Early prison release for DV perpetrators *trigger warning DV*

[Usercyzabc]

I’m sure this has been discussed at length but what am I missing with not understanding Starmers thinking in releasing violence men under his SDS40 scheme?

Not sure what my AIBU is, but happy for suggestions.

I won’t link, but I read in the Daily Fail today, that next week this is to go ahead.

I don’t understand.

That's twice you've called it the daily fail maybe don't read it then.

Efacsen
The question is not What ELSE specifically could have been done? but What ALSO specifically could have been done alongside placing the safety of women and children at the epicentre of decision making?
I stand steadfast by my answer because not only has the safety of women and children not been placed at the epicentre of decision making around the prison population crisis, it never is. Our safety is consistently undermined by a male driven, male dominated government and criminal justice system. The safety of women and children is the first in line to receive the blow when it comes to solving the ongoing prison crisis. This is nothing new.

We do not have robust, fast acting, quick responding, well funded and executed specialist services that put safeguarding women and children at the forefront.
And without this discussion about implementing a robust, effective system, and crucially, without confronting the danger the proposed scheme places women and children under, we immediately create a slippery slope to failure.

”We might let a few violent blokes slip through the net because their domestic violence hasn’t been recorded.” <Insert Sir Kier’s shoulder shrug here>.

It’s unacceptable.
Its lazy on the part of our government and it’s not good enough.
And every female should be up in arms. It’s a half baked approach to an enormous crisis that will result in dangerous consequences because, as usual, the safety of women and children is being minimised and compromised.

👏

Totally agree with Serenity but just trying to find a practical ..and quick ?.. solution for now.

I think we’re looking right at it.

Quick solutions to dangerous problems often yield bad outcomes.
The decisions that this government really needs to make require enormous funding and resources that aren’t going to show up anytime soon, in all honesty.

I honestly don’t get the attitude of some of these posters. The only thing I can assume is that they believe violent men can be rehabilitated, but even that’s not really clear. I’ve been vilified by some for bringing this topic up, and it seems more to do with their political leanings than the actual issue at hand

.…and still I am non the wiser as to why these violent men are being released besides’ over crowding’ whilst people are in jail for social media posts, shop lifting etc.

No one has suggested violent men can be rehabilitated.

All anyone has said is that they are excluded from the scheme.

In addition, there are a number of offences which are excluded, predominantly those which are considered to be terror offences or “domestic abuse” offences which are committed in relationships:

- stalking offences
- controlling or coercive behaviours in an intimate or family relationship
- non-fatal strangulation and suffocation
- breach of restraining order, non-molestation order, and domestic abuse protection order

I understand that there are concerns around men whose crimes were recorded differently. That absolutely needs to be addressed.

I completely agree that there are issues around VAWG generally. Absolutely!

I'm no fan of Starmer and did not vote for Labour.

I also don't think that he is any friend to women.

But some people on here have made it sound like the prison gates will be opened to men with convictions of violence against women and they will all be released and that is simply not the case.

There should definitely be more discussion about VAWG - why it happens, preventative measures, education, current sentencing etc

But those are separate discussions and to suggest that swathes of violent men will just be released back onto the streets is inaccurate hyperbole.

Edit - typo

But it needs a quick solution because it’s at crisis point and dealing with now.

There are new prisons being built and the appointment of Timpson suggests there is some sort of long term plan for something. But none of those deal with the fact that unless we do something within days the next men committing violence against women and girls can’t even be remanded because there’s no space. Let alone the affect of not being able to hold trials because of it which does nothing to help victims of VAWG.

So what else would people do bearing in mind you’ve got a few days to a week to put it in place?

.…and still I am non the wiser as to why these violent men are being released besides’ over crowding’ whilst people are in jail for social media posts, shop lifting etc.

I'd also add that your post makes it sound like you believe those imprisoned for VAWG will be released en masse whilst those there for SM posts and shop lifting etc will remain behind bars.

Is that really what you believe is happening?

VAWG

Go further and call it Violence against women and children.

But those are separate discussions and to suggest that swathes of violent men will just be released back onto the streets is inaccurate hyperbole.

Our prisons are beyond maximum capacity. You could argue that yes, swathes of violent men may be released early, given the almost insurmountable crisis of overcrowding that has resulted in discussions about outsourcing our prisoners to Estonia. That’s how desperate this is.
This is kinda hard evidence that swathes might be an appropriate word in this case. This may not happen. It could. It’s plausible.
But to instantly crush legitimate concerns with words like ‘inaccurate hyperbole’ is minimising and, by proxy, silencing to voices like mine. It devalues my voice, my lived experience, my children’s lived experience and reeks of a bit of, ‘There, there dear. Quiet now. You’re overreacting. Have a drop brandy to calm your nerves.’

I want the discussions about the safety of women and children to be heard at maximum volume. The minimisation of us is too loud.

So what else would people do bearing in mind you’ve got a few days to a week to put it in place?

“You’ve?” You mean our government, right? I’m not the problem solver. I’m the one with the voice from a lived experience and I feel powerless. I want to trust that our government will prioritise the safety of women and children when their solutions are implemented. Do they know how to do this?

I think people would be quite happy to have a discussion about legitimate concerns. The fact it’s the best/only situation in the immediate short term doesn’t make it a good one. The issue with this thread is whether or not the OPs concerns are legitimate given her unwillingness to listen to others who have corrected her misunderstanding and her determination to lay the blame at the feet of Starmer.

I don't get this for me personally and probably others effected by DV. I come from a place of safety and protection woman from theses violent men. I don't care what government or who makes the decision as long ad it's about keeping woman safe. I don't even understand politics. I just want people to be safe .

Starmer is attempting to execute a plan for a long-standing problem, a systemic failure. I don’t envy him. He’s trying to find a solution to the impossible. I appreciate his work ahead on this. I don’t think the government has landed on a good solution. In its current state, it’s flawed and needs course correcting. And he knows this more than anyone. That doesn’t mean he should roll out a half baked scheme that will fail. He should be rolling out a scheme that protects victims, women, and children, not undermines them or their recovery and justice.

With respect (because I have been on the receiving end of VAWG - or, as you accurately correct it to VAWC), I have not minimised VAWG on any level nor the impact on victims of it. The current statistics in our country are shameful.

However, these men are EXCLUDED from this scheme. Believe me, if they were included in the prisoners set to be considered, I'd have as much to say as anyone but that's not what is happening. It's not ambiguous. There isn't a question mark around it because it hasn't been considered. They are not included.

I want the discussions about the safety of women and children to be heard at maximum volume. The minimisation of us is too loud.

I absolutely agree but arguing against their inclusion in a policy they are excluded from is muddying the waters because the conversation will invariably centre around correcting inaccuracies.

A thread about how we tackle VAWG? Brilliant. I'm all there and I have some thoughts around that.

I don't really want to suggest women who have been horrifically traumatised by abuse are in the wrong for bringing it up because it absolutely should be recognised by everyone and tackled at the highest (and lowest) levels. It should have the brightest light shone on it.

But this thread is around the anger at men with violent convictions against women being released early and they are not being.

Violence against women is at crisis levels... so we release domestic abusers early.

Psychological, emotional and financial abuse all contributes.

All men benefit from women's fear.

Yup this is in line with the less than 2% conviction rate for rapists.

Let's just do everything we can other than outright say "do whatever you want to women and you'll have little/no consequences".

Rape convictions are appallingly low.

The system and approach to VAWG needs to be overhauled in many ways

But Violence against women is at crisis levels... so we release domestic abusers early.

This isn't happening.

In addition, there are a number of offences which are excluded, predominantly those which are considered to be terror offences or “domestic abuse” offences which are committed in relationships:

This thread is as useful as one which demands to know why all the terrorists are being released and the answer would be the same. They're not.

He has actually refused to promise that none will be released. You may have blind faith in what positions say, but most of us don’t, and a refusal to make this promise gives him plenty of wriggle room.

However, these men are EXCLUDED from this scheme.

Serious offenders are included. Violent men will be released early under this scheme. Prisons house a predominantly violent male population. I’m as scared of the male who held a knife to my son’s chest (for his phone) as I am of the male who married me and abused me and my children. I am scared of violent men being released early from prison. Full stop.

The fact that violent males will be released early under this scheme is just such a failure to people of all walks, specifically women and children.

Is that a reference to those whose crimes have been ambiguously recorded or has he said that DA prisoners will be considered for early release in the future?

Not being provocative - it's a genuine question.

I don't have blind faith, no. As I said before, I'm no fan of Starmer and don't think he is any friend to women at all tbh.

So yes, I have reservations in the longer term around the position of women in society in general. Tbh with you. I mean, they're going to struggle to protect us in general because many of them don't appear to he 100% sure what a woman is in the first place!

Concerns around those who have had convictions that aren't immediately obviously DA related (and so might fall through the net) are obviously valid and hugely concerning. I don't know how many men that would include but I also don't think a single woman should be collateral damage of a lazy policy.

If DA prisoners were going to be considered for early release in a second wave, then that would also concern me.

There are many important and serious discussions that need to be held around the issue of the male prison population in general. Why it's so large in the first place would be a good start!

But the fact still remains that, currently, those men are excluded from this scheme.

As someone else has said, if the prisons are full to absolute capacity, that has serious implications for anyone charged with future DA crimes where there won't even be the capacity to hold them on remand. That just leaves different women in potential danger. It's a dire situation that is going to require a radical solution.

From what I have read, what is happening is that rather than be considered for early release at 50% of their sentence (which is a nonsense anyway as far as I'm concerned), for some, lower risk (?) prisoners, this will be reduced to 40%. They are not just going to open the doors of every prison next Thursday and let them all walk free.

Although I'm happy to be corrected on that if I've misunderstood 👍🏻

Ah, OK. What I'd read suggested it was lower risk offenders and not men convicted of violent crimes.

That does change things!

So.

Men who would previously have been eligible for early release after serving 50% of their sentence will now be eligible for early release after 40%?

Presumably, those offenders who would have failed to qualify previously after 50% will now also fail to qualify after 40%?

@zonder thank you - this is exactly my view. @Valeriekat of course I don’t think free speech should be censored and I think you know that deep down, but you just want to split hairs.