So now, what we’re going to have is ministers, who have to run for election and so therefore have a reason to appear ‘tough on crime’ being handed the power to overrule parole boards, expert panels whose job it is to deal with parole applications. This is going to lead to certain prisoners being made examples of and a massive step back when the world is realising that a rehabilitative approach is what’s needed.
So what’s to stop you paying off a Minister to keep someone in prison?
Not that I’m hugely on the side of murderers and rapists who are proven guilty, but what’s to stop corruption here?
What in the fuck?
I agree and accept that I don’t always agree with some of the reported sentencing and parole decisions, but giving an MP the right to override???
If anyone thinks that isn’t the sign of increased fascism… just don’t bother… I don’t have the energy to argue.
Edit: as correctly pointed out, doesn’t necessarily point to just fascism, so I’ll change my comment to,
What in the totalitarian fuck is this?
This will be popular with both the general population and R/UKs hard on for authoritarian prison ideals.
Keep the fucking executive away from the judiciary or you slide in authoritarianism
I’ll vote for the team who promises to veto the most prisoners. Truly tough on convicted criminals.
So instead of making sure there are enough professionals to evaluate risk properly they want people who know nothing of the justice system short of their brief tenure and whose main aim is their own ambitions and pleasing the red top chip paper to do it.
That’s not keeping people safe or the much needed improvements to the justice system, its just a distraction from the real work that’s needed but will never be done under this government.
Prisoners’ parole hearings will become PR stunts for ministers.
Is there anything the govt won’t take advantage of to save their own political skin?
It’s the direction of travel that’s the problem really since political involvement in justice becomes normalised.
The first step never seems that terrible to most people.
Ah yes. Let’s remove more of the separation of powers between the executive and judiciary.
Not happy with this.
Ministers should not have a say in this as they are almost always going to tend towards being harsh on crime, or at least appearing so for the benefit of their constituents. They’re never going to assess it impartially.
I’m saying this as someone who thinks we should be tough on crime, but in combination with better rehabilitation, better post release support, etc, to prevent recidivism.
There’s no way this is going to be, or can be, exploited for professional gain by MP’s. Nope. Not going to happen here…
Hmmn, we are a step closer to politicians being able to personally pick and choose who to punish and who to set free.
What could possibly go wrong?
> Those serving whole-life orders will be banned from marrying behind bars.
In other words, the government is subsidising a couple of the country’s wealthiest barristers, at the expense of the taxpayer and the rest of the legal aid system.
I write this because there is absolutely no chance this will survive review by the judiciary – some prisoner will want to marry, get legal aid to challenge it, and the judge will say that the law violates the prisoner’s right to a private and family life.
You could argue that you can make a will to leave your chattels to your partner if you’re forbidden from marrying them, but there’s no way other than marriage or civil partnership to appoint someone to make medical decisions for you. I think this was, in fact, a major driver behind the legislation of civil partnerships – the homophobic parents of an incapacitated gay person could deny their partner access in hospital.
What a waste of money, just to send some kind of “tough on crime” political message.
14 comments
So now, what we’re going to have is ministers, who have to run for election and so therefore have a reason to appear ‘tough on crime’ being handed the power to overrule parole boards, expert panels whose job it is to deal with parole applications. This is going to lead to certain prisoners being made examples of and a massive step back when the world is realising that a rehabilitative approach is what’s needed.
So what’s to stop you paying off a Minister to keep someone in prison?
Not that I’m hugely on the side of murderers and rapists who are proven guilty, but what’s to stop corruption here?
What in the fuck?
I agree and accept that I don’t always agree with some of the reported sentencing and parole decisions, but giving an MP the right to override???
If anyone thinks that isn’t the sign of increased fascism… just don’t bother… I don’t have the energy to argue.
Edit: as correctly pointed out, doesn’t necessarily point to just fascism, so I’ll change my comment to,
What in the totalitarian fuck is this?
This will be popular with both the general population and R/UKs hard on for authoritarian prison ideals.
Keep the fucking executive away from the judiciary or you slide in authoritarianism
I’ll vote for the team who promises to veto the most prisoners. Truly tough on convicted criminals.
So instead of making sure there are enough professionals to evaluate risk properly they want people who know nothing of the justice system short of their brief tenure and whose main aim is their own ambitions and pleasing the red top chip paper to do it.
That’s not keeping people safe or the much needed improvements to the justice system, its just a distraction from the real work that’s needed but will never be done under this government.
Prisoners’ parole hearings will become PR stunts for ministers.
Is there anything the govt won’t take advantage of to save their own political skin?
It’s the direction of travel that’s the problem really since political involvement in justice becomes normalised.
The first step never seems that terrible to most people.
Ah yes. Let’s remove more of the separation of powers between the executive and judiciary.
Not happy with this.
Ministers should not have a say in this as they are almost always going to tend towards being harsh on crime, or at least appearing so for the benefit of their constituents. They’re never going to assess it impartially.
I’m saying this as someone who thinks we should be tough on crime, but in combination with better rehabilitation, better post release support, etc, to prevent recidivism.
There’s no way this is going to be, or can be, exploited for professional gain by MP’s. Nope. Not going to happen here…
Hmmn, we are a step closer to politicians being able to personally pick and choose who to punish and who to set free.
What could possibly go wrong?
> Those serving whole-life orders will be banned from marrying behind bars.
In other words, the government is subsidising a couple of the country’s wealthiest barristers, at the expense of the taxpayer and the rest of the legal aid system.
I write this because there is absolutely no chance this will survive review by the judiciary – some prisoner will want to marry, get legal aid to challenge it, and the judge will say that the law violates the prisoner’s right to a private and family life.
You could argue that you can make a will to leave your chattels to your partner if you’re forbidden from marrying them, but there’s no way other than marriage or civil partnership to appoint someone to make medical decisions for you. I think this was, in fact, a major driver behind the legislation of civil partnerships – the homophobic parents of an incapacitated gay person could deny their partner access in hospital.
What a waste of money, just to send some kind of “tough on crime” political message.