Releasing prisoners

Reading about the proposals to stop "automatic release" e.g. here I was surprised to hear that no Parole Board is involved. Perhaps due to watching too many American movies, I had assumed for years that anyone getting early release from their sentences whether it's "terrorists", murderers or paedophiles had to go a Parole Board and try to prove that they had been rehabilitated and be given conditions of release before they set foot outside the pokey, so this was a bit of a shocker for me.
The British system seems totally f****d up - instead of doing a bit of due diligence before letting criminals back into society we apparently have to have armed officers following those released around town as a preventative measure which clearly doesn't work and costs the taxpayer a damned sight more than keeping them in for a bit longer where economies of scale can be applied.

Did anyone else assume that prisoners released early had to have a good behaviour record and appear before a Parole Board before they could be considered?

The left don't believe in punishment. I'm quite surprised to see so much uproar from them about this.

Hipster_Nebula wrote:The left don't believe in punishment.

There was this bloke Joe...

It's a joke they come out worse than they went in there should be a system like the USA but I personally think not for these twats. I don't  know what the answer is but for the safety of the person in the street they should never be freed .These twats are lunatics that are incurable and it will only get worse loved ones are going to keep on dying horribly it's a pity the special cops can't do what they did a lot earlier before people get hurt or killed.

Streatham high st a cop in full body kit goes into a cafe and says evacuate there's a terrorist attack, the waitress says can they have half an hour to finish their meals, i have not stopped laughing this morning.

Unreal but hilarious .

Angry Dad wrote:It's a joke they come out worse than they went in there should be a system like the USA but I personally think not for these twats. I don't  know what the answer is but for the safety of the person in the street they should never be freed .These twats are lunatics that are incurable and it will only get worse loved ones are going to keep on dying horribly it's a pity the special cops can't do what they did a lot earlier before people get hurt or killed.

I totally understand that as a country we have not invested enough in the prison system, so spaces are at a premium which is presumably why they're automatically releasing prisoners early, however it's probably costing us more by not dealing with the problem.
I'd imagine that if we don't have a system that properly vets prisoners applying for early release and impose restrictions on release where appropriate it's hardly a disincentive to commit the crime in the first place.

Serious crimes where the perpetrators represent a threat to the public definitely need a rigourous parole system and TBH if the Government is serious about tacking crime and terrorism as they say they are, they should be spending their money on this rather than expensive private sector projects that benefit the few rather than society as a whole.

Still gobsmacked to find out we don't have one.

Angry Dad wrote:Streatham high st a cop in full body kit goes into a cafe and says evacuate there's a terrorist attack, the waitress says can they have half an hour to finish their meals, i have not stopped laughing this morning.

They'd have no chance of evacuating my local Betfred during a race. They'd be safer taking on the terrorists.

I believe that the judiciary will try to maintain their 'independence' in such matters, should the government change the current set-up against their wishes, by lessening the term given to equate the two-thirds to what is now half a sentence. Hard sentences should be in place for certain crimes, and terrorism should be one of them.
As you say wander, the cut in sentences were originally put in place for those who had shown remorse and/or behaved well in prison, but now the time served is automatic, and as such doesn't have a parole board. Its politically convenient in many cases for someone to be given 10 years, and serve 5, rather than to be given 5 in the first place, which would get public opinion stirred up.

gloswhite wrote:
As you say wander, the cut in sentences were originally put in place for those who had shown remorse and/or behaved well in prison, but now the time served is automatic, and as such doesn't have a parole board. Its politically convenient in many cases for someone to be given 10 years, and serve 5, rather than to be given 5 in the first place, which would get public opinion stirred up.

It was a surprise to me that a parole board is not in place for the more serious crimes and I'm not sure how many people knew that - something that I'd imagine folk would get "stirred up" about if they were aware and thought about it. But moreover, what message does that send out to potential criminals?

They're probably wondering if they can keep up with their TV programs once they've been sent down.