"Deportation, regardless of justice: An examination of the experiences and effects of the 'deport first, appeal later' policy on foreign national pris

对边界的犯罪学研究、人员的大规模流动，以及可能更重要的是，相关的(人们认为的)控制移民人口的必要性已成为一个新兴和基本的研究领域。在一个日益全球化的社会中，人们的流动性越来越强，能够跨越国界，因此人们认为有必要控制移民人口也就不足为奇了。然而，正是被用来管理这些全球化公民的控制方法引起了关注，特别是对犯罪学家来说(萨德伯里，2005年)。在英国，2014年出台了旨在提高驱逐外国囚犯效率的新政策。“2014年移民法”批准了“先驱逐，后上诉”政策的现有条款，在被采取行动的第一年，大约230名外国囚犯在没有事先可能对决定提出上诉的情况下被驱逐出境(内政部，2016年)。根据新立法，那些从内政部收到驱逐令的人在被驱逐出境之前无法对驱逐令提出上诉，这意味着他们必须从接收国提出上诉。当时的移民和安全大臣詹姆斯·布罗肯郡阐述了这项政策的严酷理由，他说：“被驱逐者有权在自己的国家提出上诉，而不是阻碍英国的司法系统--花费英国纳税人在法庭上打官司的时间和金钱。”(《卫报》，2015)。自2006年以来，驱逐外国国民囚犯一直是内政部的优先事项，在此期间，移民政策和立法发生了重大变化。这些变化导致移民制度和刑罚制度更加紧密地合作，目的是提高外国国民驱逐出境的效率(Bosworth，2011：583)。“轮辐式”监狱制度的引入意味着移民政策牢牢植根于刑罚制度(考夫曼，2015年)，2007年英国《边境法》对所有服刑12个月以上的非欧洲经济区公民强制驱逐出境(博斯沃思，2011年)。2014年的英国边境法案包括了“先驱逐，后上诉”的条款，这是驱逐外国囚犯政策的最新发展，可以说是最近最严厉的一次。根据内政部的数据，通过驱逐出境离开英格兰和威尔士的外国囚犯人数是自2009年以来最高的，去年，驱逐外国囚犯的人数增加了8%(内政部，2016b)。在实行这项政策之前，对驱逐决定提出上诉的外国国民囚犯在其上诉权用尽之前不能被驱逐出境。实行这一新政策引起了一些关切，不仅涉及移民政策和立法日益严厉的性质，而且还涉及这种政策对被驱逐者及其家人生活的实际影响。鉴于到目前为止，已提出的上诉很少得到维持，情况尤其如此。在2014-2015年期间被驱逐出境的230人中，只有67人提出了申诉，其中只有3起案件得到了裁决--所有案件都被驳回(内政部，2016年)。拟议的研究--以及探索该政策的经验--将有助于理解这一成功呼吁的稀缺性。剥夺在英国境内及时上诉的权利可能会给这群人带来额外的痛苦、创伤和麻烦，而我试图通过进行下面的研究来探索这种潜在的延长监禁的痛苦。为了解决这个问题，有必要考虑在以下范围内的惩罚是什么意思

Criminological research into borders, the mass movement of people and, perhaps more importantly, the associated (perceived) necessity to control migrant populations has become a burgeoning and essential field of study. In an ever more global society where people are increasingly mobile and able to cross borders, it is unsurprising that there has become a perceived need for control of migrant populations. However it is the control methods that are being employed to manage these globalised citizens that are cause for concern, particularly for criminologists (Sudbury, 2005). In the UK, 2014 saw the introduction of new policy aimed at increasing the efficiency of deportation of foreign national prisoners. Existing provisions of the 'deport first, appeal later' policy were ratified by the Immigration Act 2014 and in its first year of being actioned, some 230 foreign national prisoners have been deported without the prior possibility of appealing the decision (Home Office, 2016). Those that receive a deportation order from the Home Office under the new legislation are unable to appeal the order until after they have been deported, meaning they must file the appeal from the receiving country. The austere rationale for this policy was stated by then Immigration andSecurity Minister James Brokenshire, "the deported then have the right to launch an appeal from their own country, rather than clogging the British justice system - costing UK taxpayers time and money in fighting the cases through the courts." (The Guardian, 2015).Deportation of foreign national prisoners has been a priority of the Home Office since 2006, and in that time there has been a significant amount of change in immigration policy and legislation. These changes have resulted in immigration systems and penal systems working ever more closely with the aim of increasing efficiency of foreign national deportation (Bosworth, 2011: 583). The introduction of the 'hubs and spokes' prison system meant that immigration policy was firmly embedded within the penal system (Kaufman, 2015) and the 2007 UK Border Act introduced mandatory deportation to all non-EEA citizens serving a custodial sentence of more than 12 months (Bosworth, 2011). The 2014 UK Border Act, which includes the 'deport first, appeal later' provision, is the latest in policy developments concerning deportation of foreign national prisoners and is arguably the most punitive of recent times. According to the Home Office, the number of foreign national prisoners removed from England and Wales via deportation is the highest it has been since 2009 and, in the last year, the deportation of foreign national prisoners has increased by 8% (Home Office,2016b). Prior to this policy being introduced, foreign national prisoners appealing against deportation decisions could not be removed from the country until their appeal rights had been exhausted. A number of concerns are raised by the introduction of this new policy, not only in relation to the increasingly draconian nature of immigration policy and legislation, but also to the practical implications of such policy on the lives of the deportees and their families. This is particularly true in light of the fact that, so far, very few of the appeals that have been lodged have been upheld. Of the 230 people deported in the period 2014-2015, only 67 lodged complaints and of those, just 3 cases have been determined - all of them dismissed (Home Office, 2016). The proposed research will - as well as exploring experiences of the policy - contribute to an understanding of this scarcity of successful appeals. Removing the timely right to appeal within the UK is likely to inflict additional pain, trauma and trouble to this group of people and it is this potential extension tothe pains of imprisonment that I seek to explore by undertaking the research presented below.In order to address this, it will be necessary to consider what is meant by punishment within the scope of