Parole Board attacks Howard
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.The Parole Board yesterday became the latest organisation to attack the Home Secretary's tough sentencing proposals which it argues will put the public at risk from dangerous criminals.
In a strongly worded condemnation of Michael Howard's plans for persistent criminals, the board said that the proposals made reoffending more likely and would "prejudice the safety of the public".
The comments, which were published yesterday in the board's annual report, follows widespread criticism from the judiciary, opposition groups, and penal reformers.
Mr Howard is expected to publish a Bill in the next few weeks which proposes tougher sentencing on repeat offenders.
The board is concerned about plans to abolish automatic release for prisoners serving less than four years after completing half their sentence and the removal of discretionary parole for long term offenders. In future, prisoners would get 15 to 20 per cent deducted from their sentence only if they behave well.
The board concludes: "We believe that the proposals will lead to an abandonment of [the] rehabilitation process, replacing [an effective] system with one which will be worse in almost every respect. This will result in poorer protection for the public. The board strongly believes that the Government will be making a serious, and potentially dangerous mistake."
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments