Again, it’s a false dichotomy. Without rehabilitation in prison, and support upon release, the individual is more likely to reoffend… so either way there is another victim. The only difference is in the timing of it all. In no way a satisfactory outcome, in my view. It’s not even a least worst case scenario, in my view. You just kick the can down the road, so to speak.
I just don’t understand the “well, it’s not ideal but, hey, what else can we do?”, shrug the shoulders and move on… because, after all they are just criminals so ultimately we shouldn’t care all that much about their safety, or rights. Or, indeed, the safety of those tasked with running prisons. And those future victims we could have prevented? Ah well- at least they were victims after their attacker completed their previous sentence…. Makes all the difference, right? Of course that is all ridiculous, isn’t it?
So, you keep them all in jail- in chaotic, overcrowded and often unsafe conditions, with no support before or after release- and you expect good outcomes? it might be a year or so later than if they had early release, but it’s still another victim, which was potentially preventable. I refuse to believe there is not a better solution than tents or overcrowding. I agree early release runs those risks too, as again lack of rehab is still an issue- but at least we could try to minimise those by releasing non-violent offenders/those less risky, for instance. And work on identifying ways to increase capacity, or safely reducing the number of custodial sentences with non-custodial alternatives. I’m no expert in either of those, or how that might be done- but surely better than the alternatives suggested. Assuming you want to do more than be “tough on criminals” and actually want to change outcomes.