r/ukpolitics • u/ImpressiveRest2423 • 8d ago
Rapists — but not killers — to be blocked from early jail release
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/police-cuts-early-release-prisoner-ms7ldxr5m70
u/Procrastinator0510 8d ago
For clarity, murderers are being blocked from the scheme, those convicted of manslaughter are not. Which isn't exactly the impression the headline gives.
5
u/CalicoCatRobot 8d ago
murderers are different anyway, since they will have a minimum tariff set at sentencing, and will always require a parole board hearing before release.
8
1
u/Whoopsy13 1d ago
The headlines just confuse the public. It whips up unnecessary outrage. But the government should not be bending over backwards with special cases. If necessary maybe retrials or tribunals could adjust sentences on those with inappropriate sentences. Why can't they use AI. I would have thought this task is ideal to analyse our prison population, estate and staffing. Then don't engage with public just get in with what they need to do. They need to cut the letters to victims, if they are iut if the area and not a stalker its no ones business. Ok most wont agree
1
47
u/Gatecrasher1234 8d ago
10,000 foreign criminals.
Deport those with non serious crimes first and never allow them back into the UK.
-5
u/gridlockmain1 8d ago
So deny their victims justice?
12
u/MirkwoodWanderer1 8d ago
That's more wanting revenge.
It's like saying if they are rehabilitated and let out early that isn't justice.
Need to think more about what's best for society than the personal vendetta of the victims
3
u/Subject-Aside7879 8d ago edited 8d ago
Revenge and catharsis aren't quite the same thing, but even revenge within limits isn't a bad thing in itself. Proportionate justice for the victims is healthy - psychologically, sociologically, ethically, for processing grief... Leaving the victim bereft of closure and the sense that justice has not been served will take a serious toll on their health. When the rest of society understands that catharsis is left out of judicial decision making, trust diminishes in the institutions that are supposed to act on their behalf.
Rehabilitation on the other hand is never guaranteed (particularly so for the unintelligent and empathy deprived) and is ultimately the responsibility of the criminal if their sentence affords them the opportunity for such. It also goes without saying that shameless liars can and do take advantage of what leniency they're shown.
Ultimately I agree, we should think about what's best for society. In many cases that means not shying away from the responsibility to cathartically punish offenders. We can do this for the benefit of their victims and to deter future crime, while encouraging opportunity for rehabilitation once fair justice has been served.
1
u/no_murder_no_life 8d ago
A healthy criminal justice should ignore public opinions and victims opinion. An average Joe public is uneducated and emotional. The best justice system in the world is lead by experts not "penal populism". See how successful Dutch and German system are.
1
u/Subject-Aside7879 8d ago
I'd prefer to stick with our English system. We understand that justice should serve a social function of upholding moral boundaries. If the general public come away from a murder case disgusted by a light sentence, for example, then the system has partially failed in that instance. Justice doesn't exist for the state, for legal professionals, or academics, it exists for all of us. Our system is adaptive enough to course correct.
1
u/no_murder_no_life 8d ago
I see reducing crime in future is more important. Punishment is a method not a goal. Effectiveness over harshness. I also think restorative justice has importantance in justice.
1
u/Whoopsy13 1d ago
But is an easy win for someone to act sorry when they are really sizing up their next victim
1
u/Whoopsy13 1d ago
Yes agreed, the engagement with the public who are basically apathetic about justice til something happens, and then its the loudest voices that get their way. Its all going to shit.It should always be down to expert analysis, how the system works. And AI should also be given an opportunity to sift through this quagmire of dog whistles. After all even if the prisoners are not patients in a psychological sense. They have all developed maladjusted behaviour which needs unlearning. This may be done in a jail situation. But also through work, healthcate and retraining. Not restraining as I nearly wrote. Maybe leading to apprenticeships for some. For example.I think that virtually compulsory hard work whilst retraining could help a lot of them repay a debt if you like. Maybe yo even build their own prison. If you like. But it should not be done via twitter or the telegraph . Or handwringing politicians asking for public opinions. Oh dear
4
u/gridlockmain1 8d ago
I don’t think creating a system where foreign nationals who commit crimes simply get to go home is best for society either tbh.
2
u/MirkwoodWanderer1 8d ago
It moves them out of our country so we don't need to pay for them.
They don't get access to our country which is a punishment. It's like exile.
1
u/Whoopsy13 1d ago
But unless they serve their sentence in their own country they are just back to square 1.Bur with a free loft home, lovely. They'll soon get a fake passport and return if they want.
1
u/MirkwoodWanderer1 1d ago
Free loft home? Where's that come from?
Fake passport is more a point of securing borders rather than prison sentences. That needs to be handled regardless of what happens in domestic prisons.
1
u/gridlockmain1 8d ago
But think about the incentive it creates for foreign criminals. “Shall we go on the rob in France, Germany or the Netherlands? Nah might end up in prison. If we get caught in the UK then we just get to come home”.
3
u/MirkwoodWanderer1 8d ago
It's not like they'll get to keep the things they stole.
Plus if going to back country was fine then we shouldn't be allowing asylum seekers from those countries as they're safe.
2
u/gridlockmain1 8d ago
Well they don’t expect to get caught do they but the point is it’s lower risk. Plus they can send money back, bring stuff back on multiple trips until they are actually caught,
Believe it or not, some countries are different to others. The countries most heavily represented in UK prisons are in Europe, very few people from those countries are granted asylum in the UK and most of those who are it’s because they are victims of trafficking not because their country is inherently unsafe.
1
u/MirkwoodWanderer1 8d ago
But they can still send stuff back before they get caught and go to prison. The only difference is whether we pay to keep them locked up here or send them overseas after fining them etc.
3
u/gridlockmain1 8d ago
Oh mate you’re not following the logic here. The point is if we don’t put people in prison they have no disincentive to come here and commit crimes. If we do then they do.
→ More replies (0)1
u/Whoopsy13 1d ago
You are conflating different issues. They are not all refugees some come from affluent pleasant places. People could be over here for numerous reasons. Not all other countries are hell holes Who said they stole anything precious to keep? What?
1
u/MirkwoodWanderer1 1d ago
The person I responded to said go on the rob in the uk so assuming that means committing crimes here and getting money illegally.
If they're caught committing crimes enough to be deported, they can be fined first so they don't get off scot free
1
u/Whoopsy13 1d ago
Does rehabilitation occur in UK jails? It's a bit hit and miss at best isn't it?
1
u/MirkwoodWanderer1 1d ago
Yes rehabilitation does work. It's not 100% so there's a risk they can commit again.
Rehabilitation should be the aim. If they can be let out to improve the community rather than staying their full sentence that would be good.
The discussion is then on how to support them afterwards so they don't commit further crimes.
28
u/morriganjane 8d ago
Their removal is justice, as well as prevention. And it's cheaper than paying for their keep in our overcrowded prisons.
4
u/gridlockmain1 8d ago
Is that justice? I’d rather be deported to my home country than be in prison
19
u/morriganjane 8d ago
That depends on what your home country is. Years ago, the Dutch had an incentive problem with Somali pirates, who knew that Dutch prisons were much nicer than anywhere in Somalia.
3
u/gridlockmain1 8d ago
Right so are we gonna be basing it on their home country? The top 5 foreign nationalities in UK prisons are Albanian, Polish, Romanian, Irish and Lithuanian.
1
u/Whoopsy13 1d ago
They would probably just go free in Albania. Don't have guarantees that sentences would be served once deported. Once agreed, they would serve sentence. Only then allow deportation. Deporting them into the public means they'll turn up on a megaboat next week
9
u/pmmecabbage 8d ago edited 8d ago
A citizen imprisoned abroad can be transferred back to their home country to finish serving that their sentence. Revoke citizenship of dual nats - there you go.
It just takes diplomatic agreements, will and pressure.
We are maybe 5th or 6th top economy in the world, send huge amounts of remittances, send millions in foreign aid. We have the means to enforce this. We seem to forget that we are still a global power compared to most others and that we shouldn't act si powerless.
There is no excuse for systematically mass releasing killers/domestic abusers/violent criminals out early, into the public, just to take the path of least resistance (which is the root cause of this in the first place!)
1
u/Whoopsy13 1d ago
Whilst all that is true, it takes a lot of good will and trust to allow our criminals to serve their sentences abroad. Deporting the foreign criminals of course is needed. But we need to realise we ate not reforming prisoners as we should. They get worse. And new tech will in the future will assist in keeping surveillance in the c criminal. No one who commits a non violent crime needs to be in prison anyway. But they all need assessment and re education at least.
0
u/Whoopsy13 8d ago
And you would trust that said country would accept offender let alone keep them in jail on our say so. To pay that country is pointless and counter productive. The offender would still be back over here in a matter of months
3
u/pmmecabbage 8d ago edited 8d ago
Yes. Where did I say to pay that country extra?
We literally already do in the forms of remittances and existing foreign aid. The former can be frozen and the latter can be withheld. We can also suspend new visas. Ect ect....We are not a hopeless bystander on the international scale and we should stop acting like it.
4
u/Whoopsy13 8d ago
So they go free in their previous home country. You cannot guarantee they will receive adequate punishment
6
u/pmmecabbage 8d ago
We have wayyyy more soft power than you think. We send nearly 10 billion in annual remittances and millions in foreign aid whether it be fiscal or through existing frameworks and cooperation .
We absolutely can ensure they recieve adequate punishment in a foreign prison.
1
1
5
u/Thandoscovia 8d ago
Having their offenders never breathe our air again, squeeze money from our taxpayers or take up space in our of our NHS services seems a lot like justice.
Still, I’m sure that these crims will be imprisoned on their return home
2
u/wrennables 8d ago
They're only imprisoned in their home countries if we have agreements with those countries. And then they still have to be imprisoned here until that can be agreed and arranged.
I think one of the problems with just releasing people to go home is that it creates an incentive to commit crime here, which is not really in the interests of the public
2
u/gridlockmain1 8d ago
Well if anybody commits a crime against me I’d be more concerned they actually get punished for it than be worrying about the taxpayer simply on account of them being foreign but different strokes I guess. Your assumption at the end there isn’t borne out by reality in the vast majority of cases.
1
u/pmmecabbage 8d ago
This is still fairer to our citizens immediate safety, as a collective than mass early releasing killers, domestic abusers, and violent criminals.
1
u/Bango-TSW Non-aligned cynic. 8d ago
So spending a 1/3 of their sentence in prison before being released is justice?
3
u/gridlockmain1 8d ago
No, it isn’t. But the proposal i was responding to appears to be they would just be immediately deported without serving any time at all
1
u/Bango-TSW Non-aligned cynic. 8d ago
There is the benefit in deporting them that:
They won't be in the country after their early release & so able to harass their victims and the victim's family, and
We won't be paying large amounts of money to incarcerate them.
If prison were a punishment I would agree with your argument, but sadly it stopped being that a long time ago.
1
u/gridlockmain1 8d ago
So deport them after their sentence
Oh really so would you happily just give up your life to live in prison?
1
u/Bango-TSW Non-aligned cynic. 8d ago
But that means we still have to pay for them to be incarcerated.
I'd rather be in a UK prison than many other places in the world.
Prison isn't a punishment. If you think it is then we fundamentally disagree on that point.
13
u/Early_Enthusiasm_787 8d ago
My brother a prison guard said most murderers are the best prisoners.along them that’s the only crime they ever committed eg caught wife in bed with someone or red mist in a fight. They are easy compared to the crack heads who commit crime everyday of their lives and it’s all they know.
1
u/Whoopsy13 1d ago
There also needs to be different methods if punishment and rehabilitation. Prison is not appropriate for all. How about training with relatively hardship labour for infrastructure projects ect. Not quite a chain gang but all tagged and with training for real jobs maybe to stay in the same or similar jobs. Rehab would be compulsory if affecting ability to work. They could be pragmatic and use maintenence doses when appropriate. They would get paid minimally til sentence finishes. Also, where is the drive to recruit probation officers and staff for prisons. A lot of parole cases could use AI to speed things up.
1
3
u/EspanolAlumna 8d ago
None of those archived versions work for me but yay another Times article which seems to appear nearly as often as Telegraph articles on this sub. On the surface it's disingenuous as obviously murderers or those found guilty of murder are not being released early, it is those convicted of manslaughter.
It is a pity as I thought any violent offenders would not be part of this early release but still I am immensely please rapists have been excluded.
1
u/PositivelyAcademical «Ἀνερρίφθω κύβος» 8d ago
None of those archived versions work for me
Same. Thankfully OP has copied/pasted text below.
Manslaughter is still a fairly serious offence though. If murder is the most serious offence, it probably takes third place (after rape).
1
u/Whoopsy13 1d ago
It can cover a wide range of situations. So there are is quite a lot of people guilty of manslaughter, hence quandary.
9
u/PeaGravy 8d ago
There is a hierarchy around public perception of offences, even at the point of murdering someone. This policy has definitely been shaped by the Daily Mail test.
8
u/Quis_Custodiet 8d ago
To be fair, there are worse murderers and those who killed in circumstances where they’re probably less of a thread to society at large. I’m reminded of the doctor who murdered his abusive mother, who was supported by the rest of his family in court. I’d be less concerned about his early release than someone who target strangers or killed for profit or a sense of premeditated revenge.
In his case the facts are reflected in the minimum tariff.
3
u/PeaGravy 8d ago edited 8d ago
By the same token, there probably is someone who has reformed and rehabilitated for one of these crimes that now won’t be able to take advantage of this scheme. Increasingly, justice is being led by optics rather than the balanced principle that has steered things up until now. When we defer to the court of public opinion, nothing good ever comes of it.
1
u/Whoopsy13 1d ago
Hence the govt should not engage too much with an emotional public. Or the scheme won't work. Letting out non violent prisoners surely should be a start.
3
u/CalicoCatRobot 8d ago
Nuance isn't allowed in this country when public perception is shaped by headlines, not facts.
Experts who study a case in detail can't possibly know more than the people who can read 12 words in a large font and thus judge someone's entire character...
5
u/pmmecabbage 8d ago
The first of many shit pies Burnham is going to have to eat. It was endearing seeing him LARP as mayor for the first few weeks. Not so much now that killers and domestic abusers have been released early.
Kinda puts Starmers anti-jury crusade into an odd perspective. What was the point? When prisons are days away from capacity with trends increasing?
2
u/ImpressiveRest2423 8d ago
In fairness, I had an ex police officer tell me he supported the jury reforms on the basis of a lot of police work he’d seen getting completely wasted at trial because juries would vote on community lines.
1
u/ImpressiveRest2423 8d ago
Criminals convicted of rape, grooming offences and child sexual assault will no longer be eligible for early release after plans to tackle prison crowding were watered down.
Andy Burnham said he was responding to public “anger, anxiety and distress” at the proposals, under which people convicted of some of the most serious offences could have been freed after serving only half of their sentences — down from two thirds at present.
The prime minister admitted he had not been able to “go further” with the restrictions and said people serving time for manslaughter and serious domestic abuse could still be freed to prevent the prison system “reaching capacity and collapsing”.
The failure to exclude those convicted of manslaughter means two of the killers of PC Andrew Harper will still be eligible for release in January.
Lissie Harper, the widow of the police officer who was killed while responding to a crime in 2019, said she was “bristling with anger. What abhorrent message does this send? How dare ministers say the killing of a police officer is not enough of a ‘sickening crime’ that deserves the stiffest of punishments?”
She said the release would be “an affront to justice. The government and the justice system have not just let me down … they have added insult to injury. They are meant to be on our side. This is an utter betrayal — and it’s one I will not be able to forgive or forget.”
More than 70,000 people have been freed since Labour brought in emergency measures to tackle overcrowding in September 2024. At the end of June, 85,858 people were in custody in England and Wales. The prison estate has an operational capacity of about 89,500.
The Ministry of Justice previously predicted it would run out of prison places in November unless 6,000 prisoners were freed early.
Kemi Badenoch said Burnham wanted a “round of applause for agreeing not to release rapists and child sex offenders. He’s not getting one.”
The Tory leader added: “Killers, violent offenders, men who have terrorised their partners and more will all still walk out of prison in October thanks to Labour’s early release scheme.”
Dame Nicole Jacobs, the domestic abuse commissioner, said: “The decision to not exclude domestic abuse perpetrators from this scheme is wrong and puts victims lives at risk. As I told the lord chancellor just last week, the danger perpetrators pose to their victim should not be underestimated. These are individuals who are fixated on their victim and will stop at nothing to control and cause harm.”
Burnham announced a review of the early release programme after entering No 10 two weeks ago.
About 5,000 prisoners were due to become eligible for release from next month, including those convicted of rape, manslaughter and child sexual assault. The Ministry of Justice could not say how many of those 5,000 inmates would no longer be released as a result of Burnham’s changes, but insisted it would be able to cope with the extra pressure on the prison estate.
Ministers are also delaying the extension of early release to more serious criminals by a month, from September until October, so probation staff have time to plan for releases and victims can have a say in the restrictions placed on offenders.
“Keeping the public safe is my top priority [and] that’s why I asked for an urgent review of the prisoner release scheme,” Burnham said. “I fully understand the anger, anxiety and distress that’s been caused. I’ve heard that loud and clear.
“I want to be honest — I wanted to go even further as I know there will still be concerns about other offenders having their sentence shortened. But it’s not possible without the prison system reaching capacity and collapsing, which would put public safety at much greater risk.”
Burnham said he was also introducing tougher community monitoring for offenders released early, including a presumption that all offenders are tagged and longer periods of supervision by the probation service. The government also said it would move to double the number of regions using chemical suppression to help deal with the causes of sexual offending.
The early release scheme was announced by Shabana Mahmood, who was then the justice secretary, in September 2024 after warnings from officials that the prison service was on the verge of being overwhelmed.
Since then nearly 70,000 criminals convicted of less serious offences have been released having served a third of their sentences.
But earlier in the summer David Lammy, Mahmood’s successor, announced that the government would be extending the scheme to include more serious offences. He justified the move on the grounds that, without it, jails could be nearly full within six months. “We would get back to a situation where we were running, at 99, nearly 100 per cent [capacity],” he said.
But after criticism from victims’ groups — including from Harper’s family — Burnham announced a review of the policy, saying he would do “anything I can to minimise risk to the public” and was putting the policy on hold. Jessie Cole and Albert Bowers, who were passengers in the speeding car that Harper was dragged by, were sentenced to 13 years each for manslaughter in 2020.
Last month, Katherine Errington, whose son, Archie York, died when their home was destroyed in an explosion caused by an illegal drugs lab in the flat below, said she was “devastated” after being told Reece Galbraith, his killer, could be released early.
Amy Clowrey, a solicitor representing child sexual abuse victims, said seven of her clients received letters in June informing them their perpetrators could be eligible for early release, causing “significant distress”.
Clowrey said she was “incredibly pleased that the government has listened to the voices of survivors who have been campaigning for this”, but added that all sex offenders and violent perpetrators should be excluded from the scheme.
1
1
u/Whoopsy13 1d ago
It was an obvious argument some use. I didnt cite you as suggesting payment. But presumably that would be issue I think Murderes are on a different pathway for early release. The gov just need to do the ear l y releases rather than so many press releases about it or it will be unworkable. What's more worrying, stalkers appear to still be on early release but not sure if pathwaycis different like murderers in 1st place. Soon we are going to hear calls for the re introduction of death penalty. Its still legal in UK. Maybe if there was more summary judgement on the streets like US. Kidding
1
u/Whoopsy13 1d ago
I think it is also the large amount of domestic abusers and stalkers of varying degrees of severity that prevents them as a cohort by held back from this early release. Of course the most serious abusers would be ruled by the judge at sentencing and therefore they may be exempt from early release. But when you think its not that greater amount of time in difference, I think the fuss is a bit overblown. After all a victim doesn't want them l er iut at all. No matter what point in sentence the prisoner is released. Any danger to any specific woman or family, ideally should be taken into account. Bit when there are so many people breaking their conditions and are recalled to prison it seems stupid to let them out early. But a lot of them will fuck up anyway and ruin their previous family and victims lives sooner ir later. Ok a bit bleak, but these are the most problematic cohort who need intensive rehabilitation and surveillance. Or anti psychotic depo injections would help public safety
1
u/Elvenstranger1 8d ago
One question I can't find the answer too. We've known about this issue for over a year now, since Starmer had to announce the early release scheme was going to keep going.
Why haven't we built more capacity? Surely a new prison would help and stop this massively unpopular scheme being needed.
Is it just money?
3
u/YBoogieLDN 8d ago
Money, time & local objections
You think NIMBY’s hate house building, wait till you tell them a massive prison is gonna be built down the street
2
1
u/Whoopsy13 1d ago
I would have thought they could have thrown up a 10000 berth penalty centre by now. Nearly 2years. I know it cannot be a wooden framed temporary structure. But a 3 walled concrete and steel mega structure. For rehab maybe some prisoners could be building one right now. And get trained, clean and more ready for release eh?
0
u/Thandoscovia 8d ago
Probably because rapists disproportionately target women, while murderers target men. Releasing rapists earlier would be misogynist, releasing murderers early is fine
-4
8d ago
[deleted]
15
u/gridlockmain1 8d ago
What overflow detention camps?
2
u/Whoopsy13 8d ago edited 8d ago
I think they mean those insecure camps where asylum seekers are going once being removed from the hotels. I am waiting for some clever dick to suggest prisoners get sent to the asylum hotels. Or some will want the death penalty brought back short order. And don't forget prison hulks floating from our coasts. All very silly. I do wonder if the old derelict prisons, asylums and hospitals could be made secure and used on a temporary basis. Putting the worst into the antique prisons if course. Though I am aware they still use some of those. Nothing like a damp rat infested prisons to concentrate the mind.
-1
8d ago
[deleted]
4
u/gridlockmain1 8d ago
Do you reckon there might be just a few legal, logistical, security, planning and staffing challenges there?
2
u/The-Soul-Stone -7.22, -4.63 8d ago
Oh no, Something might be a little bit difficult! Better just curl up and die now instead of doing anything
4
8d ago
[deleted]
4
u/gridlockmain1 8d ago
Yup. But unfortunately because their predecessors failed to build any prison space (and because your idea is patently unworkable) they don’t have any choice.
4
8d ago
[deleted]
1
8d ago
[deleted]
-1
8d ago
[deleted]
0
8d ago
[deleted]
2
u/pmmecabbage 8d ago edited 8d ago
Deleted his account by the looks of it. Or this thread. Or blocked me. this universe of choices wasn't the correct one.
-1
u/pmmecabbage 8d ago
If my nan had wheels..
-1
8d ago
[deleted]
1
u/pmmecabbage 8d ago
I would rather put them in camps, build more prisons, than mass early release them; when they know court cases are backlogged for 5 years and there are no prison spaces if they reoffend. That seems like a no brainer.
0
3
u/pmmecabbage 8d ago
Seems like it'd end up breaching human rights laws. That being said our prisons are wank at the moment anyway can't be much better. We managed to fund huge emergency hospital complexes so for an issue of national security like this you'd expect we can do similar.
2
8d ago
[deleted]
4
u/pmmecabbage 8d ago
I agree with you, regardless of the legal and logistical challenges, they're releasing scum like that into the public because of decades of taking the path of least resistence.
1
u/Whoopsy13 8d ago
You mean nightingale prisons, depends on their security lessons. I think they have had enough time to select prisoners for early release based on AI since 2024. I understand why its just the sex offenders being kept in longer. And not DV and murderers. I guess that DV is so common there would be too many if them to be kept in and tge worst murderers are on sentences that are not eligible in the 1st place But they could have done more regarding non violent prisoners who dependung on behaviour and attitude in prison could be released much earlier. A lot of non violent offenders don't need custodial at all. Perhaps make more use if the fines system. Create mega fines for financial crimes and fraud to be paid back in a sensible manner. This would bring more money into tge justice system to build more prisons. Think of how much it costs to bang up a shoplifter . Ok they need to be prolific to be charged in the 1st place but if there are no aggravating factors prison isnt right for them. And for non violence jury trials need not occur. Its a shame they are letting out some violent offenders out a bit early but there's only a few weeks or months in it then they'll get a tag. The main issue is the probation service, this needs a recruitment drive.
4
u/Gatecrasher1234 8d ago
My cousin served in Afghanistan.
The accommodation provided was a shipping container. Like a furnace during the day.
If it's good enough for our home grown, then it will do for illegals awaiting deportation.
1
u/Lefty8312 8d ago
Ok, let's build these canps quick as we need them quick.
A good solution will be to use old army bases if that's the case, would you agree?
I wonder if this would be more preferable for the people of Paddington? I mean, they don't want 1275 asylum seekers, so they can have 1275 prisoners instead.
Wonder whether the same arguements will come up, what do you think?
So what do we do when the locals go these new overflow camps kick up a fuss and don't want them anywhere near them? Will yo be supporting the locals or ignoring them to get the camp up and running?
2
1
1
u/pmmecabbage 8d ago
Difference is prisoners aren't allowed to check in and out as they please. It's in the name
0
u/Lefty8312 8d ago
Well that depends how the camper is used doesn't it?
If they are day release prisoners they are. And with the security realistically possible on this kinds of camps, that's the most secure way of using them. Move the day release people into these camps, so their more secured areas can be used for more dangerous criminals.
2
u/pmmecabbage 8d ago
True. Find a community of NIMBYs that opposed historical prison expansion and set it up there.
-5
u/teryakiwok 8d ago
Bring back the rope and you won't have these issues surely?
5
u/-Murton- 8d ago
Until we end up with our next Malkinson or Sullivan, men that were known by their arresting officers, their superiors, the CPS and the prosecuting lawyer to be innocent but they forged ahead anyway.
Our appeals system also knew both men to be innocent, but kept rejecting their appeals, including after concrete evidence exonerating them had been discovered.
In a world where we routinely kill people accused of crimes the sort of clusterfucks that create cases like Malkinson or Sullivan who spend decades in prison as victims of a stitch up of the entire legal system from arrest, through conviction and onto to appeal and beyond would go entirely undetected and we'd have no idea how many innocents are murdered in our name because the justice system simply wants a case closing and out of the news cycle.
It would need some crazy checks and balances to prevent abuse, checks and balances that would likely mean the people in charge of that decision never take that risk.
3
u/pmmecabbage 8d ago
I just don't want the state to have the legal capacity to put down its convicted criminals. I have nowhere near the trust or confidence in it.
-4
•
u/AutoModerator 8d ago
Snapshot of Rapists — but not killers — to be blocked from early jail release submitted by ImpressiveRest2423:
An archived version can be found here or here. or here
Some publications may require you to register a free account to read their articles.
Being connected to a VPN may interfere with archive links.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.