Serving less than half their sentence: quite pathetic

Exclusive: Thousands of rapists, sex offenders and violent thugs freed before serving HALF their jail terms
Thousands of rapists, sex offenders and violent criminals are being released from prison before serving even half of the jail sentences which were handed down by the courts, The Daily Telegraph can disclose.

My God! How Appalling!

What\’s happening?

The Government said they were released early because it would be “unlawful” to hold the criminals in jail until after they have served half of their jail terms.

Last night Tory MP Priti Patel, who obtained the figures, said the fact that so many violent criminals were freed early was an “insult to their victims”.

In all the figures show that 92 rapists, 176 sex offenders and 6,990 violent criminals were released from jail in 2011 having served less than half their sentence in custody.

This is the equivalent of 40 per cent of all the violent criminals who were released lat year, 12 per cent of rapists and 11 per cent of sex offenders.

Under Ministry of Justice rules anyone serving a determinate sentence of more than 12 months must be released from prison on licence at the half way point.

Terrible!

Officials said that where a prisoner\’s release date falls on a weekend or Bank Holiday, they will be released on the last working day.

They said that holding the criminals until the first working day after the halfway point of their jail terms would be “unlawful”.

What? This is all about someone being released on a Friday not a Monday?

Do fuck off Ms. Patel, there are important things happening in the world.

Not that it\’s not a good career move you understand. Attractive woman talking about punishment, talking about being strict, goes down well with a certain section of the Tory Party.

Was the making of Edwina Currie after all. Perhaps SamCam should watch out?

20 thoughts on “Serving less than half their sentence: quite pathetic”

  1. Under Ministry of Justice rules anyone serving a determinate sentence of more than 12 months must be released from prison on licence at the half way point.

    I’m quite perplexed by the idea that prisoners only have to serve half of their sentence. Hang on, what? That’s outrageous!

    So I assume it’s people like me, ignorant of the legal riddle, ‘when is a sentence not a sentence’, who the article is targeted at…

  2. So Much For Subtlety

    I don’t think the offense is that they are being let out one day shy of the half way mark. I think the oturage is over the fact that they are being let out half way.

    Why should anyone automatically get 50% off their sentence?

  3. Why should anyone automatically get 50% off their sentence?

    The rule, for England and Wales, is here.

    It doesn’t apply in Scotland where there is a more complex system (4 years considered for parole at half, otherwise released at 2/3rds; short sentence sex offender, released at 2/3rds.)

    In short, as with so many things, because that’s the way the law is currently written.

  4. So Much For Subtlety // Oct 22, 2012 at 7:31 am

    I don’t think the offense is that they are being let out one day shy of the half way mark. I think the oturage is over the fact that they are being let out half way.

    For certain sections of the Tory party and the wider population I suspect the outrage is over the fact that they are being let out at all.

    For more information on the madness of sentencing policy its worth following The Magistrate’s Blog.

  5. If the violent were punished by violent means (beat:be beaten, stab:get stabbed,rape:repeatedly booted in the bollocks) none of this would be an issue.

    BTW: She might pass as “attractive” within the ranks of Blulabour–nowhere else.

  6. I’ve always thought that’s a bit like government workers paying tax, like why don’t they just give them the amount minus the tax as like a grant? I suppose you could argue that it would make it more difficult to tax extra earnings from businesses on the side but with the sentencing thing why don’t they say the sentence is 7 years as opposed to saying half of 14 years?

  7. If the violent were punished by violent means (beat:be beaten, stab:get stabbed,rape:repeatedly booted in the bollocks) none of this would be an issue.

    eh? Be consistent.

  8. If the violent were punished by violent means (beat:be beaten, stab:get stabbed,rape:repeatedly booted in the bollocks) none of this would be an issue.

    Because violent punishment is a brilliant deterrent.

    /sarcasm

  9. hy don’t they say the sentence is 7 years as opposed to saying half of 14 years?

    I assume because the other half is suspended. Eg it’s only seven years if you keep your nose clean inside, and then don’t go and mug a little old lady the first day you’re out. Which also presumably saves the cost of another trial &c if you do.

  10. Of course Tim T is correct that this is a presentational issue.

    I think there have been studies that show that sentences people think should be applied to particular offences are (largely) applied to those offences in reality.

    The presentational issue is that when we hear 14 year sentence we expect people to be in prison for 14 years, not 7. And we are largely ignorant of how the system works, why it was setup in this particular way etc, so when this reality doesn’t meet our expectations we get upset.

    The Telegraph can “expose” something that has been law for nine years, there is a big old hoo-har about it and then the parties start talking about being tough on crime blah-de-blah, with all that implies.

  11. uk liberty

    No it’s not a ‘presentational’ issue, it’s a ‘telling the truth’ issue.

    Even if the dishonesty has gone on for nine years.

  12. So Much for Subtlety

    3 Surreptitious Evil – “In short, as with so many things, because that’s the way the law is currently written.”

    And there’s the problem. Our benevolent rulers are more interested in the well being of criminals than of the public. So they lie to us, pretending to punish. Of course everyone benefits – the lawyers get more money the more crime there is, the police get more over time, the judges get to promote more of their former colleagues to the bench and so on. It is only the public that suffers. Which is why the voters would prefer criminals in prison and the entire legal profession would prefer them out.

    5 SimonF – “For certain sections of the Tory party and the wider population I suspect the outrage is over the fact that they are being let out at all.”

    Well yes. After all, once someone has shown they are a repeat offender, three convictions say, I really have to struggle to understand why they should ever be allowed to set foot on a British street again. In fact ideally they would not even be allowed back to be buried. If only we could find somewhere to take them. Mars perhaps?

    10 ukliberty – “Because violent punishment is a brilliant deterrent.”

    Yes it is. People rarely get mugged in Saudi Arabia. And we know it works with criminals because criminals use it. I used to live in an area controlled by certain gentlemen from a certain ethnic community. Very peaceful it was. And no one mugged little old ladies because you never knew whose grandmother they might be. Down the road, in another ethnic community, sure. Very vibrant it was. But not where I lived. Now can you explain that other than the fact violent retribution works very well?

    13 ukliberty – “The point is that you’re released on licence, and if you commit a crime or breach the conditions of your licence off you go back to jail. Any crimes you’ve committed will be prosecuted in the usual way.”

    I have a better idea. Leave them in. That way we don’t have to worry about whether they will commit a crime or not. They will of course and it may even be that they are so stupid they will be caught not once but twice. But they will commit the crime anyway. What benefit does the rest of the community have from allowing them out to commit more crimes?

    14 ukliberty – “Of course Tim T is correct that this is a presentational issue.”

    No he isn’t. They are lying it us. It is a basic honesty issue. The legal profession wants criminals out. The government prefers to transfer the costs of prison on to the rest of us. So they let criminals out and lie to us. You cannot present that any other way than an utterly appalling decision.

    “I think there have been studies that show that sentences people think should be applied to particular offences are (largely) applied to those offences in reality.”

    As Krushchev said, there are people who can melt sh!t into statistics.

    “The Telegraph can “expose” something that has been law for nine years, there is a big old hoo-har about it and then the parties start talking about being tough on crime blah-de-blah, with all that implies.”

    And nothing changes. The lying bastards will go on lying to us.

    As TimW might say, hang them all.

  13. I have a better idea. Leave them in. That way we don’t have to worry about whether they will commit a crime or not.

    Do you have any idea how much that would cost? It costs more per year to keep someone in prison than to send them to Eton. And, nota bene that’s to keep someone already there. The average cost of a new prisoner is something like £120,000.

    One of the reasons that we are better off not sending lots of people to prison is because we simply can’t afford it.

    I’m not a liberal lefty, inter alia. If we were talking about throwing them down a hole and bunging a loaf of bread after them, or other economic ways of doing it, then it might be different. But under the current system we can’t afford more prisoners without paying yet more bastard taxes. And I rather resent that.

  14. In what way is it a “lie” or “telling the truth” issue? You just assume that 14 years (or whatever) means 14 years. The law isn’t a secret; the sentencing guidelines aren’t a secret. You feel misled but you haven’t been misled. It is your misunderstanding, because we are not educated about how the system works and we don’t educate ourselves about how it works.

    SMFS,

    Our benevolent rulers are more interested in the well being of criminals than of the public

    Not much point in dealing with the rest of your bullshit, is there? You blew it within two sentences.

    The interesting story being missed is why the system is setup like that, not the way the system is setup (which anyone who has five minutes and an internet connection can find out for themselves). Why is it setup like that, is that optimal for our society or should it be different?

    But instead we get a load of whinging about being lied to.

  15. Do you have any idea how much that would cost? It costs more per year to keep someone in prison than to send them to Eton. And, nota bene that’s to keep someone already there. The average cost of a new prisoner is something like £120,000

    Oh, SMFS will just, in his usual superficial and bullshitty and strident manner, say we should spend less money, or put them in a hole, or shoot them or something. There’s no real thought there; don’t kid yourself you’ll get a reasonable reply.

  16. say we should spend less money, or put them in a hole, or shoot them or something.

    well, we used to pack them off to a penal colony the other side of the world. We just had to stop once it became apparent they were having more fun. 😉

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *