I've shared that excellent piece by David Gauke as widely as I can, including to my MP.
Since Burnham has identified the similarities between UK social care & US health care, I've pointed out that the UK's prison system is too like the American one for comfort.
Understandably this is a masterly overview of the current impasse, from the author of the most authoritative sentencing review since the Woolf report of 1991.
May I add one comment? Those prisoners who were made aware of the fact that they were likely to be released after serving one third of their determinate sentence had a legitimate expectation of release. Were Government, in the light of the PM's review, now to pause that review, Government could realistically anticipate a succession of judicial reviews challenging such a decision.
Such an outcome would add to the potential chaos expressed in David Gauke's article about the potential for trouble flowing from the long hot summer (intolerable in prison conditions), stoking the potential for comparable prison riots as last seen in 1990.
Looking longer term, perhaps slightly analagous to the requirement in climate legislation for any new fossil fuel project to address the related emissions impact, every new piece of legislation creating or amending 'prisonable offences’ should address the provision of related prison and staffing capacity.
Thank you for this informative article and also for the ideas addressed by David Gauke.
Perhaps if the MPs could realise that the UK is a sovereign entity able to address all the costs involved correctly, we may be able to solve many difficulties earlier than they presently suppose. Then the prisons and the hot weather won't be the problem they envisage.
The exception for protection of the public is essential. But the actual operation of the Early Release Scheme does not seem very engaged with this, as it includes murderers (not just of their own family members), sex predators and others who shouldn't really be at large. The proposition that we must start with sentencing policy, and the jails will look after themselves is at least the right way round. Long sentences combined with early release because we cannot afford the prisons, is not good jurisprudence, surely?
Excellent. There is a 'But' however, which is, how to persuade people of the truth of what you say?
Alas, this blog exists to inform and (sometimes) entertain.
Persuasion is for others.
I've shared that excellent piece by David Gauke as widely as I can, including to my MP.
Since Burnham has identified the similarities between UK social care & US health care, I've pointed out that the UK's prison system is too like the American one for comfort.
Understandably this is a masterly overview of the current impasse, from the author of the most authoritative sentencing review since the Woolf report of 1991.
May I add one comment? Those prisoners who were made aware of the fact that they were likely to be released after serving one third of their determinate sentence had a legitimate expectation of release. Were Government, in the light of the PM's review, now to pause that review, Government could realistically anticipate a succession of judicial reviews challenging such a decision.
Such an outcome would add to the potential chaos expressed in David Gauke's article about the potential for trouble flowing from the long hot summer (intolerable in prison conditions), stoking the potential for comparable prison riots as last seen in 1990.
Looking longer term, perhaps slightly analagous to the requirement in climate legislation for any new fossil fuel project to address the related emissions impact, every new piece of legislation creating or amending 'prisonable offences’ should address the provision of related prison and staffing capacity.
Perhaps the editors of the Sun, Mail, Telegraph and Express could explain how their ideas on justice policy are to be funded?
Thank you for this informative article and also for the ideas addressed by David Gauke.
Perhaps if the MPs could realise that the UK is a sovereign entity able to address all the costs involved correctly, we may be able to solve many difficulties earlier than they presently suppose. Then the prisons and the hot weather won't be the problem they envisage.
The exception for protection of the public is essential. But the actual operation of the Early Release Scheme does not seem very engaged with this, as it includes murderers (not just of their own family members), sex predators and others who shouldn't really be at large. The proposition that we must start with sentencing policy, and the jails will look after themselves is at least the right way round. Long sentences combined with early release because we cannot afford the prisons, is not good jurisprudence, surely?