For the UK-challenged, about 10 years ago a head teacher (=US “principal”) Philip Lawrence was stabbed to death outside his school by a teenager who was in a fight that the teacher was trying to break up. Learco Chindano, who has dual Italian and Filipino citizenship, was sentenced to a minimum term of 10 years and will be eligible for parole next year.
Chindano came to the UK as a young boy, lived his whole life here, has no available relatives in Italy or the Philippines, and has gotten an education in prison. He has been praised by the prison system, is not seen as a risk to reoffend, and is likely to continue education or learn a trade when he is released.
According to EU law, Chindano, as an EU citizen who has lived in the UK for more than ten years, may not be deported when released. This is not under human rights legislation, it’s under EU citizenship legislation. However, the government recently came under criticism for not trying harder to deport foreign prisoners upon their release from prison, so in this very high profile case they sued to be allowed to deport Chindano next year when (and if) he is paroled.
The decision came down yesterday, and the government lost.
There has been quite a bit of criticism of the ruling, and the usual suspects (mostly Tories) have gotten up on their hind legs to denounce the European Union (which they are entitled to do in connection with this case, as it’s EU law that is cited), and the Human Rights Act (which they are not entitled to do as this act is not the basis for the decision). Mr. Lawrence’s widow describes herself as “unutterably depressed” but blames the Human Rights Act, wrongly. The government is about to appeal on the basis that Chindano only spent 9 years here before his conviction, however there is no provision in EU law that allows the time spent in prison to be discounted when calculating the ten years residence necessary to forbid deportation.
I realise that at least one reader of this blog will not agree with me (hi, K***h!) but I am depressed at the turn this has taken. I do not believe that prison is merely warehousing for punishment. This guy could not even write or read his own name when he went to prison; he has now taken GCSE’s in English, art, and something else, maybe math. He will have spent ten years of his life in prison (not a picnic, from all accounts) but is emerging as a person who can sustain a job or further education and contribute something to society. Had the person he stabbed been another gang member, there would be no question of his right to remain here and no public outcry. Are offenders to be sentenced according to the eminence or innocence of their victims? Every human life, not only yours and mine, but Mr. Lawrence’s and Chindano’s, has an equal worth and is equally a loss when it comes to or is brought to an end.
So, what to do?
First, the media has a responsibility to ensure that the facts of the case are widely disseminated, and to correct, firmly, anyone (including Mrs. Lawrence and the idiot politicians) who asserts that the Human Rights Act has anything to do with this decision.
Second, a debate has to occur on exactly what we intend prison to be: a punishment only, or also an opportunity for rehabilitation back into society. It can be both, or it can be punishment only. If it is punishment, then the punishment ends when the sentence is served. If both, then rehabilitation should also include an admission by society that the offender can emerge and have a decent chance at a job and a life.
I offer my sincerest condolences to Mrs. Lawrence: the loss of her husband is horrible, and no amount of apology, support, or time will make up for that loss. Neither will trying to break the law to wreak even more vengeance on Learco Chindano. To him I offer encouragement, admonition, and condolences, too. The pounding he’s getting and will continue to get from the media might break him yet again; he has been broken, and partially patched up. I hope that with the rest of his life he will try to make up for the loss and the pain that he caused. Go ye, and sin no more.
(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)
In a corollary to the Chindano/Lawrence case, another convicted felon has won a case against the government for keeping him incarcerated unfairly. As a condition for his eventual release, the trial court required that he go through a particular course aimed at assisting him to keep from offending. The institution in which he was incarcerated does not offer this course, and his efforts to get the course were not successful. When his sentence was served, the government refused to release him on the grounds that he had not taken the course. He sued, and the courts held that he was being unfairly incarcerated and ordered his release. It is only common sense that conditions for release of a prisoner must be offered to that prisoner and be achievable. Otherwise, we have indefinite imprisonment without parole, Catch-22, and tyranny.
Well written.
I’d add that prison can be a way of keeping people dangerous to others away from other people. To me, this is slightly different than punishment (and deterrent) and rehabilitation.
I think people who call for more people to be locked up for longer or who oppose crime prevention education / care should be reminded just how much keeping someone in prison costs taxpayers. I believe it is around 30k UKP.
Be very very careful with using prison as a “way of keeping people dangerous to others away from other people.” After watching a wonderful PBS program on Typhoid Mary, it became very clear that one person’s definition of “dangerous to others” can be dramatically different from anothers. Obviously, violent criminals are one things, but as the program pointed out, healthy carriers of Typhoid, TB, Leprosy and HIV can become victims of this type of scare tactics also and locked up. Typhoid Mary was imprisoned for more than two thirds of her life even though she was healthy. At one point, she was released and re-trained for an unskilled laundress job and yes, she did chose to return to her dangerous position as a cook, causing more harm. She then never saw the outside of a prison which in her case was probably a good thing, but others can and should be allowed to function in society when capable of doing so, even if they are “healthy carriers”.
I agree about being careful. This has been an issue recently for some cases involving suspected drug resistant TB.
The role of prisons as a place where people become more dangerous rather than less I think should also be considered.
I totally agree. People have been talking about the role of prisons in society and there have always been outcries for prison reform, but NOTHING has changed on this side of the pond. It’s pretty frightening what our prison system does to some of it’s residents.
I’m not talking hardened repeat criminals….
They’re a whole other story. But many accidental criminals end up becoming hardened criminals because of the very prisons they place in for reform.
And then there’s the whole “quarantine” issues….