Where a criminal poses an ongoing threat and there would be evidence of that, authorities would be failing in the duty of care entrusted to them if they didn't identify and treat that risk.

That may be continuation of their previous offending, which is likely, or a new intent to wreak mayhem.

The authorities must do better than be reactive to crimes after the act. That is made obvious by the illegality of threats and the remedies that may be applied where threats are made. It is the real and convincing nature of the threat posed that is relevant.

Rhian, yes it is those rules that have developed under the British
legal system that I feel must be maintained, yet the illogicality of
letting a known risk out that worries me.
I am not sure that there is a real answer to this.

Yuyutsu said;
What gives anyone a right to punish another in the first place?
That right is given by the person living in the community and
accepting the protection and facilities of that community.
The POW is not a relevant comparison and your idea that no one
should be punished by imprisonment is invalid.
If you choose to live in a community then you obey the rules of that community.
If you do not wish to then find yourself an island and live on it by
yourself. If someone joins you in two or three minutes you will have
rules to live by.
The law is only a continuation of good manners.

Human Rights were invented by a bunch of Virginian slave owners. They have been usurped by the Left as a left wing wish list. Almost anything a lefty wants in their utopian worldview can be classified as a "right." Human Rights has much in common with Islam. Both claim to be above parliament, to be infallible, that their principles need never change, and both have been usurped by a power hungry clique to create a failed utopian vision.

The greatest faults of Human Rights and Islam are their dogmatism and their inability to change. Morality will always change because the world will always change. The founding fathers of the US constitution lived in a time where the right to own a firearm was an sensible thing to do. But if the founding fathers had seen an Armalite rifle, and what it could do in seconds to a schoolyard full of kids, they might have thought again.

Binoy is complaining about the growing use of preventative detention on unconvicted persons. This issue is an extremely important. Because the incarceration of people on the grounds that they may commit an offence is contrary to everything we have long accepted about criminal law in democratic countries. The principle has always been that nobody can be incarcerated without due process.

But times have changed. Thanks to people like Binoy Kampfmark , we have imported people into democratic counties who are extremely dangerous. They are people with religious convictions that are contrary to everything we believe in, and they wish to impose their medieval values on the rest of us through terrorism. They have no fear of death, and they have the knowledge and the means to arm themselves with weapons of unprecedented lethality, and to strike when they choose.

The simplest way to prevent these people from causing catastrophic damage to our people, our laws, and our way of life, was to never allowed them entry into our peaceful society. But since our politicians were too stupid to do that, then we have to rethink our commitment to the ideals that we once cherished.

Dear Bazz,

<<That right is given by the person living in the community and
accepting the protection and facilities of that community.>>

Spot on!

So either when a person does not accept the protection and facilities of that community or when the community itself has no intention to ever again provide them with protection and facilities, their correct status would be like that of a POW. It is OK to detain such a person indefinitely, but in that case they should not be trialled or punished.

Note two important cases when one cannot be said to have accepted the protection and facilities of a community:

1. An enemy who fraudulently claimed their acceptance in order to infiltrate and cause damage to the community.
2. When acceptance of protection and facilities was not offered as a genuine and fair option, but as a condition for entering/residing in a large and mostly undeveloped mass of land, which the community in question immorally considers as its own exclusive "facility".

Yuyutsu

The civil rights of Australian citizens not to be shot or have their arms and legs
Blown off in public places, overrides any rights of the people who seek to carry out these acts.

That fellow who killed Jill Meagher in Sydney had 13 other convictions for rape
And they once more let him out when he had served his time, this time he killed his victim.

It was noted at the time, that in recent decades, there have been over a dozen people killed by people who had been released from prison because of their civil liberties
In having done their time.

While there is a European army in control of this country, you bet your sweet
Bippy it is a European country..
When some of these Johnny come latelys, have lost thousands of their family members.
Fighting an enemy like the Japanese then you may be able to make the claim that they don'T have claim to the land

Why do people overpopulate their own countries causing so much poverty and then think that countries who have the sense not to overpopulate should give their land and resources to them.

Yeah Cherful I was just thinking how wonderful it is for Jill Meagher killer to get more tax payers money to fight his sentence. Go figure.