to disagree with clearing prisons to make room for "rioters"

[onceandneveragain]

to be clear, I do not agree with the riots in any way. I think all who participated were pathetic and deserve punishment. But I really do not think the combination of extremely harsh and inconsistent sentencing (compared to the same crimes outside of 'large scale public disorder') with letting other convicted criminals out early to make room for them in prison is a good idea.

It's very well known that currently most shoplifting is unlikely to even get police attending, let alone any prospect of criminal conviction, even if it is repeated and large scale. So someone regularly stealing hundreds of pounds of alcohol from tescos won't ever even get arrested, but someone stealing a few sausage rolls from greggs will get a few years custodial sentence. That's already ridiculous. But then to make room for them in prison by letting other convicted prisoners out on license when they've only served 40% of their sentence - when the chief inspector of probation has already warned that "Inevitably things will go wrong" www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce81wk4ej3ro (because they don't have enough probation officers to oversee them all!) - how is that safe or logical?

I put "rioters" in quotation marks because I would be fine with 'making an example' of those who actively engaged in rioting - who smashed shop windows and threw bricks at police officers. But look at some of these examples - www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/c5y8x2nnwx7t

The 15 y/o stealing a bath bomb and a corned beef pasty without any prior criminal record is unlikely to be a huge threat to society. The councillor's wife posting racial incitement is clearly a hugely unpleasant individual, but as far as I can tell, neither she nor the guy who got more than three years just for re-posting her statement actually went out and did anything. If everyone who was a racist twat online got sent to prison they'd be twenty to a cell.

They should absolutely be punished, but if it's a choice between them being in prison, or someone convicted of assault/death by dangerous driving (an example of which was also in the news today for receiving what the family thought was a far too lenient sentence)/or far more serious theft I know which I think is more of a risk to society. Given the effort, time, and cost in convicting criminals, it's ridiculous to then let them out even earlier than they normally would under early release schemes, just to 'make an example' of people who in any other circumstances wouldn't have even seen a magistrate, let alone received a jail sentence.

Wouldn't hitting them with significant fines or properly monitored and enforced community service as a first resort (and then possibly automatic imprisonment if they fail to pay/turn up) be better, both for the overall safety of the population, the country's finances (actually getting money into the public coffers instead of the huge cost to keep someone in prison), if community service actually doing something to help the places that suffered as a result of their actions and filling in the gaps for councils who apparently can't afford to trim hedges/pick up rubbish etc., be more rehabilitative and fairer/more consistent?

You're probably right that most rioters don't present an ongoing risk to the public and therefore don't need to be in jail.

However there was a need for a deterrent effect to stop ongoing rioting which doesn't apply to an individual shoplifting or other minor crimes. I do think driving related offences need to get much harsher sentences.

It's pretty academic anyway. Only prisoners on short sentences were eligible for early release due to overcrowding. Most prisoners on short sentences reoffend and go back to prison repeatedly due to their messed up lives and no support or rehabilitation from the system. So they will likely end up back inside quickly enough.

What is needed is efforts to deal with the causes of crime along with support to prevent reoffending. Hopefully labour will do something about it.

Harsh and fast sentences calmed things down. Fantastic. Rioting, thuggery, threats to life, stealing from businesses and attacking the police - innocent people in the middle of this hooligan were utterly terrified. Whoever they caught and however young needed dealing with quick and fast - every little bit of hooliganism contributed to the mass outrage.

The mother of one 12 year old didn't turn up in court with her son today and bogged off to Ibiza instead. Speaks volumes.

It's really difficult I think to compare sentences. Of course if you are a victim, or your family are, then no sentence is going to be long enough, especially if the crime meant someone in your family lost their life.

I think there are many issues here and it's a massive contentious issue and I agree that the criminal justice system doesn't always get it right - shoplifting that you mention in your OP one example. Watching people stroll out of a shop with stolen steak, drinks, or whatever drives me mad! Equally, as you say, I don't agree with criminals not serving their sentences. Something has to change.

But, with the sentences and convictions of those involved in the recent riots, I think this was something very different. The whole thing was terrifying! So many people getting involved, riots every night, looting and those trying to storm the hotel - it was horrific. I think the Govt had to crack down massively on it. They have acknowledged that the response was a deterrent. We can't live in a lawless society and for a few nights that is what was happening; all those yobbos taunting police and being absolute twats. Ignorant masses of people caught up the drama of it all. And the world was watching. It was a horrendous advert for the UK which could have had huge repercussions in many ways had it continued. Because it was on such a huge scale, I think this is why those involved have been convicted and sent to prison - it just could not continue. It would have broken the policing system, more innocent business and families would have been hurt and affected on a massive scale. Fines would not have been a deterrent at all and unpaid work is a extremely challenging to enforce and monitor and also costs money.

The sentences were made in order to deter the rioters and it worked. People were talking about water cannons, shooting them and bringing in the army.

I'm glad people who encouraged others to burn down mosques or spread racial hate got done for it. It's amusing to see the racists wringing their hands about free speech.

We have a prison crisis and have done for years, it just wasn't mentioned by the right wing press. That's hopefully being dealt with.

Indeed! Prison overcrowding is nothing new. Recruitment and retention of prison officers is critical. Likewise police officers.
I'd be upping their pay to encourage people to join and stay in these services. They are the least valued public services and yet we need them to keep us safe!

Early release scheme has been going for a long time....it's nothing new. Just the 40% bit has people suddenly moaning

Oh....and prisons have many in for theft and shoplifting

Sorry but I do actually believe people who try to burn down a hotel housing refugees are a danger to society.

Yes, that is why I specifically acknowledged "even earlier than they normally would under early release schemes." It's already a pisstake that only half of a sentence is actually served in prison, let alone cutting it even further.

"and prisons have many in for theft and shoplifting"
Again, exactly my point, which is why I said "or far more serious theft".

Those in for theft and shoplifting have done so on a huge or very repetitive scale in order to finally be convicted when the vast majority haven't even been arrested, let alone go to court and received a custodial sentence. Where's the logic in letting someone who stole £10,000 worth of goods out in order to punish someone who stole £40?

I disagree with rewarding people who have been convicted of a big crime by releasing them early, solely in order to punish people who have done a smaller crime.

Yes, sentencing in this country can be a complete inconsistent farce.

However, they did this to send a clear message that rioting wasn’t on. Imagine what would have happened to the country if it continued as it was. I do think the strategy worked.

We do need more investment in the prison sector and probation service. There is very little support for people released from prison so they go on to reoffend.

However, in this case, I agree with the government’s actions.

It's not being dealt with though, is it? Our prison crisis being dealt with would involve investing money to build new ones/giving staff better pay and conditions as @StoneofDestiny said. Or completely reconsidering our approach so the reoffending rate lowers significantly.

rewarding some criminals with early release in order to put new people in prison in their place isn't fixing anything.

Whilst I see your argument, I think you need to look at the bigger picture. This is not just about the individual crimes committed by people involved in the riots. It is about sending a message.

The early release is to help prison over crowding....it was announced well before any rioting started

I disagree with rewarding people who have been convicted of a big crime by releasing them early, solely in order to punish people who have done a smaller crime

The alternative was a potential summer of riots with people getting seriously hurt and the police being held up for months.

Inciting violence isn't a minor crime, attacking the police with burning bins and bricks, isn't minor and trying to burn people alive isn't minor either.

The rioters were warned that there would be serious consequences and there were. What's that expression? Fuck around and find out.

This^^^

Wouldn't hitting them with significant fines or properly monitored and enforced community service as a first resort....

No the first resort is quite rightly get the thugs off the streets and the racist whip up crowd stopped from whipping up hate online.
I don't want them in my community full stop, the 'overall safety of the population' is a lot safer for the rest of us, especially if not White and English enough in their eyes, without them.

They've caused so much insidious spill out fear and distress here that will take a long time to heal. That's a big big crime with a lot of damage to it.

'Making an example of people who in any other circumstances wouldn't have even seen a magistrate, let alone received a jail sentence' is a good way of getting through their nasty heads that they don't get to decide on who has rights and who doesn't, or decide they can get away with attacking the police, and just how much their shitty behavior is detested.
I'm well chuffed with with the response!

The earlier release scheme would have been brought in even without the riots.

If we’re looking for a place to apportion blame it would be better to apportion it successive governments focusing on being tougher on crime with longer sentences and reducing rehabilitation and probation funding meaning reoffending has gone fine up without thinking we’d need to spend a fuckton of money on building new prisons so we’d have space to put the extra prisoners.

The alternative is to keep the early release system as it is so nothing and send neither the rioter nor anyone else to prison regardless of their crime.

Encouraging others to engage in racial violence is not a nothing crime.
Heavy sentences were needed to quell what was happening.the government couldn't let sections of society be under attack from brain dead fools.
I'd like to see Jewish communities afforded the same courtesy.
Everyone in this country deserves to live in peace.

Earky release came in Oct 2022

Early release at 40%was in the news on 12th July

First 'riot' in Harehills over the Romanian family having children removed , was July 29th

THEN the riots started after that

Sorry oct 2023

EXACTLY
which is, again, why I said "I would be fine with 'making an example' of those who actively engaged in rioting - who smashed shop windows and threw bricks at police officers."

But a stupid 15 year old who steals a pasty is not in the same category.

The councillor's wife - I can see both views but ultimately the people who ACTUALLY went out and attacked hotels/police etc didn't do it because they saw a random woman's tweet. It's not like they were law abiding citizens sitting watching corrie until they saw that. They were thugs who did it on their own accord.

Get what you’re saying OP but don’t necessarily agree. Riots needed to be stamped out and whilst not repeat offenders, some were arguably much higher risk to the public than a serial shop lifter. They were targeting people/groups/offices etc.

When the sentences were passed the media were able to share the criminal backgrounds of people - I’m not kidding when I say that at least 80% have records as long as your arm. There may be one or two previously law abiding people in the mix - but only previously, they have all clearly broken the law now and play stupid games, get stupid prizes - but the vast majority were already in the system. I don’t know why this isn’t pointed out more because it’s there in black and white.

Same as the just stop oil lot....loud clear message, nipped in the bud!

We've been releasing people early under ECSL since last October, and the new early release at 40% scheme (SDS40) was underway for trigger pull in September before the riots even happened. There's also a scheme to offer HDC early tagged release for sentences over 4 years which have never been eligible before , to get them out even earlier than 40% and an automatic re-categorisation to open conditions. All came in before the riots.