Returning foreign prisoners home was the proposition voters embraced, while the question’s wider “abroad” wording carried a more divisive cargo. Yes won decisively on this platform, but the debate was less a blank cheque for overseas prisons than a broad assent to removing foreign offenders from the UK system.
The floor’s most-respected Yes case supported “prisoners being sent back to their own countries, to serve their sentence”, while warning against El Salvador and unsafe destinations. Other Yes voters framed the policy as practical pressure and prison relief: “Prisoners should end their sentence in the country that they're most likely to be living in when they're released.” Alongside that case sat harsher voices, including one calling for the most serious offenders to be hanged, but those arguments earned much less respect.
No voters did not present a single alternative so much as a set of objections to the bundle. The side’s strongest-rated voice called sending offenders home “common sense”, but described rented cells in El Salvador as “Rwanda 2.0”; another asked, “If someone rapes or murders how do we know that they will serve the sentence imposed by a British Court?” Their concerns ranged from early release and corruption abroad to human-rights appeals, unequal punishment and countries refusing to take prisoners.
That is where the room talked past itself: Yes voters saw prisoner transfers as a way to ease overcrowding and end early release, while No voters saw the same move as exporting the UK’s responsibility and weakening its sentences. The result therefore lands inside the live argument over prison capacity, deportation and human-rights safeguards, but the opinions suggest greater agreement on repatriation than on outsourcing punishment to a third country.
The chamber’s verdict was broad; its preferred version of the policy was narrower than the question.
26 Opinions
I've said yes as I agree with prisoners being sent back to their own countries, to serve their sentence. I do not agree with sending them to places like El Salvador. Or if their lives are at risk in their home countries.
I mean I can't vote yes or no on a either / or question. But I'm against sending them to El Salvador. Sending foreign offenders home, however, is common sense, but renting cells in El Salvador is just Rwanda 2.0. Another expensive headline stunt. Offshoring convicts to Central America would just enrich private contractors while our prisons stay packed. Forget the fantasy gimmicks, we should focus on solid bilateral transfer deals with the countries offenders actually come fro
This question was reworded after publication. However I'm still a "no" on the basis that we can have our own El Salvadorian prison system at home, given a Parliament with the will do just do things. I also have some low-cost solutions in mind that should be an effective deterrent!
Send them to Gaza.
Not until they have served there sentence here first. If someone rapes or murders how do we know that they will serve the sentence imposed by a British Court?
Yes - all foreign criminals should be deported, no discussion of family life or chicken nugget availability.
Retro we will have to accept our bad uns back. El Salvador looks good!.
We have overcrowded prisons - so if there is any opportunity to rid ourselves of foreign criminals we must take it. The most serious ones should be hanged first.
Prisoners should end their sentence in the country that they're most likely to be living in when they're released.
Countries should take back their criminals. For those that don’t, the option of El Salvador should be there. That will pressure the home countries to review their position, as families will not want their relatives sent there. Either way, it will be a financial saving