The government is to introduce emergency legislation to remove the possibility for terrorists to be released early automatically without risk assessment by the parole board. This will apply to serving prisoners.
Of course, the idea that people are released automatically is itself silly. Why not just shorten the original sentence?
BBC Toady programme this morning mentioned ‘challenge in the courts’ to this emergency legislation. Of course, they weren’t complaining when John Worboys release on parole was blocked. Wrong sort of person maybe?
“…the idea that people are released automatically is itself silly. Why not just shorten the original sentence?”
Correct, but it’s the central feature of the fraud on the public that is custodial sentencing, hence why, when writing of this kind of thing, I usually hedge it about with words to the effect of, “what lawyers and politicians are pleased to call ‘seven years’ custody'”. Some will be aware of the basic dishonesty, whether or not they are conditioned to it. But mostly they just look at the appropriate ‘custodial’ sentence.
To give an example, I used occasionally to mitigate on the basis that whilst my client’s offending obviously passed the custodial threshold, the sentencing guidelines were such that once early release and HDC were taken into account, he’d be out in nine weeks or something stupid. Whereas, 200 hours’ work in the community would sting him for a year, mostly on his Saturdays – not that for most of the criminal class there is a noticeable difference between Saturday and every other day of the week.
Quite often it worked (for the client’s definition of ‘work’, if he wanted to be kept out of the Big House). But one time – and this is the moral of the tale – the judge said that whilst he took the point, he was nevertheless bound to sentence in accordance with the law, even if that meant that the miscreant was sooner to be at liberty.
And considering it from the point of view of those of us who deplore this fraud, I think that might actually be the best approach – precisely because it illustrates the fraud, so that eventually, eventually parliament will (one hopes) do something about it.
The only reason to release that bastard early should have been to deport him to Crapistan, and that should have been done even if he had served his time in full.
On the contrary releasing them early and then shooting them seems to be a neat solution to the problem. Well done Priti!
A refreshingly robust approach.
If one took all the metal from all the keys that should have been thrown away but weren’t, would one have metal equivalent to the amount in the Forth Bridge?
“without risk assessment by the parole board”
Right. So the same sort of people who have been watching islamists on early release, or running the various deradicalisation programs are going to decide if they’re OK to be released?
Mark my words: this buys the blob another 5 years. By then, you’re going to have a couple of people released by the parole board who shouldn’t have been.
One presumes one advantage of the ‘X years sentence but serve half’ concept vs the ‘Half X years sentence and serve it all’ one is that the latter means the person is on licence for the second half of the sentence, so although at liberty there is a degree of control over their behaviour. Whereas if they’ve served their sentence entirely thats it, no more threat of being taken back to prison hanging over them. Of course that presupposes that criminals who breach their parole terms are actually sent back to prison, when evidence suggests the courts often don’t.
Kind of, Jim. But we’ve certainly had extended sentences in the past (I don’t know if they still exist). In other words, you serve x – and it’s generally quite a meaty sentence – and then there’s a period of extended licence.
Irrespective of this, convicts are indeed recalled to prison. I found it occurred quite often.
I think it is worth examining the concept of parole, however. I hadn’t really reflected on it till I read some historical novels, in which was explored the idea of a captured soldier giving his parole to his captors that if they let him go he would not return to fight them. As I say it was fiction, so it may have been nonsense, but the author certainly felt it was something which occurred.
I think the idea of most members of the criminal class giving their word is preposterous. And extending them that courtesy on multiple occasions in the face of repeated breaches is madness.
In jail or “under –fucking useless–surveillance”–these cunts are costing us a fortune. Dump the fuckers back in Crapistan and but a “Dead or Alive” £20000 bounty on them if they return.
Pigskin coated bullets to be used, pigskin bodybags and eventual burial on a pig farm–if not fed to pigs.
That should mean they stay away.
Put not but.
Jeez
HDC…. high dose chemotherapy, hill descent control, Horticultural Development Council…half double crochet?
Home Detention Curfew seems so prosaic
Part of the problem seems to be that the jihadis get put together in jail. FFS! Spread ’em out among the general prison population with no access to other jihadis. They’ll either get deradicalised or they’ll get shanked. Either way is fine by me.
Mr Dog
I like your thinking.
After all, it was also partly “to save money”. And, which – despite 3 surveillance chaps on him at the time (x 3 shifts?) – it would quickly appear to have done.
OK, some minor collateral, but one could imagine, to those chasing ever larger budgets for their mass surveillance programs, how that aspect would have been a feature…
m’Lud – quite right on the question of parole historically. This predates standing armies and where service was less a matter of volunteering but a feudal obligation. Captives who were worth a ransom were retained and generally well looked after like the French King John, taken at Poitiers, who was shipped back to England with divers attendants and courtiers. Those who weren’t worth the bother of preserving could slink off and were happy to be out of it.
Your fellow legal eagle, Jonathan Sumption, has four chunky volumes on the Hundred Years War with a fifth in gestation. Good fun though I might skip the last one when it appears because (spoiler alert) I don’t like the ending.
Properly administered, the ability to offer early release for good behaviour is a way to keep violent men quiet while imprisoned. If you serve the same time regardless of your behaviour you are likely to have all the violent fun available if you are that way inclined. Of course it is used for other reasons — e.g. to clear undersupplied cells or to rid prison governors of an annoyance Better use of the existing rules is often better than constantly toying with them. But it’s harder and public servants have no incentives to do their jobs well (or disincentives for doing badly). A change in public sector culture and recruiting might get better performance?
Thanks, Mr B. Yes, I was aware of his output. As I understand it, he’d work at the Bar for a year or two, earn whopping amounts and then spend another year or two writing his books. How the other half live!
re- parole- remember POWs could go for an escorted walk outside the Colditz castle grounds if they gave their parole not to try to escape. They may have used it for intel but don’t think any of the Brits reneged.
@Mr Ecks no need to go the whole hog. Deny the so called martyr and his family a Muslim funeral – just cremate him and return the ashes to the family.
Tom,
To turn that argument on its head: If they are violent inside, aren’t they committing new offences, for which their sentence might then be extended, and extended. And wouldn’t that be a better way of ensuring that those worthless shits we really shouldn’t be releasing do in fact stay incarcerated? And to protect the rest of those on the inside that aren’t violent, maybe a “three strikes and you’re out” policy for any violence inside? Whatever we want “out” to mean in that context (South Georgia can be nice at this time of year?)…
Violence: and/or encourage forms of controlled release for those that need it – boxing or whatever?
PF – so you’re in favour of convicted criminals spending hours each day in the gym bulking up, all the better to beat the crap out of any ordinary members of the public who try to intervene next time they offend?
I’d rather have them vegetate for the entire duration of their sentence, and emerge as 90 lb weaklings.
Actually, the shooting them dead in the street whenever possible part will go much further in solving the problem than ridding yourselves of early release.
AndrewM
“PF – so you’re in favour of convicted criminals spending hours each day in the gym bulking up, all the better to beat the crap out of any ordinary members of the public who try to intervene next time they offend?”
🙂
To interpret it that way might be stretching things just a smidgen! I think I’m clear enough above re what I’m in favour of – South Georgia if it wasn’t obvious enough – ie those that want to cause harm to others (and *have* demonstrated that are willing to do that) being prevented from having that opportunity. Hence, if they continue to demonstrate illegal / unsanctioned violence towards others, simply don’t let them out (never mind as 90lb weaklings).
Also, purely in the limited context of the gym / boxing, perhaps consider that lots of boxers have said that if they hadn’t taken up boxing (or such other sports) they may very likely have ended up in crime. Same argument with parts of the military etc. That is to say, one can’t simply deny certain attributes of the male DNA; the issue is how people behave within our society. And there is nothing to stop anyone beefing themselves up inside a jail without any need for a gym.
PF said:
“perhaps consider that lots of boxers have said that if they hadn’t taken up boxing (or such other sports) they may very likely have ended up in crime. Same argument with parts of the military etc. ”
A friend used to help with young offenders; he got several of them into the Army. I gather his managers weren’t very impressed; he changed jobs fairly swiftly.
I’m quite happy with judges having the ability to over early release set against an objective measurement, say gaining GCSEs or other qualification that will help offenders on release, they aren’t all thugs, some are in for not paying the TV licence fine. I’d even stretch it good behaviour, but we need some way of ensuring its not the prison system kicking out difficult prisoners for an easy live.
I am against it being seen as something mandatory with the the second half of the sentence being on licence. If the punishment is to be X years in prison followed by X years on licence with the threat of being sent back then that is what should be passed. The public needs clarity on policy so that it can engage in constructive debate.
The military has always been open to taking in ex-offenders, they have a good track record. Its probably based on the knowledge that young offenders in the military often rise through the ranks and make good SNCOs and RSMs, most of whom I knew did not have Long Service & Good Conduct medals.
Human rights lot are complaining about retrospectively changing rules being unfair etc.
No doubt the lawyers are drooling at the thought of how far they can push this one, they are already talking Supreme Court so looks to be a nice little earner.
Hopefully another incentive for Boris to sort out the whole Supreme Court system
Both the London Bridge and Streatham blokes were inside for ‘plotting’ not ‘doing’, which I suppose is a ‘thought crime’. Their stabbing etc is really a ‘first offence’. Capital punishment seems a strong result compared to what they would have got if they’d cut out the first bit. Probably no longer, especially if they’d played the ‘trying to turn themselves around’ card.
Not that I disapprove of the capital punishment bit, nor of wholesale deportation options ….
@Addolff
Human Rights spivs to seek judicial review of Terrorists barred from early release
Boris to welcome more terrorists & rapists to UK
Cnuts
@Jim
It’s also to encourage good behaviour in prison. Doesn’t appear to work given the assaults, drugs, rape etc. Not surprising when those in prison didn’t behave when lock-up was a penalty
@Patrick +1
@RichardT
No surprise, the woke sjw hand-wringers hate the military; the “it works” is denied using word salad
“ Human rights lot are complaining about retrospectively changing rules being unfair etc.
No doubt the lawyers are drooling at the thought of how far they can push this one, they are already talking Supreme Court so looks to be a nice little earner.
Hopefully another incentive for Boris to sort out the whole Supreme Court system”
At least it won’t end up with the ECJ, although it could end up with the only slightly less insane ECHR.
Mayor of London Sadiq Khan Says the Streatham Stabbing Was “Foreseeable” – but early release, SJW, Left not to blame
Mostly platitudes, then
Khan “So called convicted terrorists” – reveals who he supports and it’s not Brits
Piers is good at putting interviewee under pressure and they slip up and admit truth
@ Andrew M
90 lb weaklings are not going to jail for beating up innocent bystanders.
In fact if any thug ended up his/her/xr left jail weighing 90 lb it would be in a coffin with scores of “Human Rights” protestors demanding that the government (of whichever type) be replaced by a “People’s Assembly” representing the criminal classes.
A great deal of misery has been caused throughout the ages by failing to enthusiastically grasp the opportunity to kill Mohammedans wherever and whenever it presents itself. Adherents of militant Islam should no more be tolerated in modern society than priests of Huītzilōpōchtli.
‘The government is to introduce emergency legislation to remove the possibility for terrorists to be released’
FIFY
WTF are you doing releasing TERRORISTS ?!?!