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.