the number of british citizens incarcinated abroad has also increased. Many young backpackers pushed into carrying drugs through customs after running out of money, people who have been involved in bar brawls gone wrong on holiday etc.
The difference between us and other nations is that after our citizens have served time abroad they will have to return to serve at least half their original sentance at home which in some cases does not reflect the crime they are being punished for.
For example Micheal Connell 19 year old from Bury arrested in Thailand trying to smuggle 3000 ecstacy tablets. If arrested in Britain would probably serve between 5-7 years. Micheals original sentance - death, changed to 99 years imprisonment as he pleaded guilty. This has recently been reduced to 30 years on appeal. Micheal will most likley serve around 10-12 years in Thailand before returning home to serve possibly another 10-15 years. Is this really fair to imprison a young man for 25-30 years for one mistake which would have resulted in a much lesser sentance in this country? Also bear in mind Micheal will serve his time in Thailand in the notorious Bangkwang (the Bangkok hilton) which is one of the worst prisons in the world.
Other nations such as America and Australia have different prisoner transfer agreements that often see prisoners released within months of being returned to their own countries. Many British prisoners when offered the chance of returning home to to serve out their sentance in britain would prefer to stay in Thailand. Despite being one of the worlds worst jails and the scene of some of the worst human rights abuses, they may stand a better chance of early release. To return to britain may mean another 10-15 years in a maximum security prison but in Thailand they have the possible chance of the kings pardon.
On the other side of this argument is the Paedophiles such as Gary Glitter who commit crimes in countries such as Thailand and Vietnam where punishment isnt as severe. Ok so Gary will serve two or three years in Vietnam but his repeated crimes of grooming and assaulting children would have surley recieved a much longer sentance in this country. Soon though he will be free to return to his old ways without the strict controls you might expect in this country.
So how can we make sure our citizens recieve the treatment they deserve abroad? Does a drug smuggler deserve death or 99 years in jail while a paedophile can get a fairly light sentance? Should we respect the different laws of other countries or should a british citizen be judged by british laws? Do we need to rewrite our prisoner transfer agreements so they are the same as other western countries?
If anyone is interested in supporting people like Micheal Connell or the thousands of other people incarcinated abroad please visit the foreign prisoner support service website. A simple letter or postcard could make someones week. Thankyou as always for reading and i look forward to your views and comments.
The difference between us and other nations is that after our citizens have served time abroad they will have to return to serve at least half their original sentance at home which in some cases does not reflect the crime they are being punished for.
For example Micheal Connell 19 year old from Bury arrested in Thailand trying to smuggle 3000 ecstacy tablets. If arrested in Britain would probably serve between 5-7 years. Micheals original sentance - death, changed to 99 years imprisonment as he pleaded guilty. This has recently been reduced to 30 years on appeal. Micheal will most likley serve around 10-12 years in Thailand before returning home to serve possibly another 10-15 years. Is this really fair to imprison a young man for 25-30 years for one mistake which would have resulted in a much lesser sentance in this country? Also bear in mind Micheal will serve his time in Thailand in the notorious Bangkwang (the Bangkok hilton) which is one of the worst prisons in the world.
Other nations such as America and Australia have different prisoner transfer agreements that often see prisoners released within months of being returned to their own countries. Many British prisoners when offered the chance of returning home to to serve out their sentance in britain would prefer to stay in Thailand. Despite being one of the worlds worst jails and the scene of some of the worst human rights abuses, they may stand a better chance of early release. To return to britain may mean another 10-15 years in a maximum security prison but in Thailand they have the possible chance of the kings pardon.
On the other side of this argument is the Paedophiles such as Gary Glitter who commit crimes in countries such as Thailand and Vietnam where punishment isnt as severe. Ok so Gary will serve two or three years in Vietnam but his repeated crimes of grooming and assaulting children would have surley recieved a much longer sentance in this country. Soon though he will be free to return to his old ways without the strict controls you might expect in this country.
So how can we make sure our citizens recieve the treatment they deserve abroad? Does a drug smuggler deserve death or 99 years in jail while a paedophile can get a fairly light sentance? Should we respect the different laws of other countries or should a british citizen be judged by british laws? Do we need to rewrite our prisoner transfer agreements so they are the same as other western countries?
If anyone is interested in supporting people like Micheal Connell or the thousands of other people incarcinated abroad please visit the foreign prisoner support service website. A simple letter or postcard could make someones week. Thankyou as always for reading and i look forward to your views and comments.
Comments
Post a Comment