Topic: Revocation of the citizenship and exile as a punishment (Read 852 times)

If I was running one of said poor countries I'd feel rather insulted if the US or elsewhere paid me to offload their human garbage. It would be a pointless and unwelcome burden. Let's send them out to mine asteroids. Far cooler.

From Morocco to the Congo, virtually every country on West Africa's coast reports receiving offers this year from American or European companies seeking cheap sites to dispose of hazardous waste. Fees offered African recipients have gone as low as $3 a ton. Some West African countries rank among the poorest in the world, and the offers have been tempting. In February, officials in Guinea-Bissau signed a five-year contract to bury 15 million tons of toxic wastes from European tanneries and pharmaceutical companies. In return, Guinea-Bissau would receive a yearly payment of $120 million - slightly less than the country's gross national product of $150 million.

If you would have 99% of population starving, without electricity, fresh water and medicines who are ready to overthrow you (or not to elect if your country is democratic) you would agree to this offer certainly!

If I was running one of said poor countries I'd feel rather insulted if the US or elsewhere paid me to offload their human garbage. It would be a pointless and unwelcome burden. Let's send them out to mine asteroids. Far cooler.

Void of that, I say we just kill them.  One gun, one bullet to the brain, a tarp underneath for easy cleanup; kill a bunch of them at once and put them in a mass grave, rather than individual graves, for even more savings.  Put the whole thing on TV and charge advertisers a hefty fee, make all the money back and even profit.  Plus we get rid of shitty people we don't want to take care of.  With the profits made, you could even reinvest in more spectacular and creative ways of killing them; put them in a ring and make them fight out for delaying their demise until the next round of killing.  Make even more money from the show as more eyeballs = more advertisement views = more ad revenue.

The idea is to strip-off citizenship from the convicted felon instead of putting him in prison....

Plot summary

The protagonist, David MacKinnon, is a romantic idealist on trial for assault. Since the federal government fears he will repeat his action, he is given a choice: either allow trained psychologists to fix him, or be sent to an area known as Coventry. MacKinnon chooses to emigrate to escape what he sees as the boredom of a too-civilized society. He is sent to the rugged outland beyond the Barrier that separates Coventry from the rest of the world, where people who refuse to abide by social norms are exiled, rather than submit to radical psychotherapy. MacKinnon discovers that the peaceful anarchy he envisioned is in reality a bleak dystopia split into three separate "countries:"

• New America, a corrupt democracy with a dysfunctional judicial system, that lies closest to Coventry's entry point and is the most populous of the three nations;
• the Free State, ironically named — an absolute dictatorship ruled by the "Liberator" with an even harsher penal system, a nation frequently at war with New America though not at the time of the story; and
• The Angels, remnants of the theocracy from "If This Goes On—", in the hills north of New America, living under a new "Prophet Incarnate" — it is implied they are the least populous of the three.

He is jailed on arrival in New America, losing everything he had brought through the Barrier with him. Befriended by a man David knows only as "Fader" Magee, he breaks out of jail. He learns that New America and the Free State are combining forces to attack the outside civilization. He and Fader break out of Coventry separately to warn the country from which he had emigrated of the imminent attack. Back in the world he had left, MacKinnon learns that Fader is actually an agent of the United States Army; and that by risking his life to warn the rest of the country, he has redeemed himself and no longer needs therapy.

There are many flaws with this idea but, yeah why not? 

This could be an opportunity for some as they can thrive there and possible create a notorious gang. Or,they can suffer more or worst in the country of destination for survival.

i agree with you.. no country wants those evil offenders on their own lands.. this punishment is so illogical..

you are totatly right.. any country wont accept those criminals.. and criminals dont care about paperwork or any other law thing..

Where do you plan to exile them to?  Australia?  UK already tried that...

What country wants a bunch of reject criminals?

You can't do that anymore. Even sending home some nationals is problematic. I remember reading an article about an Algerian national who had committed several crimes in France. When he left jail, he was put in a plane with 2 French policemen to make sure he would leave France, except that meanwhile, Algeria had cancelled his citizenship, so the guy had to to be flown back to France, where I guess he still lives!

Poor countries have their own problems with their own people, and they don't want more problems with foreigners. Even with a payment.

The idea is to strip-off citizenship from the convicted felon instead of putting him in prison. Government of his home country can sign a contract with one of the poorest states in the world (Burundi, Malawi, Liberia etc), so in exchange for some monetary compensation the poor country would grant him a citizenship, then his home country will revoke his nationality and expel convict to the poor state.

Compensation for the poor country will be order of magnitude lower than costs keeping him in prison, but deterring effect much stronger than prison time because most people would choose to spend some time in US or EU prison instead of spending rest of life in Sub-Saharan Africa!

There are issues, which makes your proposal impracticable. The European courts will strike down any such initiative from the government, claiming that such measures infringe the human rights of the criminals. Some of the past examples are here:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1262243/Rapist-facing-deportation-allowed-stay-UK-married.html
http://www.frontpagemag.com/point/260577/uk-rapist-escapes-deportation-posing-syrian-daniel-greenfield
http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/284319/convicted-rapist-avoids-deportation (outside EU, but similar circumstances)

And remember that most of these people were in the EU illegally. If it is not possible to even deport illegal aliens, how is it possible to strip citizenship of criminals, who happens to be EU nationals?

Visit Burundi and you will change your opinion by 100%!
Also country of the exile can be chosen according to the severity of the crime (e.g. Burundi for child rape, Cambodia for robbery).

I don't think that the revocation of European citizenship is a serious enough punishment for child rape.

Think this through.  You want to change passports of all countries that have no visa requirements with your country to use DNA and retina in their passports?  The guy could pretend to be a tourist from any other country, get into your country and do whatever.  He could immigrate back as an investor back into your or any other country.

And they be able to change their DNA or retina?!
...

From what time Sub-Saharan African countries entered the EU?!

Most people will prefer to live in Swedish prison instead of walking free in Burundi!