This time last year the phrase early release would generally have had little meaning or recognition amongst many [most?] of the great British public. Where it might have resonated with people would have been with regard to those being released from over crowded hospitals before their maladies warranted such discharge in order to free up bed spaces. Currently in the face of public disquiet the phrase has widespread recognition of a government policy that a prisoner may be released long before the public believes justice has been served. For years successive governments have spoken of punishment, deterrence, rehabilitation and public protection. Yet the gap between the language of politicians and the expectations of ordinary people remains a recurring source of discontent.
Recent polling provides some indication of the scale of that dissatisfaction. In August 2026 Ipsos reported that 69 per cent of those surveyed opposed the early-release scheme then under discussion while 79 per cent regarded prison sentences being too short as a serious problem. In May 2025 a YouGov survey found that three quarters of respondents thought the prison system was working badly. When asked what single change they would most like to see 17 per cent called for longer sentences or for prisoners to serve their full terms while an equal proportion favoured rehabilitation and reducing reoffending. These findings deserve attention but they must be read with care: a response to a particular question is not necessarily a settled view on every aspect of sentencing policy. Nor does dissatisfaction with early release automatically establish that sentencing guidelines themselves are defective.
There is, however, a glaring gap in any discussion of this nature. Where is the reliable evidence showing how many members of the public, how many serving judges, magistrates, barristers and solicitors believe the guidelines are no longer fit for purpose? Without that evidence, assertions about what the country wants remain political claims rather than demonstrated conclusions. The point in question as in so many others is the lack of sufficient transparency that is consistent and credible to command public confidence a criticism which applies to all governments.
Generally speaking polling suggests that given a say there is a public demand for five changes or improvements to the justice system. There is doubt that offenders face consequences that fit the crime. This does not establish that the public invariably wants longer prison sentences. It indicates that people want punishment to have meaning and offenders to be held responsible.
Public protection and more effective policing are felt to be lacking. A YouGov survey published in March 2026 found widespread lack of confidence among adults in England and Wales in the system's ability to investigate minor crimes, impose appropriate sentences and reform offenders. It also found that 56% of victims who reported crimes were dissatisfied with the way police handled their cases. Politicians speaking tough at party conferences are soon exposed when actions fail their rhetorical flourishes.
Since Covid long delays affect victims, defendants, witnesses and the proposal to reduce jury trials has exposed those delays to a wider public.
An interesting finding from 2025 research is that the public is sceptical about the effectiveness of prison in preventing further crime.
30% believed prison makes reoffending more likely.
35% believed it makes no difference.
21% believed it makes reoffending less likely.
In simple terms many people have little confidence that current policies of rehabilitation are succeeding. Proven reoffending among adult offenders in England and Wales rose from around 23% during the pandemic to 28–30% in the latest published figures. The 2025 More in Common research found that 58% thought the criminal justice system did a bad job of reducing crime while 39% thought it did a bad job of protecting the public. In September 2026, further polling reported that only 18% believed people who commit crimes usually face real consequences.
Apart from the government lap dog AKA, The Magistrates Association, there has been little support in legal circles for the Starmer government`s plan to reduce availability of jury trials. With magistrates` recruitment in crisis and increasing numbers of experienced JPs reaching the extended retirement age of 75 the concern must be the abilities of the lower court to offer quality judicial decisions especially with the current automatic right of appeal likely to be restricted.
When sentencing is discussed, the most consistent question of opinion offered to the public is that of the death penalty. It`s a subject so profound that I still have the school exercise book in which whilst in Primary 7 when, years before its abolition, I wrote a few hundred words on why capital punishment should be abolished. A YouGov survey in 2022 suggests that support for it stood at 40%, opposition 50% and 10% don`t know. By November 2025, however, YouGov reported a change: 50% supported reintroducing capital punishment for some crimes compared with 45% opposed. The particular offences proposed for that most serious punishment were listed as the murder of a child, murder committed as part of a terrorist act and multiple murder.
Like many parts of the Bible the basis of all sentencing, the Sentencing Guidelines, is open to interpretation. Are they no longer fit for purpose? What do the public and legal profession think? Public opinion is charted below.
In January 2025 the Law Society of England and Wales responded to the Government's sentencing review. Its response argued that successive governments had increased sentence lengths and created additional offences. It also raised concerns about sentence inflation, under resourced probation services and the consequences of inadequate information for sentencers. However this response cannot be treated as a poll of all solicitors, barristers and judges.
It`s not too impulsive to believe that the now easily recognised policy of early release which has been available in some form for decades has not become more acceptable to many people.
There is a growing divide between what the criminal justice system says it is trying to achieve and what the public believes it is delivering. Sentencing guidelines are intended to ensure consistency and fairness but how can public confidence survive when the sentence announced in court seems so different from the time an offender actually spends behind bars? That is not, in itself, proof that the guidelines are wrong. It does, however, raise a question that the justice system cannot afford to ignore.
We must distinguish between the sentence imposed by the court and the time actually served. The first is determined by the judge or magistrates applying the law and the relevant guidelines; the second depends on the rules governing release. Yet the public hears the sentence, not the small print. When an offender is released much earlier than people expected it is hardly surprising that they question what the original sentence really meant. If the system wishes to retain public confidence it must explain that difference honestly and clearly.
Rehabilitation is another part of the equation. If offenders return to crime we must ask whether the measures intended to prevent it are working. Rehabilitation matters but it cannot simply be accepted as a worthy objective without examining the results.
And what of early release? Should it be something an offender earns through good behaviour, genuine engagement with rehabilitation and evidence of readiness to return to society, rather than something routinely anticipated? There is a strong case for that approach provided decisions are based on proper assessment and public safety is not compromised.
Prison overcrowding may demand urgent action but it should not become a substitute for a coherent sentencing policy. The public is entitled to expect punishment to mean something, rehabilitation to produce results and release decisions to be made responsibly.
Ultimately, the first duty of a sentencing system must be to protect the public. Punishment and rehabilitation both have a part to play but neither should be allowed to take precedence over the safety of the law abiding majority. That must be the starting point for any serious debate about sentencing reform.
No comments:
Post a Comment