Britain Orders Royal Navy to NOT detain Pirates --

[Simaril]

Why? Naturally, out of concern for their human rights! We can't have authoritarian men (with guns even!) exercizing power over poor, uneducated Africans off their coasts, can we? Now that we think about it, this may even be a racial issue.... Mustn't be hasty!

It appears that the "ethical" problem the RN would face is this: when the nasties who live by piracy are returned to their home countries, those countries use systems of justice that are impalatable to European consciences. Just like they refuse to extradite potentially capital offenders to the USA, they don't want to deal with sending a murdering thief of the high seas to a court that would chop off his hand (or head). On the other hand (tee hee), over the last 10 years pirates off africa have killed 160 and injured 500, on top of holding several thousand more hostage.

In what would be a surprise to many in the O'Club, the biggest proponent of aggressive legal and military measures is....(drum roll) France. Bonaparte always DID have a ruthless streak...

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/20/opinion/20burnett.html?th&emc=th

[Maverick]

That is just sad beyond description. You can't solve a problem by ignoring it or by a Mr. Rogers approach to truly evil people.

[Furball]

Why?

British warships patrolling the pirate-infested waters off Somalia were advised that captured pirates could claim asylum in Britain and that those who were returned to Somalia faced beheading for murder or a hand chopped off for theft under Islamic law...

That is why, we take them back here then they claim asylum and won't leave.  We cannot deport them because of the death penalty.

[Lumpy]

Heh, maybe I'm a psychopath but when I read "Britain Orders Royal Navy to NOT detain Pirates" I immediately though "machinegun". *lol*

[Blooz]

Same here.

My first thought was "sharkbait"

[Simaril]

That is why, we take them back here then they claim asylum and won't leave.  We cannot deport them because of the death penalty.

How would the law (and public opinion) deal with saving the crewmen, detaining the pirates, and delivering them ashore to authorities without ever reaching the sceptered isle?

As it stands, it seems to me that this is a classic problem of competing moral directives. On one hand, it's always been considered the law of the sea to administer aid to those in distress. On the other hand, in Britain it's considered immoral to allow someone to receive the death penalty. So, how do you resolve the conflict?

In that situation, people naturally choose to perform what they consider the MOST moral act of the two, or conversely the least IMmoral one. Apparently the government of Britain believes it better to protect the (probably) guilty than it is to protect their (probably) innocent victims. Have to say that even if I was adamantly against the death penalty I suspect I'd make a different choice.   

[Furball]

It is not a case of making a moral choice, it is against British extradition law, so there is really only one option.

If the country in question did not hack of limbs, criminals heads etc. then there would be no problem in detaining them and handing them over for trial.

It sounds ridiculous, but not to detain them is the only option, either that or we will be giving the pirates a home in the UK on asylum grounds after they get out of jail for piracy.

Should just shoot em in international waters and be done with the problem.  I read that some cruise liners have been hiring Gurkhas as on board security, that should help things

[Xargos]

Sounds like there is going to be a lot more pirate activity due to this.  The pirates knowing, no matter how many people they kill, they'll get a free British citizenship.  Murdering ship crews equals free health care.

[Simaril]

Sounds like there is going to be a lot more pirate activity due to this.  The pirates knowing, no matter how many people they kill, they'll get a free British citizenship.  Murdering ship crews equals free health care.

Xargos, I think what they're saying is that rather than take the chance of that happening, the Brits are choosing to not interfere at all.

Can't imagine what would go on in the gut of a RN officer having to turn his back and sail away.

[john9001]

HAAARRR, back in the day, we hung pirates. Now we have girlymen.

[C(Sea)Bass]

You have it all wrong. They can't kill pirates because that would add to global warming.

[SD67]

[Shuffler]

Sink them... the fish need to eat.

[Simaril]

After thinking about it more --

Doesn't the very act of having such a law mean that Britain WOULD actually rather let the victims die than risk the pirates receiving capital punishment? Putting that absolute prohibition into place is what created the situation....a situation where a British national working on a cruise ship could be allowed to die just so the sensibilities of armchair purists wouldn't be offended.

Come to think about it, the "we would have to give them sanctuary, so we won't do anything" argument places the cost of sanctuary higher than the benefit of stopping piracy. That's a calculation that is as cold blooded as they come.

[SD67]

I'd prefer to think of it as Britain adopting a "Take No Prisoners!" stance where the Pirates and their ship are sent to the bottom .
Pity it's not likely to be the case