone levels to increse significantly thus making him more prone to violent outbursts. He may committ a crime as a result of this that he wouldn't have done if he didn't a such a condition. Should he be held just as responsible as someone not suffering from such a condition? Personally, I'm not sure.

Also, many murders are crimes of passion where a persons emotions are so strong that they override their rational thought process. Take for example the long abused wife who finally snaps and stabs her abusive husband to death. The people who commit these crimes are not thinking rationally and are not in that moment aware that they are breaking any laws. That's not to say these people shouldn't be held responsible though.

Well it seems self evident. If a person truly has changed do they not deserve another chance? I know people will say "Well what about the person he's killed. She wont get a second chance at life." and that's absolutely true but the main reason I'm against the death penalty is the idiotic nature of saying, we don't tolerate murder in a civil society so as punsihment for breaking this rule, we are going to murder you. Hello!
So while I wouldn't equate the two there is a correllation between saying that and saying, "well you may no longer be the same person who killed my friend but since my friend doesn't get a second chance at life, neither should you."
Life is obviously such a precious thing, we all agree on that because we agree murder is wrong so to deny a reformed person a chance at life seems to me to be cruel and wrong.

People can and do change majorly all the time. Yes our personalities which are determined by our genes wont change, hence why we can't cure psychopaths , but people can change their behaviour very significantly indeed.

And obviously people reoffend. Criminals reoffend precisely because nothing is being done to rehabiliate them and to change their behaviour. That is what needs to be done instead of locking people up and just throwing away the key. That is only going to make things worse. Just look at the places in the world that actually practice that philosophy. They are disaster zones.

Absolutely but the focus of their incarceration should be on rehabilitation, not punishment. Once rehabilitated the difficult moral questions arise as to whether it is right or wrong to keep such a person incarcerated.

That's really an impossible thing to do. Another problem with todays justice system is that so many are getting back into society who shouldn't be. Any forensic psychologist worth his salt would be able to spot somebody faking it and they routinely do and tell parole boards that such a person should not be let out because they are extremely likely to reoffend but the law dictates that regardless of this fact such people must be released.

A small point. If Murder is viewed as an irredemable crime in all circumstances, to be faced with indefinate imprisonment, then there is no disincentive not to commit further crimes.

Would Italy take him? If I was Italy I'd tell us to keep our own rubbish & not throw it over here.

I think there is research showing that a lot of people that murder come from broken homes etc.... If we just punish people without understanding why they came to do what they did then it limits our chances of understanding and intercepting troubled individuals before they have a chance to commit a crime. I'm not talking minority report style, but treating the symptoms i.e. social ills & that sort of thing. But then at the same time the punishment does need to fit the crime. We have to get the right mix between deterrent & prevention.

no we should hang him