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?

No. Riots are a huge threat to society, property and life. Mobs are incredibly dangerous, much greater than the sum of their parts, and have to be seen as such. Its not about whether the person smashing a window is as an individual more dangerous than the drink driver, its when that individual joins with other like minded individuals their collective behaviour is more dangerous. Harsh sentences in this case is to achieve the aim of punishment as deterrent rather than reparation for the act itself.
The release of existing offenders is a different issue and needs to be considered on a case by case basis.

Because the last lot were ace..🤔

It's a red herring that someone got a harsh sentence for relative minor things like a bit of shoplifting during a riot.

The fact is that they were involved in the riot, whether they injured people or damaged property or not. They were still in the thick of it.

So, it's irrelevant that the consequences for offences which would be minor or not prosecuted in other scenarios. They deserve severe punishment because, whilst what they did may seem minor, it was done during a riot that they were involved in!

I'm uneasy about 'incitement'.

We all have agency. It is for us to decide to act or not to words online, unless we really want our agency removed from us.

There's a big difference between someone hammering away on a keyboard in the heat of the moment and someone actually setting a fire.

I think some sort of community service or awareness training might have been a more reasoned response.

I also think this government really needs to be seen to be addressing the roots of what caused the rioting quickly; otherwise they're putting out spot-fires but not addressing the huge and growing pile of tinder beside it.

I absolutely do not condone violence, rioting, looting etc, but we cannot ignore the number of disenfranchised people out there.

@Fordian We all have agency. It is for us to decide to act or not to words online, unless we really want our agency removed from us.

I agree and there is a thin line over free speech, but this is nowhere near it. It is also for us to decide If the words we publish online fuel hate and stir up racial hatred, and we know we can have our agency curtailed on an individual basis if we are incapable of controlling ourselves online or on the streets.

A Tory (or any party) councilors wife has absolutely no business 'publishing threatening or abusive material intending to stir up racial hatred', which is exactly what she has now pleaded guilty to.
She knew what she was doing, and she knew her social position within marriage too.
Given her position and work she can't not have been aware that some of those "f hotels" she was encouraging others to "set fire to," contain families with children. (not that torching single adults is acceptable either.)

Before she was arrested she claimed in the press that what she'd done wasn't a crime and defended it with “You can’t upset anybody; you can’t say that because that’s racist; you can’t say that because that’s Islamophobic. No, it’s just fact. If it’s fact, how can it be racist?”

It's all about how her feelings and responses to rumors come first and make it ok to terrorize others.

I'm both surprised and really pleased she got remanded in custody. She'll probably walk on time served, having done her time in cushtier remand as befits her status.

I take it for granted generally that there's one law and set of outcomes for the likes of her and another for people from my background or similar.
She dragged herself down to the level she chose, and amazingly none of her privilege is protecting her.
I'm just impressed to find her being treated equally in the eyes of the law.

Feeling disenfranchised or normally having privileges doesn't equal a right to become a vicious racist thug, or encourage others to be.

What makes you think the rioters were disenfranchised? Or more disenfranchised than the other poor people who did not riot?

In the US there was always a lot of talk about how Trump’s MAGA support were just suffering “economic anxiety” but come to find out when they surveyed the January 6th rioters most of them were wealthy (car dealers, real estate, small businesses etc…). The spiteful Tory politician's wife urging mass murder like some value sized eva braun surely had no reason to feel disenfranchised.

Incitement is a serious crime and those prosecuted deserve everything they get. It could be argued that these riots have been a long time coming and were started by figures on social media, politicians and the right wing press.

The rioters deserve everything they got. There are many other people in prison who are no threat to society that could be released under other punishment schemes

It's pretty academic anyway. Only prisoners on short sentences were eligible for early release due to overcrowding

This is untrue by the way. All prisoners with a standard determinate sentence are eligible to be considered for release at the 40% custodial point. In October, prisoners who are serving over 4 years will be released if they have reached the 40% mark. While there are a range of offences that are supposed to make them ineligible such as murder, sexual offences, terrorism, stalking and assault with weapons, the truth is there is a loophole involving different counts for each crime (I won’t bore you with this bit) but the fact is serous offenders ARE being let out early.

As a result of this, accommodation in the community that is supposed to house the most dangerous offenders after release while still offering supervision (called approved premises) are full. Probation staff simply cannot find suitable housing. This increases the risk of reoffending. And on top of all of this, many people on probation are no longer being seen at a probation office or being monitored at all due to staffing levels and workloads. A scheme called Probation Reset was put in place to ease workload and concentrate on higher risk offenders earlier this year.

All this means the recall rate at the end of this year and beginning of next is going to be huge. Prisons will fill back up and the general public are going to be at greater risk for the next few months or at least until staffing levels and prison places increase and we stop letting people out after serving less than half their sentence.

This.

Mobs of racist thugs wanting to smash up shops and burn cars and buildings don't deserve sympathy; neither do the online racists encouraging them with false information eg the Conservative council chaps wife. Pure hatred and inciment to violence needs punishment to prevent others from behaving in the same way.

No sympathy for them.

YANBU.

I also don’t think the law should be used to ‘send a message’ or ‘make an example’. I think criminal justice should be consistent and appropriate to the crime.

Meanwhile the people involved in the earlier riots in Harehills won’t be sentenced until October. Totally inconsistent.

My concern is the kind of people who were released early. I think sex offenders have been included. We actually just need more prisons. We could mothball our old creaking one, sites could be use for housing and we can build fit for purpose ones elsewhere.

As I said before, just imagine a person being jailed for 18 months for chanting something ‘offensive to X religion’ - even if it isn’t incitement or harassment in any way. I find this unofficial blasphemy law to be absolutely chilling, and the fact Labour want to take the law further so Islam cannot be criticised is shocking to me.

I can't find that story, could you link please. Also when have Labour said this? Do you have a link? Thanks

Op you say you disagree with rioters but then say -

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.
&
literally none of the articles on it have mentioned anyone specifically saying they only went out because of her tweet, which was deleted after 2 hours. The average thug who goes out attacking hostels isn't going to be following their local councillor's wife on twitter and taking life advice from her. It's odd to say that her comment is what caused it, as if the poor little racist thugs don't have a mind of their own.

You are defending her racial incitement to violence. What both sides can you see?

The councillors wife sat behind her computer spouting whatever racist crap she liked, now she knows there are real consequences to her warped views and rightly so. The woman is just as dumb as the people who stole bathbombs & sausage rolls & they all made their beds so can deal with the consequences.

Just because she didn’t go out & do anything doesn’t mean she shouldn’t get the full force of the law. She was inciting racial violence.

Additionally, most of these racist thugs actually don’t have a mind of their own. Hence why they’re racist in the first place - they have heard from the likes of Tommy Robinson about how the immigrants are taking their jobs etc even though the majority don’t have the qualifications to work as a cleaner in the nhs - let alone as a dr.

Not sure what your agenda is or why you would defend any of these people being sent to prison for their actions.

Plus the early release scheme was announced before the riots.

The problem, as always, with the idea of building more prisons is that you need people to staff them. All across the CJS there is a severe lack of staff. I don't think people realise how bad it is.

There is ongoing recruitment almost constantly in prisons/probation etc but these jobs aren't well paid compared to the stress involved. Lot's of people I know are doing multiple roles (I'm doing 2 myself right now). But it's not sustainable in the long term.

We're lurching from crisis to crisis. It's a mess. We do need to come down hard on rioters but it's also true that other crimes aren't being "punished" to the degree they should be.

Where's the money coming from?

Lots of the jails are listed and can't be adapted or knocked down

There is a difference between releasing a month early and 'clearing out' prisons. I'd rather we had enough prison spaces and wish we could find a couple for the incompetent former Justice Secretaries who have led us to where we are.

I also think that we need to look at a greater variety of non-custodial options. Denying people their fortnight being unpleasant in Spain for a couple of years, or driving licence, or existing phone number, are options I think should be considered for example, subject to practicalities being thought through.

Except...to my knowledge, the people being released are those who - under current sentencing guidelines - would never have been in prison in the first place.

"Unrest is a symptom of inequality, poverty, governments that refuse to listen, wealth devide, lack of security, stability, equity and opportunity... I could go on'

Please don't. Plenty of people are dealing day in day out with these issues (the majority of the world's population) but because they are intelligent, mindful, considerate and civilised grown ups, they choose not to engage in mindless violence and project their hate, envy and rage onto others. You do realise that many of these individuals are not interested in progressive change or any level of accountability or self-enquiry? That you could offer them every opportunity under the sun and they will find a reason to refuse it, preferring instead to wallow in envy, blame and self-pity; they are utterly pathetic and if people like Lucy Connolly were blasted to some distant planet to do time there, I would contribute happily to the rocket fuel.

I don't think jails should be listed buildings.

Well nothing can be done about that.....they are, they are Victorian, hundreds of years old. 🤷‍♀️

Again, there is no money in the prison service