3 ms·
The first offense carries only up to a six month sentence. I would agree that the second offense should be punished more harshly. In that case, it is less lik
by amalcon 8y ago
The first offense carries only up to a six month sentence. I would agree that the second offense should be punished more harshly. In that case, it is less likely to be a legitimate asylum seeker for obvious reasons, and more likely to involve other illegal activity.
I meant most cases of public drunkenness are punished by a reprimand or short arrest, not most cases of unlawful entry. Previously, most unlawful entries were punished by deportation. Obviously unlawful entry is currently being punished by imprisonment for over a year awaiting hearing, followed by deportation and no plan to ever reunite you with your family.
This seems to be technically legal, but the law surely does not require it.
- pandaman 8y ago> I meant most cases of public drunkenness are punished by a reprimand or short arrest, not most cases of unlawful entry. And that's my point. It makes no sense to equate an offense, which is usually punished by reprimand, with an offense which is routinely punished with months of arrest, deportation and a ban on entry.
- amalcon 8y agoI guess that's fair. The laws on the books provide similar maximum penalties, but enforcement is obviously wildly different. I'm prepared to retract that comparison, though I would still maintain that the current de-facto penalties are disproportionate to the gravity of a first offense.