Discussion regarding early release of prisoners...

[cjt110]

So, in light of the recent 2 terror incidents in London there is discussions and emergency laws being passed regarding the early release of prisoners convicted of terror related offences.

I agree with the sentiment but I am not sure just what can be done.

They should, like any prisoner in my opinion, serve the sentence delivered and not be released early or on licence.

However, who is to say that when they have completed their setence they will be a reformed character... surely they may still hold these fanatical beliefs for life and therefore are a continuous danger to society and as such no release is safe?

But we cannot keep people in prisons for an indeterminate period because of the interest of reform, justice and human rights...

It appears to be such a fine balance.

If I were the one to be making the decision regarding this situation, I am not sure what would be the best approach...

This is a big complex issue that is being dealt with by people unable to juggle even one idea at a time. The first question is whether or not people convicted of terrorist offences should be treated differently from other prisoners. If it’s decided the answer is yes, then what’s the logic behind that? I’m not saying they should or shouldn’t be, just that there should be a coherent argument for so doing.
Secondly, emergency legislation is a huge power for a state to exercise, especially when in this case, it will be applied retrospectively. It will be legally challenged and we should be grown up enough to accept that such a challenge is completely legitimate.
Thirdly, unless we ‘throw away the key’ they will be eventually released so there needs to be a serious debate about prisons, deradicalisatin programmes, parole and probation systems

This is where I think Norway's system wins out. The maximum sentence in Norway is 16 years, but then it's subject to review at the end of that time and the sentence can be extended if the person is deemed still a threat to the public. The monster that killed all those kids on Utøya? I'll be surprised if he ever gets out, despite his sentence being 16 years (renewable). It seems a more sensible way to do things to me. "Life" doesn't mean life and people can change, judge people on a singular basis and adjust case by case.

That aside, I'm firmly of the opinion that prison should be about rehabilitation and not punishment.

@Bourdic Yes, the idea that it will be challenged if it is put in place due to the retrosepctive element at least gives me some reassurance that it will be truly ratified before anything is put into place.

@Damntheman I wasn't aware of the Norweigen system. That sounds like a fair way to deal with it. However, I'm sure that the London Bridge attacker recently had shown he had reformed... Then went on to kill 2 people.

It's a really tough line between throwing away and key and believing people can and do reform.

I think most people can and do reform, but there are always exceptions to those rules. It's hard isn't it, you can't ever know for sure and it must be an immense amount of pressure on those doing the assessing. I don't think I could do it! Still, I think I'd rather believe people can and do reform than throw away the key on 100 people when 96 of them had reformed for real. I believe it's important to live in hope, although that likely makes me quite naive. It comforts me that the two killed at London Bridge felt the same.

I do wonder though Damn if it’s different for those convicted of terrorist offences?

It's not Bourdic. The Utøya shooter (refuse to name the arsehole) was a terrorist and he's on the same 16 years renewable after assessment thing. I'll be extremely surprised if he's ever released as he's not showing any signs of remorse according to the media.

But as you say the Norwegians deal with it differently.

Quite :) I think it's the better system, but then I am not educated in prison reform and have no real idea if it would work so well with a larger population like the UK has. I do prefer the focus to be on reform and education rather than punishment for sure.

I agree Damn The problem here is our prison system is not fit for purpose

No argument there!

We had the appropriate sentence, IPP's (Imprisonment for public protection) but they got abolished. With those you get a minimum period you have to serve and the parole board assesses you before you can be released. They were used far more often than they should have been. They were meant to be used in "rare" cases but Judges were handing them out all over the place. So in the end they got scrapped.

It all comes down to money. People are released at the halfway point because it's cheaper than keeping them in prison. If some mess up, well at least they saved money on the ones that didn't. Sad but true.

Anything that's done now will be done to appease the public and make them think that this issue is being tackled. It's not. It's far more complex than just locking them up for a bit longer.

IPPs were dreadful - overused and unfair as the resources weren’t there for prisoners to be able to undergo courses etc to show they were fit for release. As for early release, I don’t think it’s just about overcrowding, I thought it was also a management tool to encourage good behaviour. It seems obvious that there should be a motive for behaving and surely the best motive is getting out early.

I think that the issue is the leniency first terror offences. There really should be an automatic life sentence with no parole (or whatever it’s called these days). People can change but when it’s something so heinous it’s not worth the risk that they won’t. We’re not talking about burglary here. Terror is about intentional and indiscriminate mass murder.

I think that’s very draconian Regina you are saying lock them up forever? Actually there are other heinous crimes as well.

@Reginabambina I think I would support this idea of an automatic life sentence.

I don't support the idea of an automatic life sentence with no chance of parole at all! Holy shit the potential for misuse is HUGE.

@Bourdic I only think this kind of thing is suitable for crimes that pose a serious risk for the public at large. I appreciate it’s draconian but I don’t think that matters where people are doing something like this.

@Damntheman if it’s only for terrorism offences I don’t think there’s much scope for that.

Regina that still begs the question of what ‘serious risk to the public at large ‘ means. What about someone Imprisoned for the third time for drunk driving?

The thing is "terrorism offences" is such a broad category. It can range from reading stuff online to planning an actual attack. Should someone who read stuff online, get the same sentence as someone who meticulously planned to kill lots of people? If not, where do you draw the line? I mean yes we could lock them all up for life. Stick them all in prison together for a long time where they can share their warped views and rage against us even more. I wouldn't like to think what might happen when they all get out though. I'm not saying I know what the answer is but it's going to take more than just a longer prison sentence.

It’s unlawful and the government know it - retrospectively amending sentences / legislation goes against some fundamental tenets of our legal system.

Its part of the attack on human rights isn’t it? Let’s go for something we know will be appealed and then we can continue with the ‘saboteurs’ ‘ ‘enemies of the people’ ‘do gooders’ attacks whilst undermining all our rights.

If you listen to The Crisis Inside on radio 4 (it’s been broadcast over the last fortnight so will be on sounds app) you can hear Ian Acheson - an ex-governor who has reviewed the need for an improved approach to rehabilitation- talk about exactly this. The things that particularly stood out to me were that under the current system, prisoners only need to give the right answer to be deemed fit for early release (and it’s not difficult for anyone with an ounce of nous to work out what the right answers are); also he felt the chaplaincy in prisons isn’t properly equipped (ie imams whose knowledge of the Q’ran is insufficiently in depth to argue for a moderate approach) to deradicalise inmates.
It’s a really complex issue and very difficult to speculate from the outside about what would work