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.