OPINION: Abu Qatada should not be released

The radical Muslim cleric, Abu Qatada, who is accused of posing a grave threat to Britain's national security, will be released within a matter of days after a court granted him bail. This is despite the Home Office arguing he remains a risk to national security.

Qatada has spent six and a half years in prison and his defence team successfully argued that, as there was no sign of an imminent deportation to Jordan, where he is wanted to stand trial for alleged terror offences, his continued imprisonment was unlawful.

The UK won't extradite him unless the Jordanian authorities guarantee that no evidence gained through the use of torture will be used in his trial.

So, Qatada, once described as Osama bin Laden's "right hand man" and with links to many terrorist atrocities, will be released.

Sometimes the law is an ass. This is one such instance.

Qatada clearly shouldn't be let loose. He's far too dangerous for that, and his involvement in major terrorist activity is undeniable. Perhaps, if Jordan isn't a sufficiently civilised country (doesn't the UK sell tgem lots of arms?) international courts need to be used to try and, ultimately, incarcerate this evil man.

It's not just Qatada. Surely the same principle should be applied to all criminals; if they still pose a threat to society, if they are likely to reoffend, they shouldn't be released. Some people are just too evil and should never be released.

Seriously, if the crime is bad enough to warrant a prison sentence, and the authorities consider it more than likely that the crime will be repeated, why should they be allowed out?

I strongly suspect that most incarcerated criminals are repeat offenders and, while the cost of keeping the behind bars would fall on the taxpayer, the cost of further police investigations and court cases, plus the effect on victims of crime, would be reduced.