Control Orders - getting the balance right

Control Orders have come under close inspection at the moment with the decision of the Coalition Government to review their operation. While the Tories and the LibDems were in opposition, they were opposed to Control Orders on the grounds that they were erosion of civil liberties. Now that the two parties are in government, their view of control orders are slightly different.

The LibDems are still opposed to them and want them removed, while the Tories position seems to be that they should now be maintained, though refined so as to be less offensive.

Of course the problem is that there still are people who are too dangerous to be left roaming the streets of Britain, but for whom the Government is unable to prosecute because either the evidence does not exist, or if the evidence did exist, it was obtained from sensitive sources. The Government is in a bind here, it cannot prosecute and yet it it is not safe to let these people loose on the streets.

Of course this is the dilemma of  modern  society. How to manage the small but significant number of people who actively wish to do us harm, but have not yet done so. And of course the very success of the security services in finding these people actually work against them doing something about it through the court system.

If a serious terrorist plot was detected, and it was detected prior to the plan being executed, what you have then is often not suitable for prosecution in the courts where the significant test of "beyond reasonable doubt" is applied. If the evidence relies on "coded" emails and telephone calls, as well as plotters were undertaking "significant" but not illegal activities, how can a court "convict" some one beyond reasonable doubt. They cannot, and I hope they never will.

What then is the solution? A solution needs a couple of characteristics:

• The authorities need to demonstrate (to a required standard, though not necessarily "beyond reasonable doubt") to an independent body, that the person(s) is a threat to the state and people of Britain.
• There needs to be a form of "review" / appeal.
• The restrictions must be of a form appropriate for the type of threat the person is to society
• The restrictions must be capable of protecting the public, but no more.

Control Orders (as currently implemented) are not a particularly desirable or useful. There have been examples of individuals absconding from supervision. The big question is: this type of situation is not unique to Britain. What do other countries do? How do they manage these people?

I would like to know the answer because, surely Britain is not unique in having people in their population who are a threat to Society, but for whom criminal prosecution is possible because sufficient evidence is not available.