The UK Government has a responsibility to citizens of the UK first and foremost. If he was eligible to be deported then frankly he should be, and our worries about what a bad man he might be in Pakistan to Pakistani people should be secondary.
Are you suggesting that a responsible government should keep violent criminals in the country at their own expense, when it may be cheaper, easier, and safer for UK citizens to deport them back home?
(I noted upthread that I don't think the criminal here is actually eligible for deportation so the discussion is academic.)
Agreed it's academic (and getting a little off-topic) but for the sake of replying
Yes, the UK Government's first responsibility is to UK citizens, but I trust you're not arguing that means it should completely ignore the welfare of people in other countries. Clearly there is a balance to be struck somewhere.
As far as deporting someone in that kind of situation is concerned: It's a tricky issue. I'm undecided on it, but I think there are serious ethical and practical issues:
Firstly, if you jail a foreigner and then deport them, then that means that the foreigner is being punished initially in exactly the same way that a UK citizen in the same situation would be punished. But then at the end of the sentence, the foreigner is given an additional punishment (deportation) purely because he is foreign. Is that ethical to punish foreigners more than UK citizens for the same crime? Consider too that that person may have family in the UK who are innocent of any crime, but who may also suffer gravely if that person is deported (although clearly, that's unlikely to be the case in the particular case we're discussing in this thread).
On a practical level: Suppose every country does the same thing and deports foreign criminals. So - for example, we deport lots of criminals back to their home countries, and in return we receive lots of British criminals who have been deported back here, some of whom will presumably then commit crimes in the UK. On balance, has anyone actually benefitted from all the expense of all those deportations? Overall, the chances are you'll still have the same number of crimes being committed by repeat offenders, it'll just be different people in each country.
I can see situations where deportation would seem to be probably correct. Two examples would be, people who don't have residency and commit crimes while on short term visits, and people who came to the UK partly for the purpose of committing crime here. But for someone who has residency here, and who, some years after gaining residency, commits some crime that's not connected with their decision to come to the UK - that's a lot harder. Maybe in some cases, it's appropriate, but I do worry that calls to simply expel foreigners sometimes owe more either to xenophobia, or to a feeling that 'it doesn't matter if it's someone else's problem' than to a proper consideration of the ethics and the practicalities.
(And in case it's not obvious: No part of what I've just written amounts to any kind of defence of the individual whose physical abuse of his wife we are discussing. If the facts are as reported, then I'm inclined to completely agree that he should have been given a fairly severe prison sentence)
)
