The post you are reporting:
I hope this explains things better.
------------------------------​-----------------------
2)
Well I am surprised at the Lib Dems. You'd think they'd support the release of offenders once they've served their sentences, wouldn't you? As a former lawyer I do feel Magna Carta and the principle of Habeas Corpus is a principle not lightly to be set aside. That is how I feel. Tough on crime, but just and a strong believer in liberty once punishment has been made.
The real issue here is not leaving people in prison and throwing away the key for ever - it is about sending people back to their own lands once they have done their time.
------------------------------​------------------------------​----------
Hook's reaction:
A very prickly response from the MP!
I think a main point, that I am not sure he grasps, is the point made to him my the Minister when asked for the prisoners' release in the House. That is the point that they are only detained after finishing their sentence if they are objectively assessed as dangerous.
Dangerousness is independently assessed by bodies like the probation service and based on factors like the type of offence the person was convicted of, their age, whether they have shown remorse and are likely or not to re-offend. It is not a blanket locking-up of everyone. If a person feels they have been unfairly assessed as dangerous they can ask a judge to review it.
Also, this is not unusual. Inderterminate imprisonment applies to many of our own people. The Criminal Justice Act 2003 introduced Indeterminate Sentences for Public Protiection, which is where if that sentence (called "an IPP") the defendant can then be held indefintely beyond when he sentence otherwise would have ended, if he continues to be assess as dangerous.
I think it is quite a reasonable balance in all the circumstances.
I must say I think it is poor form of Charlie Elphicke to play the "I am a lawyer" card. Esepcially as he was a tax solicitor. He helped rich people avoid paying taxes. If we are going to playing that ridiculous game, I am a barrister specialising in criminal law and I deal with these issues of civil liberties and punishment everyday.
He misunderstands what "Habeas Corpus" means. Habeas Corpus (Latin: produce the body) is the rule against unlawful or arbitrary imprisonment. The impisonnment of dangerous foreign convicts is lawful and it is not arbitrary (because of the different way people are treated depending on whether they are dangerous). If these prisoners think their right to Habeas Corpus is violeted that can apply to the High Court 24 hours a a day for Writ of Habeas Corpus. No doubt they have not done so because it woul dbe bound to be rejected.
Likewise Magna Carta, a charter of rights signed by King John. If he is going to say the government is braching it perhaps he can tell us which paragraph of Magna Carta he is referring to? Or is he just raising it with no real idea about its content to distract from the main issue?
The question that I don't think he has answered is why he objects to the system when there is a perfectably reasonable recognition of the distinction between dangerous and non-dangerous individuals?
