Shatter reveals early release plan for prisoners

celticcrash · 01-05-2012 12:48am #1

Minister for Justice Alan Shatter has unveiled plans for the early release of 1,200 prisoners over the next three years to ease prison overcrowding and begin the reform of the prison system.
Under the plan, prisoners serving between one and eight years will be eligible for a community release scheme half way through their sentence.
Only those deemed not to pose a safety risk to the community will be released. All prisoners will be screened before being approved for the programme.
He is also currently in the process of reviewing the current system where prisoners are automatically entitled to 25 per cent remission, or time off for good behaviour. He believed such an entitlement should be linked to prisoners’ behaviour records in jail.
The prison service has also earmarked the next 40 months as a period in which in-cell sanitation will be rolled out in all prisons, thus ending the practice of slopping out.
Drug free units are also to be introduced in jails, as is an “incentivised regime”. The latter will involve offering prisoners rewards if they are compliant and fully engage with education, training and rehabilitation programmes while in jail.
Those who perform well will received a larger daily gratuity for the prison tuck shop, will have more contact with the outside world and will also be first in line for new accommodation when it comes on stream in jails.
All these policies are contained in the Irish Prison Service three-year strategic plan launched by Mr Shatter at the prison service training centre in Portlaoise today. The three-year plan was drawn up by the new director general of the prison service Michael Donnellan.
Mr Shatter said under the terms of main element of the plan – the community release scheme – he envisaged 400 prisoners being approved for it over each of the next three years.
As part of that new community release plan, prisoners will be released from jail under the supervision of the Probation Service and Irish Prison Service and must engage in community service and structured rehabilitative programmes.
If they adhere to the terms of their release and do no reoffend, they will be officially freed after a period equivalent to half the period of the sentence they still had to serve.
Under current rules, a prisoner sentenced to four years is released after three because all prisoners are entitled to 25 per cent remission.
Under the new system, a prisoner jailed for four years would be entitled to be released after two years into the community programme. Once out of jail, if the prisoner fulfilled their obligations for one year they would be free.

A short review
Prisons too full = let prisoners out early.

For the first time the prison service might try some rehabilitative work.:rolleyes:

celticcrash · 01-05-2012 1:03am

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2012/0430/breaking50.html

Hope this works

Cookie_Monster · 01-05-2012 3:05am

Under current rules, a prisoner sentenced to four years is released after three because all prisoners are entitled to 25 per cent remission.

:eek:
just :eek:

how can they possibly justify such an "entitlement", that's nothing more than a kick in the teeth to any victims involved.

Drug free units are also to be introduced in jails, as is an “incentivised regime”. The latter will involve offering prisoners rewards if they are compliant and fully engage with education, training and rehabilitation programmes while in jail.
Those who perform well will received a larger daily gratuity for the prison tuck shop, will have more contact with the outside world and will also be first in line for new accommodation when it comes on stream in jails.

So not doing somthing illegal while in prison gets you rewards, how about simply punishing those caught with drugs by further increasing their sentence. Should be enough of a stick for people to stay clean rather than needing to bribe prisoners with sweeties and fresh pillows.

Chuck Stone · 01-05-2012 3:48am

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

how can they possibly justify such an "entitlement", that's nothing more than a kick in the teeth to any victims involved.

Except that many of the people eligible would be in prison for victimless crimes in the first place (drug offences).

So not doing somthing illegal while in prison gets you rewards, how about simply punishing those caught with drugs by further increasing their sentence. Should be enough of a stick for people to stay clean rather than needing to bribe prisoners with sweeties and fresh pillows.

Or how about treating people for addiction rather than punishing them for a lifestyle choice?

Creating hermetically sealed prisons is costly and mostly futile. A prison is only as secure as the people working there decide it should be.

Eric Cartman · 06-05-2012 4:26pm

I would welcome early release for minor non-violent crimes. Our prison service is overcrowded and the easiest way to deal with this without severe financial aid, is to let prisoners out. People locked up for first offenses, non gang related drug dealing, debts, mis-representing garlic as apples, other minor crimes like that. It doesn't immensely impact on society to release some of these people into the world again and it solves a huge financial problem for our government.

rodento · 06-05-2012 6:03pm

I guess they are only creating space for all those who haven't paid there household tax:D

TehDagsBass · 07-05-2012 3:02am

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Except that many of the people eligible would be in prison for victimless crimes in the first place (drug offences).

Although I'm 100% pro-drug legalisation, to call the illegal drug trade "victimless" is pretty ignorant.

mikemac1 · 07-05-2012 1:02pm

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Except that many of the people eligible would be in prison for victimless crimes in the first place (drug offences).

There are thousands being butchered in Mexico because of wars between cartels for an international example

Maybe the end user thinks it's nothing do with them but they never wonder where their product came from in the first place

bedrock#1 · 07-05-2012 4:12pm

mikemac1 wrote: »

There are thousands being butchered in Mexico because of wars between cartels for an international example

Maybe the end user thinks it's nothing do with them but they never wonder where their product came from in the first place

They are victims of the law nothing else. To say that people in Ireland are responsible for these atrocities is incorrect.

bedrock#1 · 07-05-2012 4:14pm

TehDagsBass wrote: »

Although I'm 100% pro-drug legalisation, to call the illegal drug trade "victimless" is pretty ignorant.

Inherent drug crimes (the vast majority) are victimless.

goose2005 · 07-05-2012 4:16pm

mikemac1 wrote: »

There are thousands being butchered in Mexico because of wars between cartels for an international example

Maybe the end user thinks it's nothing do with them but they never wonder where their product came from in the first place

It's a bit much to blame the end user for that; is someone who buys chocolate responsible for slavery in west African cocoa plantations? If you use petrol, are you responsible for innumerable conflicts across Africa and Asia over control of oilfields?

Eric Cartman wrote: »

I would welcome early release for minor non-violent crimes. Our prison service is overcrowded and the easiest way to deal with this without severe financial aid, is to let prisoners out. People locked up for first offenses, non gang related drug dealing, debts, mis-representing garlic as apples, other minor crimes like that. It doesn't immensely impact on society to release some of these people into the world again and it solves a huge financial problem for our government.

Tax evasion is a drain on exchequer and on society; Mr Garlic Apples stole the equivalent of dozens of bank robberies from the state. However, I don't see why prison is necessary - should it be possible to give someone, say, 10,000 hours community service? Far cheaper to organise and more beneficial if it's a non-violent criminal.

tfitzgerald · 07-05-2012 4:18pm

rodento wrote: »

I guess they are only creating space for all those who haven't paid there household tax:D

This sounds funny . But it's probably true

heyjude · 07-05-2012 4:49pm

Where do we draw the line though, it almost seems as if they'd prefer to close some of the prisons altogether. Firstly we are told we should allow the justice system to work, so we do, a person is arrested for a crime, brought before the courts and the judge says its a terrible crime and sentences them to 8 years, then he suspends 2 years of it, then the prisoner is 'entitled' to 25% remission cutting it to 4.5 years, now they're saying they can be released when half their sentence is completed, so a prisoner that was sentenced to 8 years originally could serve as little as 3 years(half the non-suspended sentence). How is this justice, if the judge originally thought the original crime deserved an 8 year sentence ? And how can we be sure that early release is restricted to "Only those deemed not to pose a safety risk to the community will be released" ? I mean anyone convicted of assault, threatening behaviour, possession of an offensive weapon, attempted murder or manslaughter, could conceivably have a sentence of 8 years or less, but having used or threatened violence before, they could pose a safety risk to the community.

I wonder would somebody that broke into a minister's house and stole some property, be eligible for such an early release(seeing as they aren't a safety risk to the community) ? Or will it depend on how high profile the crime was, or who the victim was ?

What is the point in giving a prisoner a particular sentence for a crime, if the system,to save money, then through one means or another( suspended sentencing, remission, parole and now early release) effectively reduces the sentence to almost nothing. The only point seems to be, to fool the public into believing that the justice system works, that the guilty will be caught(by fewer gardai) and punished and that the public shouldn't take the law into their own hands.

opti0nal · 07-05-2012 8:42pm

goose2005 wrote: »

It's a bit much to blame the end user for that; is someone who buys chocolate responsible for slavery in west African cocoa plantations? If you use petrol, are you responsible for innumerable conflicts across Africa and Asia over control of oilfields?

Similar logic is employed in child pornography cases. The consumers create a market. Ignorance is no excuse.

goose2005 wrote: »

Tax evasion is a drain on exchequer and on society; Mr Garlic Apples stole the equivalent of dozens of bank robberies from the state. However, I don't see why prison is necessary - should it be possible to give someone, say, 10,000 hours community service? Far cheaper to organise and more beneficial if it's a non-violent criminal.

It could tempt local authorities to replace paid labour with unpaid workers or there's a risk that wealthy offenders could buy out the community service by paying someone else to do it.

Chuck Stone · 07-05-2012 9:05pm

TehDagsBass wrote: »

Although I'm 100% pro-drug legalisation, to call the illegal drug trade "victimless" is pretty ignorant.

Why would you want to legalise something '100%' if it was going to produce victims?

TehDagsBass · 07-05-2012 9:09pm

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Why would you want to legalise something '100% if it was going to produce victims?

Because then we could manufacture it to a set quality, tested to high standards, distributed legitimately and taxed in line with other drugs here.

Drug use, or the demand for drugs, has a line of victims starting at the production and ending at the consumer due to how it is manufactured and distributed currently.

Chuck Stone · 07-05-2012 9:12pm

opti0nal wrote: »

Similar logic is employed in child pornography cases.

No it's not.

Child pornography is illegal because it certainly does have victims - children.

Why are drugs illegal? If I chose to smoke some weed and someone chooses to supply it to me who exactly is being victimised?

Chuck Stone · 07-05-2012 9:18pm

TehDagsBass wrote: »

Drug use, or the demand for drugs, has a line of victims starting at the production and ending at the consumer due to how it is manufactured and distributed currently.

How?

Nodin · 08-05-2012 1:04am

celticcrash wrote: »

How frutrating is it for the Gardi working to put away a scumbag only for Alan Shat in his pants to leave them out again.

Did you read what he was proposing....?

Duiske · 08-05-2012 1:19am

Can't remember the exact figure, but I think it costs about €80k per year to keep someone locked up. Far more cost effective to have those convicted of non-violent crime doing community service.

Dubhlinner · 08-05-2012 3:32pm

Duiske wrote: »

Can't remember the exact figure, but I think it costs about €80k per year to keep someone locked up. Far more cost effective to have those convicted of non-violent crime doing community service.

That's just the total cost of the prison service divided by the number of inmates. Its a very silly way of determining how much each prisoner costs the state.

heyjude · 08-05-2012 3:47pm

Duiske wrote: »

Far more cost effective to have those convicted of non-violent crime doing community service.

Unless, that is, it was your house they burgled, your car or your identity they stole. In which case, you probably wouldn't agree with those responsible being freed early or doing community service.

I wonder would it be similarly cost effective to make those who didn't pay the household charge do community service or would that just encourage people not to pay, especially when the much bigger property tax is introduced next year ?

Many things may seem like a waste of money until you are the victim of the crime, when suddenly you get a new perspective and feel that locking up such criminals is what you pay your taxes for.

MysticalRain · 08-05-2012 9:03pm

Chuck Stone wrote: »

No it's not.

Child pornography is illegal because it certainly does have victims - children.

Heron junkies have children who are victims in other ways as well.

Why are drugs illegal? If I chose to smoke some weed and someone chooses to supply it to me who exactly is being victimised?

It depends on who the supplier is. If the suppliers are connected with organised crime gangs, then it obviously does have an impact on the wider society. That said, I am 100% in favour of legalising drugs to take them out of the hands of organised crime. Neither wouldn't have too much of a problem with people growing their own weed, and supplying it to others if it was legalised.

laoch na mona · 08-05-2012 10:55pm

time off for good behaviour makes sense

golden lane · 08-05-2012 10:59pm

only if it was pre crime..........hence, no crime....

celticcrash · 08-05-2012 11:23pm

laoch na mona wrote: »

time off for good behaviour makes sense

The most violent criminals are often model prisoners.

Shatter reveals early release plan for prisoners

Comments