Serious sexual and violent offenders should be legally confined to specific areas after release from prison

It might seem better to accept the rapid advances in drugs and technology.

If women can have three year contraceptive implants, why not let violent people including criminals or mental patients take their vital behaviour-modification medication by implant? Old, male, lawmakers tended to cringe at the idea of what they called "chemical castration". But there are it appears medicines available or able to be developed which can curb most appetites. If the side effect is to cause apathy, that would seem better for the patient/criminal.

The ideal, it would seem, would be to have a mental patient/ or criminal who had low testosterone, low interest in anything, low inclination to anger, and could scarcely if at all be bothered to turn round and look even if there was a view of a child/ chocolate cake/ cup final recording/ vulnerable woman/ bottle of alcohol/ supply of drugs/ perceived 'enemy'.

And, instead of tags which can be cut off, why not implant trackers?

Instead of hopeless, unaffordable attempts by probation officers to discover what people are up to, who they see, where they go and what street drugs or alcohol they consume, why not an implanted blood monitor, triggering an alert to the nearest police car?

And instead of caging in prisons, for a thousand pounds a week, why not use house arrest, monitored by A.I.? It would surely be both far cheaper and far more thorough than prison, which currently introduces people to drugs even if they were not previous users, while also acting as a university of crime, plus validating and reinforcing any behaviour, by meeting others who have done the same.

With house arrest, which could be carried on for life, subject to review by doctors and courts, there could presumably be control of what the occupant can access for entertainment, so there should be no available porn to inflame unhealthy wishes. In fact, whatever is known to rouse violence can be excluded.

Wouldn't resources be better spent on keeping violent/ sex offenders locked up and releasing (and monitoring where appropriate) non violent offenders? Surely it would be far easier to keep tracks on criminals convicted of fraud in the community, than ones who have a statistically high chance of continuing to be violent/ sexually fucked up?

Oh a zombie thread.

It's not good though.

People who can't work end up leaning on public support, or crime. And they are less likely to reintegrate into society successfully.

All you are doing is creating a camp of people with nothing to do, except try and scrape together money for drugs. Probably all dominated by the biggest psychopath of the bunch.

Oh well.... 🤣

I think this is the kind of thing where practically, the details would make a lot of differernce.

I can see an argument that says that finding ways to deal with criminals like this apart from long prison sentences could have benefits. Not just the cost of housing people, but if they can work, and maybe in terms of stuff like still involved with their family, if that was safe, there would be benefits potentially. To society and the individual.

On the other hand there are the questions of safety, rehabilitation, punishment, justice, and all the rest.

But overall, I am just not sure how practical this scheme sounds. I have heard of cases in the US where the restrictions on a released prisoner were so extensive they could only move around within a tiny area, and it caused all kinds of problems. I don't see how that helps anyone. It seems like it could be difficult to monitor, and there might be so many reasonable exceptions made, or they might need to be modified so often, it would be a lot of work to administer.

What do you mean by “bring societal safety back”?

Agree with pp’s who say the current system effectively constrains victims. To add, if as a victim, you and the police determine that you need new areas to be protected (new job/new school etc) that can be arranged. But, in doing so, you are effectively informing your abuser of where you/your children are now going to be.

I’d much prefer the abusers to be restricted, but the area needs to be case by case. Don’t create a ghetto where child abuse/VAWG is considered acceptable by the resident population

As fitting and monitoring of any ‘tags’ etc is now privatised (🙀) it isn’t guaranteed and that service is failing right now. There are huge gaps in support for ex-prisoners so re-offending is almost inevitable. There would have to be massive investments to bring services and societal safety back . That’s not going to happen is it?
This is box ticking , won’t make anyone feel safer.

I’ve lived in similar places, so I know what you mean.

While I appreciate that it must be incredibly hard for the victims isn't the likelihood of reoffending reduced where a support system of family and friends is in place? I'm just trying to see how could have that (to reduce wider offending, not because I honestly give a shit about him) while also avoiding the victim seeing him. The likelihood is that offender and victim are geographically connected.

This strikes me as a very difficult system to make workable.

over 40% of violent offenders reoffend within 2 years of release. I don’t doubt that people work hard trying to stop reoffending- I’m saying it’s not effective enough. The public is not protected despite those efforts.

This assumes a person has accommodation, a steady electricity supply, charges their tag, doesn't tamper with it, that there are enough tags to meet demand. Also it doesn't stop victims from deciding that actually they do want to meet their perpetrator. How would it prevent an offender from starting a new relationship? It depends on their self report and being honest

I was just pointing out it applies in both situ’s. I don’t disagree with your second paragraph but having worked in public protection I do know the work that goes into managing these people when they are released but at the end of the day some will reoffend.

Thats not at odds with what I said (though I disagree that the public is actually protected), but it’s a complete change of tack from your previous position which was to suggest people couldn’t be kept in prison longer as their sentence was over. I was just pointing out it is almost never over when they are released.

I don’t think we should abandon paroling people from jail because it’s just too expensive not to. But I don’t agree that VAWG sentences reflect the seriousness of the crime, I don’t think keeping offenders in prison longer would be disproportionate and I think it would go away to better protecting women. While there is some security theatre that goes on with paroled individuals it does not do a great job of protecting the public. Reoffending rates are high.

It is sensible to order the offender to go to an area far from the victim, in order to continue his imprisonment in house confinement, or with whatever limiting conditions the court and probation service have agreed for him.

Technology is more sophisticated than the basic ankle tag. He could be ordered to remain inside, with cameras to check no children, for instance, are allowed into his house. He could be allowed to get a job, but only to travel directly to work and back. He would, for life if necessary, have to check- in, at instructed intervals and also at random, using his phone and demonstrating where he is and who is with him.

Technology could prompt him to report, and could monitor the films, so it would not need a probation officer to chase him up, unless the automated system had sent a warning about him being in breach of his terms. In that case,the probation service would alert police who would readily pick up his whereabouts, electronically, so it would be easy to arrest him.

He must also have a long-lasting drugs implant, if his offending is related to substances or alcohol, or if he needs behaviour-calming drugs, to reduce his interest in problematic sex or violence or children. If the side effect is reducing his interest in most things, so that he is rendered apathetic about everything from cake to harming people,it will be to his advantage, in saving him from himself.

Women can have very long lasting contraceptive implants, and it is absurd that currently, even in prison, convicts are allowed medicine by mouth. It's hard for anyone to manage a drugs regime by mouth, at home. But if behaviour must be controlled by drugs, as an alternative to putting the offender in a cage for life, then implants are the only option.

The call for long jail sentences ignores the thousand pound a week cost. It need cost virtually nothing to keep a convict unable to re-offend, using drugs and technology.In the area he is sent, it ought not to matter what his offence was, if he is now either confined entirely in his residence, or else is out on extremely strict and technologically enforced conditions.

Public protection is in place when they are released on parole

Almost all are released on parole long before their sentence is up. This isn’t simply about public protection after the end of a sentence.

Mmm, as one who lives in an already lower than average income and higher than average deprivation area, I can hazard a guess exactly which places this sort of thing would be confined to.

After all, the state isnt going to accommodate recently released violent prisoners in expensive areas.

Once they’ve served their sentence there’s no grounds for keeping them in prison. They are managed under public protection arrangements. This is a review of those arrangements with changes suggested

Not enough spaces in prison

My gut feeling is that if people are still a danger to society they should probably remain in prison. Sentences for crimes against women are often ridiculously short as it is.
I suppose some sort of location restriction and tagging would work for a period after release.

Quite. I await the breathless positivity about how AI will magically fix this, too.