Early release was treated here less as a remedy than as evidence of a system running out of room. No won by more than four to one, and the result carried the air of a practical verdict: the numbers may force the policy, but they do not make it effective.
The strongest substantive No case reduced the problem to capacity, arguing that “we simply don't have enough prison space in the UK”. Another voter put the objection more bluntly: “It's obviously not effective if they mostly got recalled.” The chamber’s most-respected No voices therefore focused less on punishment than on whether the scheme solves anything beyond the immediate pressure.
Yes voters did not mount a confident defence of the policy. The clearest concession was that it was “not an effective way in the long term”, while a more conditional argument said eligibility might work for non-violent offences but demanded “stricter parameters than there are currently”. The two sides talked past each other: Yes was debating safeguards and alternatives, while No was asking whether release could count as success when overcrowding and recalls remained.
That makes this a vote about the limits of emergency criminal-justice policy as much as about this particular scheme. Even the supporting arguments pointed towards community measures, tougher exclusions and a deeper examination of “why we lock people up”, while the opposing case pressed for more prison places and different sentencing choices.
The floor did not reject the pressure behind early release; it rejected calling pressure-management an effective answer.
9 Opinions
Deport the foreigners. Execute the rapists and murderers. Release the right wingers in jail for social media posts. Plenty of room.
One in one out !! Where have I heard that before?? Doesn't work does it. Get closed holiday parks open for minor criminals whilst proper prisons are built.
yes pending strictet alternatives like community clear-up. It must have in-built component to exclude specific individuals like police killers. Police can only rensin unharmed if offenders are reluctant to harm them.
It's obviously not effective if they mostly got recalled. Did the governors just draw random names out of a hat?
It's a difficult one because without more prison spaces it's pointless to keep letting people free. However I feel that so long as it's not a violent or sexual offence, you could be eligible. There needs to be stricter parameters than there are currently, murder and manslaughter, rape, pedo's and various other things should serve their sentance definitely, but shoplifting or fraud or whatever aren't dangerous to day to day people.
But not an effective way in the long term. We need to look hard at why we lock people up, and how effective it is I preventing crime
Bring back the Death Penalty ! The sooner the better! For terrorists, murderers and sex offenders. Stop letting them out of jail early! And build super prisons.
NO But it's the only way simply due to the numbers involved. The facts are simple, the last government didn't build enough new prisons to deal with the growing numbers of prisoners...FACT There are other things that would help ease the numbers, you could stop jailing people for less serious crimes, eg not paying enough taxes, but the fact remains we simply don't have enough prison space in the UK. We also don't have enough prison staff to run the prisons we have properly
A gallows might, however