More specifically Scotland whose internal laws are differant to England but whose external laws are the same, ie immigration policy.
Last time he fought over here there was lots of brouhaha about why should we let convicted violent criminals into this country but it would not have been any issue at all if it had been an unknown American.
My view is that it seems as if a lot of UK feminists are using the name as a platform to enhance their own staus, some do seem to have pretty big egos.
The current situation is that people coming to the UK from the US only have to fill in a questionnaire about their past.There is not the infrastructure for British customs to check, at the point of entry, the criminal status of travellers.I do not know how it works for a UK citizen arriving in the US.
There have been plenty of cases of US citizens who have arrived here and have only been found out when they committed further offences here.
Point here is that the risk he presents has been assessed and it has been determined to be low, he has done his time and so should be allowed to continue with lawful activity.
So how do US women feel about him ? Is there a danger that banning people on the basis of record and not on risk that it will infringe the rights of individuals.
I don’t really care about this fight, or boxing generally but the accusation has been levelled that money has steamrollered the due process.
You’re saying that some people don’t think he should even be allowed into the U.K. because he’s a convicted felon? He’s not applying to live there, is he? He’s just coming for a couple of nights, to fight? I should think folks would be grateful at all the income he’s going to generate, that will trickle down eventually.
Don’t they allow other convicted felons to visit? Is it a Scotland/England thing? “Those ignorant Geordies, letting someone like that set foot on the sceptred isle…”
AFAIK, where mainstream American feminists are concerned (at least the ones who don’t have access to a media soapbox), Mikey’s kind of a dead issue. “Deceased equine still immobile”, etc. Summer’s coming up, a big election this fall, “Mike Tyson? <<< blank look >>> Oh, yeah, wasn’t he the one who…?”
I understand how this could be a non-issue to Americans and it is to me as well.
It isn’t a Scotland/England thing in the sense of ignorance but it has become partly entwined in the Scottish devolution issue.
The Scots now have their own parliament and it seems that some wish to assert Scottish indpendance from the Westminster parliament. Because Tyson is fighting on Scottish soil they see it as an issue for their parliament.
This is pretty daft in the sense that his visa to come to England was approved and he would be free to travel to Scotland anyway.
Unless there was a completely independant Scotland complete with border controls there is no way that the decision, once made by the Scots, could be enforced.
It has caused enough controversy for the original venue, Hampden park stadium, to pull out. I can’t wait to see what Don King will do about that.
I would like this to turn into a debate, if possible, about when a criminal is considered to be
1)Rehabilitated
2)That Society has considered the price paid by the felon to be adequate
3)Which sort of felons should be constantly monitored for ever if need be
4)Which felons should never ever be released.
The Mike Tyson debate in the Scottish Parliament has simply provided further evidence that the SP deals only with politically correct issues, rather than matters of any real substance.
Alex Salmond (leader of the Scottish National Party) was wanting to ban Tyson from coming to Scotland, but as was pointed out to him, short of actually posting border guards, not an awful lot could be done. What is so special about Tyson anyway. Plenty convicted rapists from England, Wales, and other countries freely come to Scotland, and plenty Scottish rapists travel outwith Scotland with no restrictions.
Should the fact that Tyson is a convicted rapist be a barr to him coming to Scotland? Not that I can see. Casdave is correct in that certain people (eg Alex Salmond) are using Tyson’s fame, or more appropriately, notoriety as a springboard to launch their views and get/keep them in the public eye. They treat any criticism of their views as an affront to women/the common good/the decent view etc. etc.
What they themselves are missing is, of course, a coherent argument as to why Tyson should not be allowed into the country. Tyson has served his time for the rape. He has not demonstrated that he is a continuing risk to public safety, and that would be the only legitimate ground for excluding him entry. I accept that there is often a risk of continued ofending in relation to sexual crimes, but that is not the same thing as a continued risk to public safety.
To pick up on Casdave’s points:-
A criminal should be considered rehabilitated when he has served his sentence AND when he has demonstrated that he no longer has any inclination to commit serious crime, or that he can control any impulse to commit that crime.
On a practical level, that is something that may be impossible to evaluate properly, but I leave it out there as a theoretical position. To simply say that someone is rehabilitated just because they have served a particular sentence, or have gone a certain amount of time without reoffending is a nonsense, unless we’re talking 10 years or more (dependant on the crime)
When is the price paid adequate? Ask the victim, then ask the felon, or his (most serious criminals are men) spouse. You’ll get entirely different answers. This is a very subjective question.
Currently in Scotland, if a person is sentenced to two years or less in prison, they will serve only half that sentence. If over two years, two thirds. Once a felon has been released however, he is still “on license” until the full period of his sentence has expired. If he reoffends during that period he can be recalled to prison for the remaining part of his sentence (eg if a person is jailed for two years, is released after one, and reoffends after a further six months, he can be recalled to prison to serve the remaining six months). This applies even if the person is not charged or even convicted of the subsequent crime. Murderers are jailed “for life” which effectively means ten years or so, and remain on licence for the rest of their lives.
Serious sexual offenders should always be monitored Likewise those convicted of terrorist activities. There are no other specific crimes that I feel merit the need to have those who commit them monitored. Specific offenders however may need to be monitored. Those whose crimes do not merit longer imprisonment, but whose personality make-up suggest a high likelihood of serious reoffending. This would probably only involve violent type offenders.
4)Serious sexual offenders whose psychological profile shows are likely to reoffend should never be released. Likewise murderers who have a high risk of reoffending. Perhaps other violent offenders. I am not an advocate of the “three strikes and you’re out” school of thought, although I am in favour of a clear scale of sentences for multiple offenders, whatever the crime.
1.) As far as rehabilitated (by which I interpret as meaning…no longer possessing a criminal personality) evidence seems to suggest recidivism rates for all types of criminals is exceptionately high. So I would consider a criminal rehabilitated perhaps after fulfilling conditions of parole without rearrest. Obviously that might not always work depending upon the ability of some criminals not to get caught again.
2.) I say a prisoner has paid his price when his term is up, and regardless of what I said in #1 ought to be allowed the chance for a new start (unless that term is life or capitol punishment obviously)
I’ve seen plenty of felons coming back into jail after only a few weeks or months outside.
One I remember well, as he was pretty convincing in his determination to go straight, came back after 11 months freedom for another 5 years and he considered that the sentence was light and was relaxed about it.
Many of them complain that when they are released they have little chance of finding well paid work because of their past which they are legally bound to reveal. They will be released into the same circumstances that saw them commiting crime in the first place.
I can easily see good arguments against these people such as, why should you get a well paid job when honest folk have to start at the bottom and work their way up, and I agree.
How about a scheme that extends the supervision system outside jail whereby an ex-con is compelled to work at some government run industry (actually there is no reason it has to be government run rather it is has the mandate to operate under certain conditions)
The wage would be realistic and employment would be compulsory as would the requirement to train. The contract between ex-con and industry would be virtually the same as any other employment contract with the added supervision requirements.
If an ex-cons standard of work or behaviour would lead to a sacking then back to jail he would go.
The felon would never be completely released into society until he had satisfactorily completed his employment contract.It might take him several goes but the incentive would be there for non-recidevism.
This in all probability would cost more than the current system but it would address the fundamental issue of making a felon an employable asset.
The closest we have to this is in our lowest category, cat D, prisons where an inmate can go to a regular job but returns to jail each evening and weekend. One such in the Low category part of our jail was earning over £600 per week (about $900 ?) all quite legally.
The weakness with this is that such people would find work anyway and do not need retraining and are very low risk reoffenders.
We need to do something about the vast majority who are in the cat C jails. The cat A and B prisoners are far too great a risk to be let out at all IMHO yet some are once their time is up.
I remember when Tyson was actually convicted, and as I recall, it was pretty farcical. It’s not like he hunted this woman down–she came to his room, dressed only in a bathrobe.
Shortly after his conviction, I saw a short interview with the “victim”. Of the nonsense she spouted, the thing that stuck with me was when she said she would never have pressed charges if he had called her the next day to apologize.
Now, if a woman is actually raped, does anyone seriously think that a phonecall the next day is going to make it okay?
The U.S. will not allow anyone to enter their country if they are a convicted felon.
I play on a billiards team, and we had to replace one of our players when we won the right to play in the U.S. championships, because he had a drunk driving conviction from 20 years earlier, and therefore was forbidden from entering the United States.
My brother had the same problem for a long time, and as a result my family could never holiday in the U.S. He had a DUI conviction when he was 18, and for the next 15 years couldn’t enter the U.S. Our family had to plan holidays elsewhere (big pain, since we lived about 70 miles from the U.S. border), and after he had children he couldn’t take them to Disneyland or any other U.S. attraction. He finally applied for a pardon from the Canadian government and got it (it’s common to get a pardon for a minor conviction if you have a clean record for 10 years after).
So you Americans, don’t get too upset if Scotland doesn’t want a convicted rapist in their country, if you won’t let in a family man who got busted for showing poor judgement when he was 18.
Down at the bottom, in section 29, you have to answer these questions:
So, essentially they’re just taking your word for it, but if they catch you lying about it, they’ll come and take you away. I don’t know if they have felony convictions, etc. in their computers, but I’d be very surprised if they didn’t. Also, I notice it doesn’t specify “felonies” anyway, just “have you ever been arested or convicted for ANYTHING?” Obviously Mikey would have to answer “yes”. Dunno how he’d do on the part about “afflicted with a communicable disease of public health significance, a dangerous physical or mental disorder, or been a drug abuser or addict”.
Notice also that they don’t really want to be big meanies and keep people out of the country–if you have to answer “yes” to any of the questions, you can come in to the office and explain it, and chances are good you’ll be given your visa anyway.
It’s also important to note, I think, that all this applies only to visitor visas, not working visas (green cards, etc.) But that’s what Mike Tyson would be applying for, if he were a Scottish plug-ugly coming to Las Vegas to fight.
It doesn’t say anything about time limits (statute of limiations), either.
Dhanson, is it possible that your brother just never appealed the judgement because there were other places to vacation anyway? It looks to me like he might have a good case now, if he’s still interested in getting a visa for whatever reason. Like you said, it’s been 15 years. And we do want those tourist dollars to keep coming…
Are you sure Hampden has pulled out? I read a number of articles on Friday by the SFA defending their decision to allow it to go ahead? Have I lost time again?
As for the Scottish Parliament I think it was simply a case that their nose was out of joint over Westminster’s perfectly lawful stance that they handle matters of immigration. They can debate and huff and puff until they are blue in the face but they have absolutely no say in the matter.
I think casdave’s confusing Hampden Park with Celtic Park, which did decline to host the event.
Btw Duck Duck Goose, green card applications do have more or less the same questions (and the FBI & CIA do check). The O visa is the one that a Mike Tyson would use to come to America, and he wouldn’t have to answer those questions on the application, but he could be denied a visa anyway if the INS staff knew of his conviction.
At the time of the British refusal to let Tyson into the country, I remeber reading a great cartoon in an English newpaper - possibly the Times.
We see a father and son walking down the street. The kid is looking very sad, as dad is explaining: “Now Johnny, I know you’re very upset about not being able to see mr. Tyson fight. I have been looking forward to it as much as you do. But you must understand that mr. Tyson has done something very wrong in the country where he lives. He even had to go to prison for it! And here, in the United Kingdom, we do not allow people who were convicted of a crime to enter our country. I know this means we’re not gonna see a fight, but it was the right thing our government did.”, or words to that effect.
So you’re looking at this cartoon, and thinking to yourself, “Why the hell is this funny? This is just plain fact!”.
BUT: when you take a closer look, you notice the street name plate (of the street the father and son are walking on) in the upper right corner of the cartoon:
OH, OH, Coldfire, sputter, sputter. That joke was simply wicked to equate Tyson with Mandela.
I can’t stand Mike Tyson who is obviously one weird violence psycho who has been lucky enough to been “channeled” into making millions as a professional boxer.
If he hadn’t had the opportunity, Mike Tyson would probably be a hitman for some druglord, in prison or dead. The man did his crime[s] and served his time[s], what he really needs is a good handler who keeps him on a tight leash so he can’t pummel/rape anyone else. He’s a likely candidate for the three strikes you’re out law.
Let’s go back to Coldfire’s joke: My first reaction was to bang my fist on the computer desk, blow flames and want to wreck havoc on Coldfire for being such as jerk. Then, I realized one point of the joke. Laws need to be applied equally to all folks no matter what their character, integrity, contribution to society. The fact that we all differ significantly in terms of our honor, character, integrity and contribution to society makes this task harder. Yes, I recognize that not all laws are just, sane and equally applied, however Tyson did serve his time so he should be allowed entry.
Anyone want to start a thread on US visa requirements and the Statue of Liberty?
the REAL point is that Nelson Mandela did some serious time as well, notably for (if memory serves me well) murdering a couple of policemen.
Don’t get me wrong: I’m not putting ol’ Nelson down here. But the fact remains that he also did time for a serious crime, his later efforts to end Apartheid notwithstanding. Therefore, a striking similarity can be drawn between the two cases:
Mandela. Convicted of murder, became one of the most important statesmen in the 20th century. Can he enter the UK? Sure, no problem.
Tyson. Convicted of rape, became nothing more than a badass boxer. Can he enter the UK? Nope, sorry. We have laws, you know.
If both men had NOT been famous, entry to the UK on an RSA respectively a US passport had not been a problem whatsoever for either, since the crimes and their convictions are not a part of ones passport.
Casdave - interesting point about the enforced working/training following release from a custodial sentence. I see a problem however in that it provides guaranteed employement for those who commit serious crimes when those who have not commited a major crime are left to survive on state benefits if they cannot find a job.
Not that that would stop the government though…
I work in the criminal justice system here in Scotland, and was annoyed to read a police interview with a 15 year old boy who was being held in secure accomodation, as the boy was complaining that there was nothing to do but watch cable TV all day.
I don’t have cable TV!!
I’m not suggesting that all forms of mental stimulation should be removed from those convicted of serious offences, far from it, but let’s not forget that prison is supposed to be a punishment. Yes, the restriction of someone’s liberty in itself is a major punishment, but provided all basic needs are met, I don’t see why prisoners should be living in better conditions than many pensioners.
Oh, Coldfire, how sinful of you to commit such an error.
Nelson Mandela was not convicted of murder. Yes, he was a co-founder of an ANC youth league; yes, he fought for equal representation as South Africa moved to “revise” its govt for “something” closer to a republic but in true fact was a racialist abomination; yes, he was a co-founder to a movement based on civil disobedience; yes, he was a co-founder of an ANC sponsored group that included terrorism. HOWEVER,his first conviction was leaving the country without permission and he was convicted to life imprisonment based on inciting sabotage, treason and violent conspiracy and he was not convicted of murdering policemen.
Mandela fought against an immoral and ethically corrupt racialist regime because he believes in self-determination, democracy and giving folks opportunity to be the best they can be. That can hardly describe the rapist Mike Tyson.
I stand corrected when it comes to the crimes Mandela was convicted for. However, it is only fair to say that the ANC has been responsible for killings and sabotage under his leadership. For a good cause, as we know now. But innocent lives were put at risk by the ANC just as well.
Once again, don’t get me wrong. Of course Mandela is a hero, and of course his struggle (and, in hindsight, even the means used) was justified. He’s a better man than Tyson in many ways.
But that still doesn’t change the fact that both served prison time for serious offences. Of course they’re in totally different eras and perspectives, but my point (actually, the cartoons point) was that fame affects legal status, apparently. Neither men, had they been unknown, would have been stopped at the UK border for their crimes and jailtime - simply because there is no way to verify this at a regular customs check.
Mandela is a Commonwealth citizen; Tyson is not. We have different rules governing the admission of people from the commonwealth from the rules governing the admission of people from elsewhere, just as we have different rules governing admissions from other EEA countries.
Tyson’s crime (rape) is a sexual offence and an offence against the person under English law. It is more difficult to gain admission if you have been convicted of a crime like this than if you have been convicted of, say, dangerous driving or fraud.
Mandela was convicted of a number of things which would not be an offence at all under English law (or would not have been at the time: the Terrorism (Conspiracy and Incitement) Act 1998 makes some of them offences).
Surely a political dissident from a country with an oppressive political regime deserves more hospitable treatment than an American rapist? If the USA refuses to admit an Englishman with a drugs conviction, should it also refuse to admit Chinese dissidents who have been in jail for participating in peaceful demonstrations against the government?
Finally, I have never heard such egregious nonsense as has been spouted in the Scottish Parliament over this. There might be a case for saying that some of the reserved matters should be devolved, but immigration? They really are taking the piss. It’s like saying that the Governor of Rhode Island ought to be able to decide who can and cannot enter the USA.
Biggest difference between Mandela and Tyson: no rock star ever organized a fund-raising benefit/tribute/crusade for Mike Tyson. Personally I think they let Mandela in because they just didn’t want to tick off Bono and Sting.
Also, Nelson never did anything as tacky as bite somebody’s ear off.
