There seems to be a lot of media coverage at the moment regarding the new Sentencing Act 2026, which is a couple of months away from releasing its first tranche of prisoners. It seems most of the media coverage is asking why people convicted of a sexual offence are included in this, and that surely as dangerous offenders they should not be.

A couple of things strike me and I do wonder if it is just the cluelessness of the mainstream media and, more alarmingly, the politicians who are speaking of this.

1. Most, if not all, people convicted of a sexual offence are released early anyway (as are people convicted of other offences), previously this was at the halfway or two-thirds point of their sentences. This Sentencing Act is just making that release period a little sooner, you would think that the way they are talking that all people convicted of a sexual offence serve their whole sentence currently.

2.The word dangerous is thrown around a lot, as I understand it there is a dangerousness threshold that if offenders meet it, or the right honourable Judge deems the offender to have met it, this is when an Extended Determinate Sentence (EDS) is imposed instead of a Standard Determinate Sentence. This means longer in custody, longer on licence and a parole hearing to get out early. EDS is excluded from the Sentencing Act 2026, so the majority of people convicted of a sexual offence that the right honourable Judge has deemed dangerous are excluded from this “early release”.

3.Do we, as a country not us on the forum, not believe in rehabilitation anymore? If that is true, which with the coverage by all main political parties it seems to be – longer sentences, harsher regimes (neither of which cut crime), then considering over 90% of all offenders in prison will be walking the streets again one day, that is a very sad state of affairs.

I am equal parts saddened and angered by some of the things I hear from people in positions of power who just don't seem to know all the facts of what they are talking about.

Media coverage of Sex Offenders has always been negative and people don't believe that someone who has offended once won't go on and offend again. The actual facts are that reoffending rates for Sex Offenders are much lower than some other offences such as Robbery. The majority of Sex Offenders don't commit another sexual offence.

The range of offences are wide as well but everyone gets put in the same pot by the public, media and politicians as being dangerous. Whilst there are certainly some dangerous offenders out there the majority are not.

The reasons behind an offender committing a sexual offence is complicated but in many cases when the reasons are explored there is a trigger which caused the offending. That trigger is much easier to treat than someone who has committed an offence such as Robbery.  

There is a lot of demonising of sex offenders and I don't believe that there is the scope for the general population to believe we can change and be rehabilitated. It has always made me angry that this is the way the world is. 

Having seen the appointment of Alex Norris as Justice Secretary, as well as James Timpson announcing his departure from the Prisons Minister role, I do wonder if there is a plan within the new Burnham Government to 'shelve' significant aspects of the Sentencing Act, despite being literally weeks away from implementation.

There has unfortunately been a clamour within the media, and pressure put on lots of Labour MPs, especially around some of the early-release provisions, in relation specifically to people convicted of sexual offences. There are significant safeguards within the legislation - anyone managed at higher levels of MAPPA, for example, is ineligible - however, this has not seemed sufficient to quell the disquiet amongst the Daily Mail types. Several Labour MPs have faced difficult questions in the last few weeks, including an excruciating interview on the BBC with Jess Phillips, who voted for the Bill, but now seems to be rowing back. There are several other MPs in similar positions.

It's also a relevant factor I think to consider that Alex Norris' wife is also a Labour MP - she was formerly a Deputy PCC who had also previously served as a Magistrate. Alex Norris himself doesn't seem (from some basic research) to have much, if any, experience of the criminal justice system. Emma Foody, however, was/is critical to the Government's driving forward of reforms following the Leveson Review, restricting the right to a Jury trial.

Many people will not have heard of Alex Norris and it's an unconventional appointment in the sense that he isn't a lawyer and doesn't come from a justice background - but that doesn't mean he doesn't have 'people in his ear' that have that experience.

I really hope this is not a regressive move for the Justice portfolio.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

All views, opinions & contributions are my own and do not represent the views of Unlock unless specifically stated.

I'll just say that Chris Grayling didn't come from a justice background and we should all know how that went....

=========================================================================================================

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)

It is all about the numbers really. Someone at the MOJ will have done a calculation about how many spaces they need to free up and that will determine the releases. Of course the Mail will not want anybody released early.

Alas, the fruit has come to bear: Burnham says he will review early prisoner release scheme - BBC News

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

All views, opinions & contributions are my own and do not represent the views of Unlock unless specifically stated.

Though I am always hopeful that as with any "State" post a PM would position a person with the relevant experience to it. Then I am reminded by my Grandfather speaking about being called up to the Army. He was a trained Chief so they made him a driver.

Punter99 found this report a few years back:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/independent-review-of-police-led-sex-offender-management
An 'independent' review into policing SO, by a former Chief Constable.

One big change recommended was that low risk ex offender on the SOR should have the requirement auto reviewed by the Local Chief Constable at the 10 year stage. Though the author had the experience to show the benefits and reasoning for this it was rejected. 
Why because it would not be popular so not a vote winning decision.

therefore until we can somehow find a "vote" winning solution a Government will always look at their own agenda first.

Society suggests I must let go of all my expectations but I disagree, as whilst I have a voice, I have hope.

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

This forum supports these words, thank you Unlock and your contributors.

It seems the key reason this time isn't SOs, for once. It's actually the killers of PC Andrew Harper, who were children at the time and sentenced on that basis. They would be eligible for early release but his widow has complained about that.

=========================================================================================================

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)

The releases have been paused but not cancelled. Instead the govt is looking for ways to sell the idea to victims, for example by offering them extra security guarantees. They will go probably go ahead as planned, with the announcement being sneaked out at a later date.