Offender restricted zones

[Inbox]

Is this actually legal? If someone has served their sentence how can this be legal?

I understand the concern and they can restricted from entering a certain area already but turning it on it head seems to be further punishment.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce832zyg1vlo

Edited by Inbox on Friday 8th August 15:14

[lancslad58]

Inbox said:

Is this actually legal? If someone has served their sentence how can this be legal?

I understand the concern and they can restricted from entering a certain area already but turning it on it head seems to be further punishment.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce832zyg1vlo

Edited by Inbox on Friday 8th August 15:14

bks to them, maybe they'll think again next time.

[E-bmw]

Don't see why you would think it not legal.

Sex offender, keep them in an area away from schools.

Murderer, keep them in an area why you can't buy a knife.......

[trails]

lancslad58 said:

bks to them, maybe they'll think again next time.

Oh no, consequences. Shame.

[MikeM6]

Maybe we should invent a special place that caterers for their needs, but not their wants, that securely keeps them contained and everyone outside of this place safe from them. This place would need to be secure though, so maybe have walls or other barriers instead of geo fencing.

Can't think what such a place could be called though, but a bit like a zoo for human animals, but without paying visitors.

[Inbox]

I understand but this is turning it around and saying you must stay in a specific area i.e. you can't travel anywhere.

I thought once the sentence given was served, you are rehabilitated in the eyes of the law and free to live your life until you do something that lands you back in the system.

This seems like a second punishment, it is certainly a restriction on someone's movements.

[Plymo]

My understanding from reading the article is that they are talking about people who are on Licence, so they've been released halfway through their sentence (possibly reducing to a third!) but with conditions.
One common condition is tagging, but the current setup is a bad joke really so if this works well then it's a good thing.
I've got zero issues with restrictions on anyone currently serving a custodial sentence, but released on licence.

[Dingu]

As above, there is nothing to suggest they have served their sentence.

[Inbox]

If they are on probation/out on licence I can understand this but when their sentence/probation ends the issue this change tries to resolve is still there.

I think this is a permanent post-release geo-location restriction enforced by the probation service, a never ending sentence.

[Derek Smith]

Inbox said:

If they are on probation/out on licence I can understand this but when their sentence/probation ends the issue this change tries to resolve is still there.

I think this is a permanent post-release geo-location restriction enforced by the probation service, a never ending sentence.

I doubt we are getting the full details of the proposal. In any case, crime and punishment, particularly of sex offenders, and domestic abusers, is a vote catcher if it gets the correct launch. It needs a catchy title, some support from victims, and it'll be great. Well, at least as far as gaining some votes. Whether it will do the job is another matter entirely.

[Dingu]

Inbox said:

If they are on probation/out on licence I can understand this but when their sentence/probation ends the issue this change tries to resolve is still there.

I think this is a permanent post-release geo-location restriction enforced by the probation service, a never ending sentence.

It doesn’t say that it’s permanent, you are making that up.

[Inbox]

Dingu said:

Inbox said:

If they are on probation/out on licence I can understand this but when their sentence/probation ends the issue this change tries to resolve is still there.

I think this is a permanent post-release geo-location restriction enforced by the probation service, a never ending sentence.

It doesn’t say that it’s permanent, you are making that up.

It doesn't say it isn't but the beeb article leaves a lot open to interpretation in a click-baity way.

[hidetheelephants]

Inbox said:

Is this actually legal? If someone has served their sentence how can this be legal?

I understand the concern and they can restricted from entering a certain area already but turning it on it head seems to be further punishment.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce832zyg1vlo

Edited by Inbox on Friday 8th August 15:14

Because they haven't served their sentence, very few do; they're released on licence because paroling people is an incentive to not behave like an animal in gaol and these days the prisons are full. The article specifically mentions sex cases which generally end up on the sex offenders list, which is effectively a greatly extended period of probationary supervision, it's just a variation of existing rules.

[Southerner]

Article also says:

“ Sources say the plans will be attached to the sentencing bill likely to be introduced to Parliament next month.
This bill will probably also seek to reduce the minimum amount of time less serious offenders have to serve to a third of their sentence, as part of efforts to ease prison overcrowding. “

And there’s your answer - actual prisons are expensive, so the future is virtual containment through tagging.

[pheasant]

Inbox said:

I understand but this is turning it around and saying you must stay in a specific area i.e. you can't travel anywhere.

I thought once the sentence given was served, you are rehabilitated in the eyes of the law and free to live your life until you do something that lands you back in the system.

This seems like a second punishment, it is certainly a restriction on someone's movements.

Second punishment, similar to motor insurance increasing after a couple of speeding ticktts

[Tony1963]

pheasant said:

Second punishment, similar to motor insurance increasing after a couple of speeding ticktts

No.

It has flipped the previous system around so that the victim of, for example a violent assault, doesn’t feel trapped inside their little bubble that the lowlife nasty piece of subhuman detritus isn’t allowed into.

Do NOT treat violent perpetrators as victims.

[Starfighter]

I had assumed that the swap form may not go to X to must stay in Y was to push the restriction on to the perpetrator rather that a specific victim or society in general.

If the restriction protects a victim and the victim moves /gets another job then there is no longer a need to go back to the court for a change to the terms with all the costs and delayed involved.