Hi

Powerful words in all replies.
I have written elsewhere that I am and have always been classed as low risk – except for my initial entry into HMP lodgings. Presentence and whist away I have had numerous independent and Judicial psychological assessments that all confirm my low risk status PLUS the finding of my being unsuitable for ANY type of SOTP course.
My current PPU say I must prove I will not re-offend but refuse to tell me how I can do that!
After 10 years on SOR they wish to implement a SMART based plan. As an ex head of HR, I asked what the AIM was and the objectives and targets were to reach the AIM, still no response. I contacted various organizations: NSPCC etc, and though they would take my money, they couldn't say which course, if any, would satisfy the PPU AIM, also there would be no point due to the findings of the assessments.

The point I am trying to highlight is that RISK status,reoffending rates etc are all based on psychological concepts presented to the Government for a policy.
The Justice system uses psychological concepts to decide on sentencing.
However the Government and Justice system will not use psychological concepts to support the early release or in fact early termination of SOPO conditions or SOR signing requirements.

Why - 

We must keep raising the issues surrounding illogical policies but we will also have to suffer the consequences of highlighting of our identities to be successful.

Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope is for tomorrow else what is left if you remove a mans hope.

Hi punter99 and khafka, two very interesting and thought provoking posts.

i was thinking the same thing when I saw the new report about early release, and how sex offenders would not be considered.

we are talking two months, so are the government and the prison system saying that in serving those extra two months the offender is going to be less of a risk going out.

Great write up.

I do wonder how much of repeat offenses are more just a cycle based on their predicament.

Say a young guy, 18 or so makes a few bad choices in life which leads to him robbing a house. Gets a conviction maybe goes to jail. Bottom line he is now, in the eyes of the public, a convict.

They now find themselves out of work. Nobody is going to hire them based on the conviction, the poultry amount of money you get from Universal Credit (mixed in with the 5+ weeks it takes to actually get any money from them) results him being in dire straits in his ability to provide for himself. Oh look, he's shop lifted, that'll be another trip to court. Now he is a repeat offender making his rehabilitation into society and the workforce even harder than it was before. Then rinse and repeat as necessary.

On the other hand, with people that are more "career criminals" who maybe do it for fun or something it just teaches them to be smarter to avoid getting caught.

In my opinion rehabilitation is different for everyone as we're all unique. There is no one size fits all.

Merely getting caught by the police is enough of a future deterrent for some people without them even stepping foot in a court room (like myself. Scared tremendously at the whole ordeal and didn't touch or own a PC or smart phone for around 6 months after my initial arrest, although sadly I did end up with the walk of shame).

I know they try to at do some makeshift rehab for people with social work appointments reviewing your risk status however that still just pigeon holes you into 3 groups, Low, Medium, and High. I get why they do it obviously but still. I think in a lot of cases the justice department doesn't look at the overall bigger picture that a lot of these prosecutions entail. Such as the accused losing their job, ending up in debt due to potential legal fees and generally keeping themselves afloat etc. the effect it has on their mental health being shunned from companies and depending on their offence, being shunned and sadly, in some cases, being violently being attacked by the public and in some cases leading to the death of the accused. If the public doesn't get them their mind could and they could end up taking their own life as it all boils up.

I guess what my rambling is trying to say is they charge and convict people based on the public interest when if you look at the bigger picture I feel a lot of sentences actually hinder the public more than they benefit. I'm not saying more people should just get a "slap on the wrist" but I hope my point is somewhat clear!

Some very limited prisoner releases are due shortly; about 4k or 5 percent of the total prison population. It's not surprising to see that they are being catergorised as 'low risk', nor is it surprising to see sexual and violent offenders excluded.

But what exactly does low risk mean? If you look at the reoffending rates of a convicted burglar, then 40 to 44 percent of them will commit another burglary within 2 years of release. For sex offenders that figure is between 3 and 7 percent, depending what figures you use. Based purely on reoffending rates, sex offenders are a much lower risk than burglars.

All the prisoners are within 2 months of their release date anyway. If the govt. did nothing they would still be on streets very soon. If any are planning to offend, then they probably will and all that's happened is that their offences will be committed a few weeks earlier than they would have been. Their risk level hasn't been increased, by them being released early, only the timing of their offences has been changed.

Over the next 2 months, plenty of high risk prisoners, including, but not limited to, sexual and violent offenders, will still be released as they reach the natural end of their sentences. Whether they are released tomorrow or in 2 months, it makes no difference as to whether they will reoffend or not, as that will depend on whether they have changed as people. It's unlikely that radical change in an offenders nature will occur in the last 2 months of a sentence, so what difference does it make to their risk, if they come out today, as opposed to coming out in 2 months time? Their risk hasn't been reduced, by them being released later than other inmates.

One of the criteria suggested for release was age. A growing number of offenders are over 80. Most of them pose no risk to anyone, as their offences are mainly historical sex offences, committed 40-50 years ago, even though many weren't jailed until much more recently. If risk is to be assessed on the risk they pose now, rather than the risk they may have posed 40 years ago, then they are some of the lowest risk prisoners, but they are not eligible for consideration due to their offence, not due to their actual risk of harm to the public.

It is important to distinguish between risk of harm now and harm already caused, when looking at risk hierarchies and, indeed, offence hierarchies.
A high level of harm caused in the past, by an offence, doesn't necessarily equate to a greater risk of harm in the future. There may be an argument for saying that a murderer shouldn't be released early because of the lifelong effect their crime had on their victim or their victims family.

Equally there is an argument for saying that someone convicted of a historic offence, but who was only sent to prison when they were aged 80, should not be released when they are 81, just because they are no longer a current risk, because they haven't served enough of a sentence for the crimes they committed. These are both valid arguments, but they are not risk based arguments.

Lastly, when it comes to risk hierarchies, everyone knows that there are more than one type of sexual offence. Yet, offences that involve no sexual act, but which had a sexual motive, are lumped together with offences which included sexual violence. Offences that are non contact are lumped together with contact offences. People with one conviction for a sexual offence are lumped together with those who have committed multiple offences. First time offenders are lumped together with those who have many previous convictions. All of them are treated as posing the exact same level of risk, based on them being a certain category of offender. Unlike other offenders they are not individually risk assessed, but risk assessed as a group.

In summary then: early release doesn't increase an offenders risk, it doesn't reduce an offenders risk. Real risk, as opposed to imagined risk, will need to be assessed on the nature of an offenders individual character, at the point of release, not the type of offence they committed. Imagined risk, on the other hand is different. Imagined risk is what the politicians consider, when deciding who gets out early.

Imagined risk labels all sex offenders as equally dangerous. Imagined risk presumes all sex offenders are incurable and incapable of change. Imagined risk assumes that all sex offenders will reoffend, so they all need to be monitored. Imagined risk treats sex offenders as posing both a current and a future threat to the public, at all times.

Even if an offender hasn't committed an offence today, imagined risk says they will commit an offence tomorrow. Imagined risk sees every action an offender takes as potentially risky, even if the act itself, is not inherently risky. Imagined risk says that even if an offender is not offending right now, they are still planning to offend in the future.

Imagined risk says that offenders are always preparing to offend, or always seeking opportunities to offend. Imagined risk says that sex offenders are so out of control and impulsive that they will always offend, every time an opportunity arises. Imagined risk says that the offender's sexual fantasies are always rehearsals for offending, but are never merely harmless escapism.

Imagined risk assumes that if you commit a low level sex offence, eg, exhibitionism or voyeurism, then you will inevitably progress to committing a more serious sexual offence, like rape. Imagined risk is based not on evidence but on irrational fear, ignorance and prejudice. Imagined risk is what guides the thoughts of every tabloid editor. Imagined risk is what fuels the fevered imaginations of the public and shapes their opinions. But when it comes to early release, imagined risk determines an offenders fate.