米歇尔·皮蒂博士和艾米·奈瑟里博士在对话中写道，允许某些前移民拘留者在犯罪并对社区构成不可接受的风险的情况下被重新拘留的新法律并不像看上去那么非黑即白。 经过一周不间断的头条新闻报道，政府的预防性拘留立法在下议院获得通过，正好赶上本届会议的结束。 新法律将允许前移民拘留者在被判定有严重暴力或性犯罪的高风险时被重新拘留。 这项立法是在去年11月推翻了一个长达20年的法律先例之后出台的。当时，高等法院裁定，无论人们是否有犯罪史，政府都不能无限期拘留他们。 高等法院的裁决受到了人权组织和一些法律学者的赞扬。 这被视为一个难得的机会，可以根据国际法、宪法分权以及程序公正和相称原则，重塑澳大利亚的移民拘留政策。 然而，急需改革的机会因政治得分而受挫。 反对派和小报媒体对释放“惯犯”激起了道德恐慌。 为了避免被指责为“软弱”，政府也采用了同样的说法。 政府和反对派都认为有必要将“危险”的人重新关进监狱，以保护社区。 与议会程序明显不同的是，该法案的投票安排在非会议日进行，议员们几乎没有机会仔细审查或辩论该法案。 那么，这些法律实际上起到了什么作用，对那些受其影响最大的人意味着什么，以及在当前的辩论中失去了什么？什么是预防性拘留法？新的法律将允许移民部长（现任安德鲁吉尔斯）向法院申请重新拘留从移民拘留所获释的人。 要想申请成功，必须满足两个条件。 首先，此人必须被判犯有至少七年监禁的罪行（无论是在澳大利亚还是在海外）。 自由党领袖彼得·杜顿带头呼吁建立预防性拘留制度。 来源：biance de marchi/aap。 其次，法院必须同意个人构成“犯下严重暴力或性犯罪的不可接受的风险”，并且“没有任何限制性措施”可以保证社区的安全。 在拘留制度中，人们通常在没有法院监督的情况下被监禁数年甚至数十年，法院参与做出这些决定是一种值得欢迎的保障。 这位部长此前在这方面的“神权”受到了广泛批评。 然而，拘留已经服刑的人对人权的影响是重大的。 再次拘留很可能被视为二级惩罚，这违背了相称性和程序公平性原则。 同样值得注意的是，这些法律只适用于非澳大利亚公民。 根据这项立法，具有相同犯罪史和风险状况的澳大利亚人将不会受到预防性拘留。 这引发了人们对法律有效性的担忧，一些人认为，立法的针对性可能会使其容易受到高等法院的质疑。 为什么要引入这些法律？11月8日，澳大利亚高等法院一致裁定，如果一个人在可预见的未来没有被驱逐出境的真正可能性，那么政府无限期拘留他们是违法的。 这起案件是由一个名叫nzyq的罗兴亚男子提起的，他在被判性犯罪后不再有资格获得澳大利亚签证。 由于他是受迫害的少数民族的一员，他不能被遣返缅甸。 由于没有签证，也没有国家愿意接受他，他在2018年完成刑期后被无限期移民拘留。 高等法院11月8日的裁决导致140多人获释。 来源：rod mcguirk/aap。 法院的判决释放了140多人，其中4人因各种指控的罪行被捕。 没有犯罪史的人也被释放，其中包括一名来澳大利亚寻求庇护后被拘留了十多年的男子。 政府已经对获释者施加了严格的条件，包括脚链和宵禁。 当前的辩论遗漏了什么？在高等法院作出裁决之前，难民、寻求庇护的人、无国籍人和其他没有有效签证的非公民经常被无限期强制拘留。 截至2023年8月，澳大利亚有1056人被移民拘留；拘留的平均时间为708天。 与监狱不同，移民拘留中心是官方管理的，不受惩罚。 也就是说，人们不是作为刑事判决的一部分被关押在这些设施中，而是为了方便健康、安全和身份检查，以及办理签证或将其驱逐出境。 自澳大利亚实行无限期强制拘留以来的近30年里，数以万计的人受到这一政策的约束。 被拘留者中有数千名儿童，澳大利亚法律仍允许对他们进行拘留。 拘留条件往往是惩罚性的，经常受到国际社会的批评。 目前关于移民拘留的争论掩盖了这些现实。 它掩盖了高等法院裁决的深刻人道主义影响。 它还忽视了进一步改革的迫切需要，以确保无辜的人（包括儿童）不会受到不适当的惩罚。 它将持续监禁（超出刑事判决的范围）合理化，作为对已经服刑的非公民的有效回应。 最新消息：众议院周三深夜通过了这项立法。 这篇文章最初发表在对话中。 这本书由悉尼大学社会与政治科学学院的悉尼大学罗宾逊研究员michelle peterie博士和迪肯大学的amy nethery博士撰写。 这本书由悉尼大学社会与政治科学学院的悉尼大学罗宾逊研究员michelle peterie博士和迪肯大学的amy nethery博士撰写。
new laws that allow certain former immigration detainees to be re-detained if they have committed a crime and pose an unacceptable risk to the community are not as black and white as they may seem, write drs michelle peterie and amy nethery for the conversation.after a week of non-stop headlines, the government’s preventative detention legislation passed the lower house, just in time for the end of the sitting year.the new laws will allow former immigration detainees to be re-detained if they are judged to pose a high risk of committing serious violent or sexual crime.the legislation comes after a 20-year legal precedent was overturned in november, when the high court found the government could not detain people indefinitely – regardless of whether they had a criminal history.the high court’s decision was celebrated by human rights organisations and some legal scholars. it was seen as a rare opportunity to reshape australia’s immigration detention policies in line with international law, the constitutional separation of powers, and principles of procedural justice and proportionality.yet the opportunity for much-needed reform has been frustrated by political point-scoring. the opposition and tabloid media have stirred up moral panic about the release of “hardened criminals”. anxious to avoid accusations of being “soft”, the government has adopted the same discourse.both the government and opposition agree it is necessary to put “dangerous” people back behind bars to protect the community. in a clear break from parliamentary process, the vote on the legislation was scheduled for a non-sitting day, giving parliamentarians little opportunity to scrutinise or debate the legislation.so what do these laws actually do, what do they mean for those most affected by them, and what is being lost in the current debate?what are preventative detention laws?the new laws will allow the immigration minister (currently andrew giles) to apply to a court to re-detain people who have been released from immigration detention.for an application to be successful, two conditions must be met.first, the person must have been convicted of a crime (either in australia or overseas) that carries a sentence of at least seven years’ imprisonment.liberal party leader peter dutton has led calls for a preventative detention regime. credit: biance de marchi/aap.second, the court must agree the individual poses “an unacceptable risk of committing a serious violent or sexual offence”, and that there is “no less restrictive measure available” to keep the community safe.the involvement of the courts in making these decisions is a welcome safeguard in the context of a detention system in which people are routinely incarcerated for years or even decades without court oversight. the minister’s previous “god-like powers” in this area have been widely criticised.yet the human rights implications of detaining people who have already served their time are significant. re-detention is likely to be experienced as a secondary punishment, which is contrary to principles of proportionality and procedural fairness.it is also notable that these laws only apply to people who are not australian citizens.australians with the same criminal histories and risk profiles will not be subject to preventative detention under this legislation. this raises concerns about the laws’ validity, with some suggesting the targeted nature of the legislation may leave it vulnerable to a high court challenge.why were these laws brought in?on november 8, the high court of australia ruled unanimously that if there is no real prospect of a person being deported in the forseeable future, it is unlawful for the government to detain them indefinitely.the case was brought by a rohingya man, known as nzyq, who was no longer eligible for an australian visa after being convicted of a sexual crime. as he’s a member of a persecuted minority, he could not be deported back to myanmar.with no visa and no country willing to accept him, he had been moved into indefinite immigration detention after completing his prison sentence in 2018.the high court ruling on november 8 triggered the release of more than 140 people from detention. credit: rod mcguirk/aap.the court’s decision triggered the release of more than 140 people, four of whom have since been arrested for various alleged crimes.people with no criminal history – including a man who had spent more than a decade in detention after coming to australia in search of asylum – were also among those released.the government has already imposed strict conditions on the freed individuals, including ankle bracelets and curfews.what is being missed in the current debate?prior to the high court’s decision, refugees, people seeking asylum, stateless people and other non-citizens without a valid visa were regularly subject to indefinite mandatory detention. as of august 2023, australia held 1,056 people in immigration detention; the average duration of detention was 708 days.unlike prisons, immigration detention centres are officially administrative and not for punishment. that is, people are not held in these facilities as part of a criminal sentence, but to facilitate health, security and identity checks, and to enable visa processing or removal from the country.in the almost 30 years since australia introduced indefinite mandatory detention, tens of thousands of people have been subject to this policy. among those detained have been thousands of children, whose detention continues to be permitted under australian law.conditions in detention are often punitive, and have been subject to regular international criticism.the current debate about immigration detention glosses over these realities. it obscures the profound humanitarian implications of the high court’s ruling.it also ignores the urgent need for further reform to ensure innocent people (including children) are not unduly punished. and it rationalises ongoing incarceration - beyond the terms of a criminal sentence - as a valid response to non-citizens who have already served their time.update: the legislation passed the house of representatives late on wednesday night.this article was orignally published in the conversation. it was written by dr michelle peterie, a university of sydney robinson fellow in the school of social and political sciences at the university of sydney, and dr amy nethery from deakin university. .
