Warning As Hundreds Of Jailed Terrorists Back On Uk Streets

[naomi24]

//Around three-quarters of the 583 people imprisoned on terror charges in the years since the 9/11 attacks have now served their sentences and been released from UK prisons, many still holding the same extremist beliefs that got them jailed in the first place. Sky News has been told that around two-thirds of those released refused to engage with prison deradicalisation programmes aimed at addressing their extremist behaviour.//

http://news.sky.com/story/warning-as-hundreds-of-jailed-terrorists-back-on-uk-streets-10639848

Since these people still pose a serious danger to society, should special measures be implemented in order that their prison sentences may be extended indefinitely?

[Peter Pedant]

yeah a bit like Galileo ....
he was inside for around 20 y and was continually told it was lucky he hadnt fried. ( 'eppur si muove' and all that jazz )
and his views ! Christ his holiness really used to throw the furniture around whenever he heard them

prison sentences are for what people have done and not what we fear ( with reasons or groundlessly ) what they might do in the future
[ hey but minority report is a good film .....]

and just as a by product - if you are saying they are coming out of prison unchanged - then you have accepted that Prison doesnt work...about a hundred and fifty years after Esquirel first said it ( in French)

[mallyh]

can they not remove british citizenship and deport them?

[naomi24]

Peter Pedant, Clearly prison hasn’t worked for these people, so perhaps it’s time to to stop attempting to de-radicalise them and to make the security of the country and the safety of its people our real priority by incarcerating them indefinitely.

mallyh, not if they were born here.

[anotheoldgit]

What are you suggesting, a life long sentence, perhaps served in a type of concentration camp?

Or perhaps a more humanitarian sentence would be for them to be "hanged by the neck, until dead"? :-(

[Gromit]

You mean do away with the Court system and juries, and instead just lock people up for an arbitary reason?

No, we have a rule of law that hasvolved over many centuries, and we should adhere to that.

If we let the terrorists change our way of doing things, and we resort to unfair and u just measures, then we are on a slippery slope to ending up as bad as they.

[Old_Geezer]

Prison need not change folk in order to work. It works by keeping the miscreants away from the decent folk for a period. Hopefully for some it will achieve reform but we aren't naive enough to expect everyone to come out a model citizen.

Deradicalisation programmes ought to be a non-optional part of the gaol sentence for those to whom it would be applicable. Perhaps they can be put on a terrorist offenders' register and sign in regularly upon release.

For those who are not 'home-grown', why are they still here ?

[naomi24]

Gromit, we're on an even more slippery slope if we give them the opportunity to blow us to smithereens! This isn't an 'arbitrary' reason. it's a very definite reason.

[Gromit]

Holding extremist views does not make one a terrorist or dangerous. Many of these people are influence by the Wahabbi variation of Islam. We find that disturbing, but quite happily recognise and work with Wahabbi Governments such as Saudi Arabi and the Emirates. You cannot force people to change religion, so they will come out of prison still believing their Wahabbi nonsense.

There are many people in the UK with extremist views. But we cannot lock them up until they do something against the law, and having unconventional thoughts is not a crime.

[naomi24]

Gromit, //Holding extremist views does not make one a terrorist or dangerous.//

But these people don’t just hold extremist views and they don't just have 'unconventional thoughts' – they have been imprisoned for terrorist activities and they are dangerous.

[andy-hughes]

Naomi - The justice system operates on a basis of punishment for a crime - and that is what has happened in the case of these individuals.

You cannot punish someone for a crime under law, and then further punish them because you think they may commit the same crime again - that would make a mockery of the justice system.

[anotheoldgit]

If such acts of extremism had been carried out by a political organisation, that organisation and it's members would have been banned long ago.

Why are religions treated differently?

[naomi24]

andy-hughes, I know how the justice system operates. You missed the question.

//should special measures be implemented in order that their prison sentences may be extended indefinitely? //

[andy-hughes]

AOG - you can ban a political organisation, you can't ban a religion.

[andy-hughes]

Naomi - No.

[naomi24]

andy-hughes, ok. Thank you for your opinion.

[KARL]

People with extremist views - does that include those who want to instigate arbitrary arrest/detention "just in case" ?

[andy-hughes]

Naomi - you are welcome.

[anotheoldgit]

Catholicism was banned in England for 232 years.

/// England officially became Protestant in 1559 under his younger daughter Elizabeth I (1558-1603). Except under the Catholic James II (1685-88), Catholicism remained illegal for the next 232 years. ///

[Gromit]

Prisoners can be kept in prison longer than their term if they are assessed as being dangerous.
So these ex-prisoners must not be deemed to pose a risk. They would not be released if they were considered likely to endanger life.
And terrorist offenses have different degrees. Their sentences at the time will have reflected the severety of the crime. The dangerous ones got life or long sentences. The less dangerous crimes, such as being in possession of videos or viewing websites will have got shorter sentences.
It is a bit Kafkaesque to get locked up for watching a video, only to be told your sentence is being extended because you might watch another one.

[naomi24]

Gromit, //So these ex-prisoners must not be deemed to pose a risk. They would not be released if they were considered likely to endanger life.//

They are …. and they have been. If they weren’t a risk there would be no reason for there to be "a more robust programme to properly monitor” them.

According to the link //Some of those who refused to co-operate with prison deradicalisation programmes have already gone on to reoffend.//

Incidentally, the three men who helped the four London suicide bombers plan the 7/7 attacks in 2005 have been released. I don't think it would be an over-reaction to assume they did rather more than watch a video.