Serious sexual and violent offenders should be legally confined to specific areas after release from prison

[IwantToRetire]

The government is planning new legislation to confine serious sexual and violent criminals to specific zones after they leave prison. The approach suggests flipping the current system that tells them where they can’t go, and instead tightly controlling where they can. Ministers say this would protect victims and give them more peace of mind. But critics worry it could stretch probation services and raise human rights concerns.

https://www.yougov.chat/

Not all groups supporting women who have experienced male violence agree with this:

https://www.womensaid.org.uk/womens-aid-responds-to-the-mojs-announcement-about-new-restriction-zones/

https://refuge.org.uk/news/refuge-welcomes-mojs-new-restriction-zones-to-protect-domestic-abuse-survivors/

How would that work if the offender gets a job? Or gets a hospital appointment out of zone? There are systems like this in the USA where offenders end up living in tent camps under the motorway flyover with no access to jobs of healthcare because they can’t legally live in towns. And that seems crazy.

Surely if people are considered to be a risk they shouldn't be released, and if they are released then they should have freedom. This seems like it could potentially be a very slippery slope?

Basically what they are saying is that men convicted of violence against women dont get long sentences, or are released early,with the result they are back on the streats even though everyone knows they are still violent.

I suspect this is because the previous injunctions or whatever that they shouldn't come near or approach the woman they attacked this doesn't work.

It is whether this makes the women concerned feel safer.

I think.

See comments from the DV service providers.

Agree with this. What’s the obsession with releasing men who’ve broken the social contract anyway? Lock them up for much, much longer.

This makes little sense to me.

My understanding is there might be be designated roads or HMOs or assisted living places for these men to live? Surely it will just cause worry for those who already live nearby, how are they going to feel comfortable living or raising children in close proximity to these designated areas?

It will basically bring the area down, in that decent people will move away. The area might increase in crime as a result of having a disproportionate amount of offenders living there

The obsession will be with the fact that our prisons are failing due to chronic underinvestment over many governments for decades, along with many other aspects of the criminal justice system (courts, probation service). There is no money to increase resources or capacity so they are trying to “ease” use instead.

https://news.sky.com/story/prison-system-came-within-days-of-collapse-and-not-just-once-13406971

Wouldn’t this run the risk of creating areas where property is so devalued that it becomes the only place where particularly vulnerable low income women are able to live thereby forcing the more vulnerable into more dangerous living conditions?

Im thinking of things like what they tried in Holbeck, Leeds where they essentially enabled prostitution and every woman and girl in the area became a target.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-54819248

So the essay will become “you meet more rapists when you’re poor”?

Fucking hell.
4w.pub/you-meet-more-perverts-when-poor/

If they’re considered dangerous still then just keep these criminals locked up fgs.

I agree, and very apt comparison. What about the women and children who already live in these places?

Nightingale courts. Nightingale hospitals. Now Nightingale prisons.

Done

No I don’t think that’s the case. I could be wrong though.

I heard a woman interviewed about this. She’d been a victim and when her attacker was released, he wasn’t allowed to be in her county (I think) so she felt trapped in that county. She was arguing it should be the other way round - ie he should be restricted to one or two counties and she should be free to go everywhere else, knowing she wouldn’t see him. But it wouldn’t be like they are all put in the same place.

This. It'll also be impossible to police.

I think this is so the victim has more freedom than the offender. It currently stands that he can't go to a limited number of places (her town, for example) but can go anywhere else. She will worry if she leaves her town.

The restrictions are playing catch up with technology, he can online stalk, find where she holidays, who she visits outside the town etc. then comes the process of adding restrictions.

If he was only allowed in one county, then she could relax and just not go to that county.

He'd be able to change area if he got a job, probably, with limitations and theres no suggestion of putting them all in one place.

Quite. I await the breathless positivity about how AI will magically fix this, too.

My gut feeling is that if people are still a danger to society they should probably remain in prison. Sentences for crimes against women are often ridiculously short as it is.
I suppose some sort of location restriction and tagging would work for a period after release.

Not enough spaces in prison

Once they’ve served their sentence there’s no grounds for keeping them in prison. They are managed under public protection arrangements. This is a review of those arrangements with changes suggested

Yes - really important to understand this is what this trial is about.

Whether men who are violent towards women should get longer sentences is something different.

As PP have said.

It is to try and give women who have suffered violence the chance to live a life with less fear

Mmm, as one who lives in an already lower than average income and higher than average deprivation area, I can hazard a guess exactly which places this sort of thing would be confined to.

After all, the state isnt going to accommodate recently released violent prisoners in expensive areas.

Almost all are released on parole long before their sentence is up. This isn’t simply about public protection after the end of a sentence.

Public protection is in place when they are released on parole

It is sensible to order the offender to go to an area far from the victim, in order to continue his imprisonment in house confinement, or with whatever limiting conditions the court and probation service have agreed for him.

Technology is more sophisticated than the basic ankle tag. He could be ordered to remain inside, with cameras to check no children, for instance, are allowed into his house. He could be allowed to get a job, but only to travel directly to work and back. He would, for life if necessary, have to check- in, at instructed intervals and also at random, using his phone and demonstrating where he is and who is with him.

Technology could prompt him to report, and could monitor the films, so it would not need a probation officer to chase him up, unless the automated system had sent a warning about him being in breach of his terms. In that case,the probation service would alert police who would readily pick up his whereabouts, electronically, so it would be easy to arrest him.

He must also have a long-lasting drugs implant, if his offending is related to substances or alcohol, or if he needs behaviour-calming drugs, to reduce his interest in problematic sex or violence or children. If the side effect is reducing his interest in most things, so that he is rendered apathetic about everything from cake to harming people,it will be to his advantage, in saving him from himself.

Women can have very long lasting contraceptive implants, and it is absurd that currently, even in prison, convicts are allowed medicine by mouth. It's hard for anyone to manage a drugs regime by mouth, at home. But if behaviour must be controlled by drugs, as an alternative to putting the offender in a cage for life, then implants are the only option.

The call for long jail sentences ignores the thousand pound a week cost. It need cost virtually nothing to keep a convict unable to re-offend, using drugs and technology.In the area he is sent, it ought not to matter what his offence was, if he is now either confined entirely in his residence, or else is out on extremely strict and technologically enforced conditions.

Thats not at odds with what I said (though I disagree that the public is actually protected), but it’s a complete change of tack from your previous position which was to suggest people couldn’t be kept in prison longer as their sentence was over. I was just pointing out it is almost never over when they are released.

I don’t think we should abandon paroling people from jail because it’s just too expensive not to. But I don’t agree that VAWG sentences reflect the seriousness of the crime, I don’t think keeping offenders in prison longer would be disproportionate and I think it would go away to better protecting women. While there is some security theatre that goes on with paroled individuals it does not do a great job of protecting the public. Reoffending rates are high.