|
AB2014
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1K,
Visits: 6.9K
|
+x+x+x+x+xThis story emerged last year, but it quickly died, as the govt did not carry out it's plan. Basically, the idea was to have a new super-register, for serial DA (domestic abuse) and stalkers, as well as SO. There was huge support for the idea, particularly from female MPs and feminist groups, and the Home Secretary appeared to be backing it, before changing her mind. The key differences were, that a person had to commit two or more offences, in order to go on the DA or stalkers register. One was not enough. This offers some hope for future reform of the SO register. The current size of the SO register is around 65,000 and growing every year. It is unlikely that the SO register will ever be abolished, because that would be too controversial and attract too many negative headlines, in the media. But, if the SO register were to be quietly reformed, there would be much less press attention. If first time offenders were removed, and only serial SO had to register, that would take about 90% of SO off the register straight away, leaving a far more manageable number for the police to deal with. Regardless of what the tabloids and the public may think, about the need to register all SO, monitoring all those people, takes a huge amount of police resources. This is an issue of money, not morality, which is why it matters to the politicians, more than you might think. That is the real reason why the Super Register was not set up. The number of stalkers and DA offenders is huge and monitoring them all, or even just the multiple offenders, would have meant the govt would have to put more money into the system, or else the super register would end up being a massive drain on the police. As the SO register continues to grow every year, there will eventually come a point where it is costing too much as well. That will be the tipping point, when change is most likely to be considered. Officially, the govt stated that there was no need for a super register, because the existing MAPPA arrangements, already allow the police to monitor those who are considered dangerous. Again, this points to a possible avenue for reform of the SO register, as well. We all know, that the police currently have to visit thousands of low risk offenders every year. Many of these, will be first time, and one time only, offenders. They will not reoffend and the police know it, but they have no choice, about whether to monitor them or not. When it comes to deciding, whether to make somebody subject to MAPPA monitoring, the existing rules force police to use MAPPA for all SO, irrespective of what the offence is, or what their risk level is. But at the same time they give police an option to make someone MAPPA, when they are not an SO. This is entirely down to the police to decide. One of the criticisms of MAPPA, made by supporters of a super register, was that the police do not use these powers consistently. Some forces have a lot of MAPPA offenders, but others do not. It all depends on how dangerous the police judge somebody to be. But at least it means they have to prioritise the riskiest individuals and target resources, at those offenders who really need to be monitored. If the MAPPA regime for non-SO, was extended to SO as well, then the police would be able to choose which SO they considered to be worth monitoring and which SO did not have to be monitored. It still allows for the most dangerous people to be monitored, so it cannot be portrayed as being soft on crime, by the tabloids. Again, this kind of reform could be pushed through quietly, without attracting any media attention. There was relatively little coverage of the super register proposal in the press at the time. It is not a big issue, unless a headline grabbing crime is committed by an SO. Even after the Wayne Couzens trial, when the issue of violence against women was in the news, the media was not demanding a super register for all DA and stalkers. Hmm. In theory, it could be pushed through quietly, but as it would need a change to the law to amend the requirement for someone to be put on the SOR, it would only take one MP, or even just a member of their staff, to inform a tabloid and it could no longer be done quietly. There was outrage when it was revealed that some low-risk SO's were being removed from the SOR. Imagine the self-righteous fury if it was made public knowledge that many SO's would no longer be put on the SOR in the first place. It would definitely be progressive if the change were made, but I suspect that negative publicity, or the fear of it, would make it politically impossible in the foreseeable future. I seem to recall reading that story in the Sun, about low risk SOs being removed from the register. It was a couple of paragraphs, buried away on page 6, or thereabouts. It was hardly outrage. Even the tabloids understand, that low risk people do not need to be on a register. If change were to happen, the govt would be making the case, that it was all about prioritising police resources, to focus on the most risky SO. They would not be presenting it, as going easy on the low risk SO. I wouldn't expect the media to completely ignore the story, but it might make page 5 or 6 of the Sun. I don't think it would be front page news. If we look at how the calls for a super register were dealt with in the press, it was in the wake of the Sarah Everard murder. There was huge public interest in the issue of violence against women, but the tabloids were not calling on the govt to create 'Sarah's Register'. There was no front page petition in the Sun, or the Mail, to start a super register for DA and stalkers, even though the political and media climate at the time, was perfect for such a campaign. The only paper that really covered the super register story in any depth, was the Guardian. I suspect that was because registers are seen as a rather dull administrative story and not much else. When the govt announced it was dropping the idea, that also went largely unreported, outside of the Guardian. There was no self righteous fury from the tabloids, who barely even noticed it. Yes, but there is a difference between individual police forces making a decision on individuals on the SOR, and the government saying some SOs won't be put on the SOR. Floating the idea is one thing, but then putting it before parlianment is another thing entirely. That is where the outrage wil be, as law & order has been an arms race in recent decades and I'm sure there will be a queue of MPs expressing outrage at the idea. Regardless of that, do you honestly think this government would even be interested in being seen to do that, even if there are benefits to be gained from doing it? When I was in prison, every issue of Inside Time listed parliamentary questions about prisons. Every month, Priti Patel MP was asking why so much money was being spent on prisoners, and that's just prisoners in general, not just SOs. I realise that things might change over time, but I doubt much will change for the better in my time. You put your finger on it. The cost of maintaining the register is what will decide it's fate, not public or political outrage. I'd really like to believe that, but for the foreseeable future, I think the public would rather pay more tax than see the SOR reduced in scope. I'm sure the usual tabloids would agree with them. What you say makes sense, but for the public this isn't about sense, it's about dealing with a hate-figure.
=========================================================================================================
If you are to punish a man retributively you must injure him. If you are to reform him you must improve him. And men are not improved by injuries. (George Bernard Shaw)
|
|
|
|
|
punter99
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 714,
Visits: 5.3K
|
+x+x+x+xThis story emerged last year, but it quickly died, as the govt did not carry out it's plan. Basically, the idea was to have a new super-register, for serial DA (domestic abuse) and stalkers, as well as SO. There was huge support for the idea, particularly from female MPs and feminist groups, and the Home Secretary appeared to be backing it, before changing her mind. The key differences were, that a person had to commit two or more offences, in order to go on the DA or stalkers register. One was not enough. This offers some hope for future reform of the SO register. The current size of the SO register is around 65,000 and growing every year. It is unlikely that the SO register will ever be abolished, because that would be too controversial and attract too many negative headlines, in the media. But, if the SO register were to be quietly reformed, there would be much less press attention. If first time offenders were removed, and only serial SO had to register, that would take about 90% of SO off the register straight away, leaving a far more manageable number for the police to deal with. Regardless of what the tabloids and the public may think, about the need to register all SO, monitoring all those people, takes a huge amount of police resources. This is an issue of money, not morality, which is why it matters to the politicians, more than you might think. That is the real reason why the Super Register was not set up. The number of stalkers and DA offenders is huge and monitoring them all, or even just the multiple offenders, would have meant the govt would have to put more money into the system, or else the super register would end up being a massive drain on the police. As the SO register continues to grow every year, there will eventually come a point where it is costing too much as well. That will be the tipping point, when change is most likely to be considered. Officially, the govt stated that there was no need for a super register, because the existing MAPPA arrangements, already allow the police to monitor those who are considered dangerous. Again, this points to a possible avenue for reform of the SO register, as well. We all know, that the police currently have to visit thousands of low risk offenders every year. Many of these, will be first time, and one time only, offenders. They will not reoffend and the police know it, but they have no choice, about whether to monitor them or not. When it comes to deciding, whether to make somebody subject to MAPPA monitoring, the existing rules force police to use MAPPA for all SO, irrespective of what the offence is, or what their risk level is. But at the same time they give police an option to make someone MAPPA, when they are not an SO. This is entirely down to the police to decide. One of the criticisms of MAPPA, made by supporters of a super register, was that the police do not use these powers consistently. Some forces have a lot of MAPPA offenders, but others do not. It all depends on how dangerous the police judge somebody to be. But at least it means they have to prioritise the riskiest individuals and target resources, at those offenders who really need to be monitored. If the MAPPA regime for non-SO, was extended to SO as well, then the police would be able to choose which SO they considered to be worth monitoring and which SO did not have to be monitored. It still allows for the most dangerous people to be monitored, so it cannot be portrayed as being soft on crime, by the tabloids. Again, this kind of reform could be pushed through quietly, without attracting any media attention. There was relatively little coverage of the super register proposal in the press at the time. It is not a big issue, unless a headline grabbing crime is committed by an SO. Even after the Wayne Couzens trial, when the issue of violence against women was in the news, the media was not demanding a super register for all DA and stalkers. Hmm. In theory, it could be pushed through quietly, but as it would need a change to the law to amend the requirement for someone to be put on the SOR, it would only take one MP, or even just a member of their staff, to inform a tabloid and it could no longer be done quietly. There was outrage when it was revealed that some low-risk SO's were being removed from the SOR. Imagine the self-righteous fury if it was made public knowledge that many SO's would no longer be put on the SOR in the first place. It would definitely be progressive if the change were made, but I suspect that negative publicity, or the fear of it, would make it politically impossible in the foreseeable future. I seem to recall reading that story in the Sun, about low risk SOs being removed from the register. It was a couple of paragraphs, buried away on page 6, or thereabouts. It was hardly outrage. Even the tabloids understand, that low risk people do not need to be on a register. If change were to happen, the govt would be making the case, that it was all about prioritising police resources, to focus on the most risky SO. They would not be presenting it, as going easy on the low risk SO. I wouldn't expect the media to completely ignore the story, but it might make page 5 or 6 of the Sun. I don't think it would be front page news. If we look at how the calls for a super register were dealt with in the press, it was in the wake of the Sarah Everard murder. There was huge public interest in the issue of violence against women, but the tabloids were not calling on the govt to create 'Sarah's Register'. There was no front page petition in the Sun, or the Mail, to start a super register for DA and stalkers, even though the political and media climate at the time, was perfect for such a campaign. The only paper that really covered the super register story in any depth, was the Guardian. I suspect that was because registers are seen as a rather dull administrative story and not much else. When the govt announced it was dropping the idea, that also went largely unreported, outside of the Guardian. There was no self righteous fury from the tabloids, who barely even noticed it. Yes, but there is a difference between individual police forces making a decision on individuals on the SOR, and the government saying some SOs won't be put on the SOR. Floating the idea is one thing, but then putting it before parlianment is another thing entirely. That is where the outrage wil be, as law & order has been an arms race in recent decades and I'm sure there will be a queue of MPs expressing outrage at the idea. Regardless of that, do you honestly think this government would even be interested in being seen to do that, even if there are benefits to be gained from doing it? When I was in prison, every issue of Inside Time listed parliamentary questions about prisons. Every month, Priti Patel MP was asking why so much money was being spent on prisoners, and that's just prisoners in general, not just SOs. I realise that things might change over time, but I doubt much will change for the better in my time. You put your finger on it. The cost of maintaining the register is what will decide it's fate, not public or political outrage.
|
|
|
|
|
JASB
|
|
Group: Awaiting Activation
Posts: 1K,
Visits: 1.6K
|
Hi
Though I basically agree no government wishes to be viewed as soft on ex-offenders. However, I live in hope that the financial argument that could be presented, with an emphasis on punishing "serial" offenders, could focus minds on the more "media" hyped type of ex-offender and so away from those of us classed as "low risk", that could fall into the category suggested by this topic.
Remember how Covid has allowed a change in election mandates by fluid words moving the focus of readers.
Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope is for tomorrow else what is left if you remove a mans hope.
|
|
|
|
|
AB2014
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1K,
Visits: 6.9K
|
+x+x+xThis story emerged last year, but it quickly died, as the govt did not carry out it's plan. Basically, the idea was to have a new super-register, for serial DA (domestic abuse) and stalkers, as well as SO. There was huge support for the idea, particularly from female MPs and feminist groups, and the Home Secretary appeared to be backing it, before changing her mind. The key differences were, that a person had to commit two or more offences, in order to go on the DA or stalkers register. One was not enough. This offers some hope for future reform of the SO register. The current size of the SO register is around 65,000 and growing every year. It is unlikely that the SO register will ever be abolished, because that would be too controversial and attract too many negative headlines, in the media. But, if the SO register were to be quietly reformed, there would be much less press attention. If first time offenders were removed, and only serial SO had to register, that would take about 90% of SO off the register straight away, leaving a far more manageable number for the police to deal with. Regardless of what the tabloids and the public may think, about the need to register all SO, monitoring all those people, takes a huge amount of police resources. This is an issue of money, not morality, which is why it matters to the politicians, more than you might think. That is the real reason why the Super Register was not set up. The number of stalkers and DA offenders is huge and monitoring them all, or even just the multiple offenders, would have meant the govt would have to put more money into the system, or else the super register would end up being a massive drain on the police. As the SO register continues to grow every year, there will eventually come a point where it is costing too much as well. That will be the tipping point, when change is most likely to be considered. Officially, the govt stated that there was no need for a super register, because the existing MAPPA arrangements, already allow the police to monitor those who are considered dangerous. Again, this points to a possible avenue for reform of the SO register, as well. We all know, that the police currently have to visit thousands of low risk offenders every year. Many of these, will be first time, and one time only, offenders. They will not reoffend and the police know it, but they have no choice, about whether to monitor them or not. When it comes to deciding, whether to make somebody subject to MAPPA monitoring, the existing rules force police to use MAPPA for all SO, irrespective of what the offence is, or what their risk level is. But at the same time they give police an option to make someone MAPPA, when they are not an SO. This is entirely down to the police to decide. One of the criticisms of MAPPA, made by supporters of a super register, was that the police do not use these powers consistently. Some forces have a lot of MAPPA offenders, but others do not. It all depends on how dangerous the police judge somebody to be. But at least it means they have to prioritise the riskiest individuals and target resources, at those offenders who really need to be monitored. If the MAPPA regime for non-SO, was extended to SO as well, then the police would be able to choose which SO they considered to be worth monitoring and which SO did not have to be monitored. It still allows for the most dangerous people to be monitored, so it cannot be portrayed as being soft on crime, by the tabloids. Again, this kind of reform could be pushed through quietly, without attracting any media attention. There was relatively little coverage of the super register proposal in the press at the time. It is not a big issue, unless a headline grabbing crime is committed by an SO. Even after the Wayne Couzens trial, when the issue of violence against women was in the news, the media was not demanding a super register for all DA and stalkers. Hmm. In theory, it could be pushed through quietly, but as it would need a change to the law to amend the requirement for someone to be put on the SOR, it would only take one MP, or even just a member of their staff, to inform a tabloid and it could no longer be done quietly. There was outrage when it was revealed that some low-risk SO's were being removed from the SOR. Imagine the self-righteous fury if it was made public knowledge that many SO's would no longer be put on the SOR in the first place. It would definitely be progressive if the change were made, but I suspect that negative publicity, or the fear of it, would make it politically impossible in the foreseeable future. I seem to recall reading that story in the Sun, about low risk SOs being removed from the register. It was a couple of paragraphs, buried away on page 6, or thereabouts. It was hardly outrage. Even the tabloids understand, that low risk people do not need to be on a register. If change were to happen, the govt would be making the case, that it was all about prioritising police resources, to focus on the most risky SO. They would not be presenting it, as going easy on the low risk SO. I wouldn't expect the media to completely ignore the story, but it might make page 5 or 6 of the Sun. I don't think it would be front page news. If we look at how the calls for a super register were dealt with in the press, it was in the wake of the Sarah Everard murder. There was huge public interest in the issue of violence against women, but the tabloids were not calling on the govt to create 'Sarah's Register'. There was no front page petition in the Sun, or the Mail, to start a super register for DA and stalkers, even though the political and media climate at the time, was perfect for such a campaign. The only paper that really covered the super register story in any depth, was the Guardian. I suspect that was because registers are seen as a rather dull administrative story and not much else. When the govt announced it was dropping the idea, that also went largely unreported, outside of the Guardian. There was no self righteous fury from the tabloids, who barely even noticed it. Yes, but there is a difference between individual police forces making a decision on individuals on the SOR, and the government saying some SOs won't be put on the SOR. Floating the idea is one thing, but then putting it before parlianment is another thing entirely. That is where the outrage wil be, as law & order has been an arms race in recent decades and I'm sure there will be a queue of MPs expressing outrage at the idea. Regardless of that, do you honestly think this government would even be interested in being seen to do that, even if there are benefits to be gained from doing it? When I was in prison, every issue of Inside Time listed parliamentary questions about prisons. Every month, Priti Patel MP was asking why so much money was being spent on prisoners, and that's just prisoners in general, not just SOs. I realise that things might change over time, but I doubt much will change for the better in my time.
=========================================================================================================
If you are to punish a man retributively you must injure him. If you are to reform him you must improve him. And men are not improved by injuries. (George Bernard Shaw)
|
|
|
|
|
punter99
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 714,
Visits: 5.3K
|
+x+xThis story emerged last year, but it quickly died, as the govt did not carry out it's plan. Basically, the idea was to have a new super-register, for serial DA (domestic abuse) and stalkers, as well as SO. There was huge support for the idea, particularly from female MPs and feminist groups, and the Home Secretary appeared to be backing it, before changing her mind. The key differences were, that a person had to commit two or more offences, in order to go on the DA or stalkers register. One was not enough. This offers some hope for future reform of the SO register. The current size of the SO register is around 65,000 and growing every year. It is unlikely that the SO register will ever be abolished, because that would be too controversial and attract too many negative headlines, in the media. But, if the SO register were to be quietly reformed, there would be much less press attention. If first time offenders were removed, and only serial SO had to register, that would take about 90% of SO off the register straight away, leaving a far more manageable number for the police to deal with. Regardless of what the tabloids and the public may think, about the need to register all SO, monitoring all those people, takes a huge amount of police resources. This is an issue of money, not morality, which is why it matters to the politicians, more than you might think. That is the real reason why the Super Register was not set up. The number of stalkers and DA offenders is huge and monitoring them all, or even just the multiple offenders, would have meant the govt would have to put more money into the system, or else the super register would end up being a massive drain on the police. As the SO register continues to grow every year, there will eventually come a point where it is costing too much as well. That will be the tipping point, when change is most likely to be considered. Officially, the govt stated that there was no need for a super register, because the existing MAPPA arrangements, already allow the police to monitor those who are considered dangerous. Again, this points to a possible avenue for reform of the SO register, as well. We all know, that the police currently have to visit thousands of low risk offenders every year. Many of these, will be first time, and one time only, offenders. They will not reoffend and the police know it, but they have no choice, about whether to monitor them or not. When it comes to deciding, whether to make somebody subject to MAPPA monitoring, the existing rules force police to use MAPPA for all SO, irrespective of what the offence is, or what their risk level is. But at the same time they give police an option to make someone MAPPA, when they are not an SO. This is entirely down to the police to decide. One of the criticisms of MAPPA, made by supporters of a super register, was that the police do not use these powers consistently. Some forces have a lot of MAPPA offenders, but others do not. It all depends on how dangerous the police judge somebody to be. But at least it means they have to prioritise the riskiest individuals and target resources, at those offenders who really need to be monitored. If the MAPPA regime for non-SO, was extended to SO as well, then the police would be able to choose which SO they considered to be worth monitoring and which SO did not have to be monitored. It still allows for the most dangerous people to be monitored, so it cannot be portrayed as being soft on crime, by the tabloids. Again, this kind of reform could be pushed through quietly, without attracting any media attention. There was relatively little coverage of the super register proposal in the press at the time. It is not a big issue, unless a headline grabbing crime is committed by an SO. Even after the Wayne Couzens trial, when the issue of violence against women was in the news, the media was not demanding a super register for all DA and stalkers. Hmm. In theory, it could be pushed through quietly, but as it would need a change to the law to amend the requirement for someone to be put on the SOR, it would only take one MP, or even just a member of their staff, to inform a tabloid and it could no longer be done quietly. There was outrage when it was revealed that some low-risk SO's were being removed from the SOR. Imagine the self-righteous fury if it was made public knowledge that many SO's would no longer be put on the SOR in the first place. It would definitely be progressive if the change were made, but I suspect that negative publicity, or the fear of it, would make it politically impossible in the foreseeable future. I seem to recall reading that story in the Sun, about low risk SOs being removed from the register. It was a couple of paragraphs, buried away on page 6, or thereabouts. It was hardly outrage. Even the tabloids understand, that low risk people do not need to be on a register. If change were to happen, the govt would be making the case, that it was all about prioritising police resources, to focus on the most risky SO. They would not be presenting it, as going easy on the low risk SO. I wouldn't expect the media to completely ignore the story, but it might make page 5 or 6 of the Sun. I don't think it would be front page news. If we look at how the calls for a super register were dealt with in the press, it was in the wake of the Sarah Everard murder. There was huge public interest in the issue of violence against women, but the tabloids were not calling on the govt to create 'Sarah's Register'. There was no front page petition in the Sun, or the Mail, to start a super register for DA and stalkers, even though the political and media climate at the time, was perfect for such a campaign. The only paper that really covered the super register story in any depth, was the Guardian. I suspect that was because registers are seen as a rather dull administrative story and not much else. When the govt announced it was dropping the idea, that also went largely unreported, outside of the Guardian. There was no self righteous fury from the tabloids, who barely even noticed it.
|
|
|
|
|
AB2014
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1K,
Visits: 6.9K
|
+xThis story emerged last year, but it quickly died, as the govt did not carry out it's plan. Basically, the idea was to have a new super-register, for serial DA (domestic abuse) and stalkers, as well as SO. There was huge support for the idea, particularly from female MPs and feminist groups, and the Home Secretary appeared to be backing it, before changing her mind. The key differences were, that a person had to commit two or more offences, in order to go on the DA or stalkers register. One was not enough. This offers some hope for future reform of the SO register. The current size of the SO register is around 65,000 and growing every year. It is unlikely that the SO register will ever be abolished, because that would be too controversial and attract too many negative headlines, in the media. But, if the SO register were to be quietly reformed, there would be much less press attention. If first time offenders were removed, and only serial SO had to register, that would take about 90% of SO off the register straight away, leaving a far more manageable number for the police to deal with. Regardless of what the tabloids and the public may think, about the need to register all SO, monitoring all those people, takes a huge amount of police resources. This is an issue of money, not morality, which is why it matters to the politicians, more than you might think. That is the real reason why the Super Register was not set up. The number of stalkers and DA offenders is huge and monitoring them all, or even just the multiple offenders, would have meant the govt would have to put more money into the system, or else the super register would end up being a massive drain on the police. As the SO register continues to grow every year, there will eventually come a point where it is costing too much as well. That will be the tipping point, when change is most likely to be considered. Officially, the govt stated that there was no need for a super register, because the existing MAPPA arrangements, already allow the police to monitor those who are considered dangerous. Again, this points to a possible avenue for reform of the SO register, as well. We all know, that the police currently have to visit thousands of low risk offenders every year. Many of these, will be first time, and one time only, offenders. They will not reoffend and the police know it, but they have no choice, about whether to monitor them or not. When it comes to deciding, whether to make somebody subject to MAPPA monitoring, the existing rules force police to use MAPPA for all SO, irrespective of what the offence is, or what their risk level is. But at the same time they give police an option to make someone MAPPA, when they are not an SO. This is entirely down to the police to decide. One of the criticisms of MAPPA, made by supporters of a super register, was that the police do not use these powers consistently. Some forces have a lot of MAPPA offenders, but others do not. It all depends on how dangerous the police judge somebody to be. But at least it means they have to prioritise the riskiest individuals and target resources, at those offenders who really need to be monitored. If the MAPPA regime for non-SO, was extended to SO as well, then the police would be able to choose which SO they considered to be worth monitoring and which SO did not have to be monitored. It still allows for the most dangerous people to be monitored, so it cannot be portrayed as being soft on crime, by the tabloids. Again, this kind of reform could be pushed through quietly, without attracting any media attention. There was relatively little coverage of the super register proposal in the press at the time. It is not a big issue, unless a headline grabbing crime is committed by an SO. Even after the Wayne Couzens trial, when the issue of violence against women was in the news, the media was not demanding a super register for all DA and stalkers. Hmm. In theory, it could be pushed through quietly, but as it would need a change to the law to amend the requirement for someone to be put on the SOR, it would only take one MP, or even just a member of their staff, to inform a tabloid and it could no longer be done quietly. There was outrage when it was revealed that some low-risk SO's were being removed from the SOR. Imagine the self-righteous fury if it was made public knowledge that many SO's would no longer be put on the SOR in the first place. It would definitely be progressive if the change were made, but I suspect that negative publicity, or the fear of it, would make it politically impossible in the foreseeable future.
=========================================================================================================
If you are to punish a man retributively you must injure him. If you are to reform him you must improve him. And men are not improved by injuries. (George Bernard Shaw)
|
|
|
|
|
punter99
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 714,
Visits: 5.3K
|
This story emerged last year, but it quickly died, as the govt did not carry out it's plan.
Basically, the idea was to have a new super-register, for serial DA (domestic abuse) and stalkers, as well as SO. There was huge support for the idea, particularly from female MPs and feminist groups, and the Home Secretary appeared to be backing it, before changing her mind.
The key differences were, that a person had to commit two or more offences, in order to go on the DA or stalkers register. One was not enough. This offers some hope for future reform of the SO register. The current size of the SO register is around 65,000 and growing every year. It is unlikely that the SO register will ever be abolished, because that would be too controversial and attract too many negative headlines, in the media. But, if the SO register were to be quietly reformed, there would be much less press attention. If first time offenders were removed, and only serial SO had to register, that would take about 90% of SO off the register straight away, leaving a far more manageable number for the police to deal with.
Regardless of what the tabloids and the public may think, about the need to register all SO, monitoring all those people, takes a huge amount of police resources. This is an issue of money, not morality, which is why it matters to the politicians, more than you might think. That is the real reason why the Super Register was not set up. The number of stalkers and DA offenders is huge and monitoring them all, or even just the multiple offenders, would have meant the govt would have to put more money into the system, or else the super register would end up being a massive drain on the police. As the SO register continues to grow every year, there will eventually come a point where it is costing too much as well. That will be the tipping point, when change is most likely to be considered.
Officially, the govt stated that there was no need for a super register, because the existing MAPPA arrangements, already allow the police to monitor those who are considered dangerous. Again, this points to a possible avenue for reform of the SO register, as well. We all know, that the police currently have to visit thousands of low risk offenders every year. Many of these, will be first time, and one time only, offenders. They will not reoffend and the police know it, but they have no choice, about whether to monitor them or not.
When it comes to deciding, whether to make somebody subject to MAPPA monitoring, the existing rules force police to use MAPPA for all SO, irrespective of what the offence is, or what their risk level is. But at the same time they give police an option to make someone MAPPA, when they are not an SO. This is entirely down to the police to decide. One of the criticisms of MAPPA, made by supporters of a super register, was that the police do not use these powers consistently. Some forces have a lot of MAPPA offenders, but others do not. It all depends on how dangerous the police judge somebody to be. But at least it means they have to prioritise the riskiest individuals and target resources, at those offenders who really need to be monitored.
If the MAPPA regime for non-SO, was extended to SO as well, then the police would be able to choose which SO they considered to be worth monitoring and which SO did not have to be monitored. It still allows for the most dangerous people to be monitored, so it cannot be portrayed as being soft on crime, by the tabloids. Again, this kind of reform could be pushed through quietly, without attracting any media attention. There was relatively little coverage of the super register proposal in the press at the time. It is not a big issue, unless a headline grabbing crime is committed by an SO. Even after the Wayne Couzens trial, when the issue of violence against women was in the news, the media was not demanding a super register for all DA and stalkers.
|
|
|
|