1) I don’t mean to imply that Learco Chindamo is anything other that guilty of a terrible crime. If I haven’t said that clear enough, I’ll say it again: Human life is precious, to take it is the most serious crime we can commit.
Learco Chindamo is guilty of murder, he has been charged and tried and sentenced and served time for the crime of murder. There is no way he is innocent in this.

2) The feelings of Frances Lawrence (and many of the public and press) towards Learco Chindamo are legitimate feelings of grief, anger and a desire for retribution. They are in no way illegitimate. But the purpose of the justice arm of the state is to stand between the victim and the perpetrator, to ensure that there is no “eye for an eye” thing going on: to enact some form of (imperfect) justice, rather than vengeance and retribution.

3) The whole extradition thing is a political matter, driven by the governments desire to appear tough in the media. It is not a question of law (which is enacted by the courts) it is what the government is trying to do outside of and top of the already-outworked provision of law as enacted by the courts and prisons. I do not believe that, if Learco Chindamo’s case were not so in the public eye, the issue of deportation (or for that matter, the need to provide alternate identities) would have come up.

Doing a quick search to re-familiarise myself with the case I see that Chindamo was suspected in the non-fatal stabbing of John Mills. There was insufficient evidence to charge him but he was named as one of the muggers present when the attack took place.

Let’s give him the benefit of the doubt that he wasn’t involved in the stabbing of John Mills but add to our impression of Chindamo that he was already involved in violent crime.

I see that when he fatally stabbed Philip Lawrence he was in fact the leader of the gang - not some naive boy that was dragged along with the others because he couldn’t say no to the leader. He /was/ the leader. I see that they didn’t set out to stab the teacher but in fact went there to assault another boy with an iron bar, a 13 year old who went to hospital with head injuries.

Our understanding of Chindamo then is this:
He was involved in violent crime before he stabbed Philip Lawrence;
He was the leader of a gang which assaulted a 13 year old boy with an iron bar about the head - an action which an average 15 year old boy, let alone one already used to violence, would understand could very easily kill that 13 year old boy.

Would you still class this character, Chindamo, as a ‘boy’?

I think you are being naive if you believe that he did not have the mental capacity to understand what he was doing when Philip Lawrence was stabbed. While he may have ’sound-bited’ in the news that he is a reformed character if there is any possibility that he might re-offend, endanger someone else in this country, why should the question as to whether he be deported or not be asked? Has he been judged as now a non-danger or has he just served all the years that the judge gave him?

Yes the issue has been dressed up by the media, yes you have an idiot sound-bite about human rights but what is the problem with asking the question of deporting him? Keeping him in this country will most likely require him to obtain a new identity and all the associated /expensive/ trappings that go with it. Presumably all his family that he wants to stay in touch with will also require all this expense. Like it or not, deportation will benefit the commmunity (less expense, no possibility of him re-offending); and benefit him (won’t need a new identity, familiy won’t need a new identity, family that choose not to get a new identity will be able to stay in touch).

I don’t know enough about the case to definitely say whether I think he should be deported or not but I am not throwing my hands up about people asking the question. Sometimes a decision has to be made along the lines of what is best for the majority. That is what laws try to do in essence I believe - benefit the greatest number of people at the time of their enactment. If you find that majority decision unpalettable I’m sorry for that. My personal belief is that there is no ‘god’. I don’t think there is some sort of being that metes out vengeance on his/her/its whim and until some being shows itself and slaps down a definitive “I AM CASTING VENGEANCE ON YOU!” act we’ll just have to do the best we can. If that ever happens you can of course say “I told you so” all you want, providing of course it’s your god that turns out to be the being wreaking vengeance.

Phew! That was long, and probably inflammatory - let the flames begin…

The fact that he’s only got to serve a maximum of 12 years for his crime is ridiculous. How long would he have served if the headmaster hadn’t stepped in and he’d killed the boy they where attacking?

The thing with the deportation is a hard one to decide. If you’re over here seeking asylum and you commit a crime I think you should be deported straight away. Let them serve their time in their home countries prison system.

Does he have a British passport? Did he apply for British citizenship before he decided to knife someone to death? If not I say deport him. Let him live out his new “reformed” life in Italy.