Killers and rapists to be freed early starting in September

[IwantToRetire]

David Lammy, the Justice Secretary, is to implement legal changes that will see criminals accused of serious offences released early for the first time as part of Government efforts to prevent jails from running out of space.

They include prisoners convicted of manslaughter, rape, GBH and sex offences who will be eligible for release halfway through their sentences rather than serving the current tariff of two-thirds of their sentence.

For a criminal jailed for a total of 15 years for manslaughter or rape, it will mean they will be freed after 7.5 years rather than 10, provided they are assessed to have behaved well and have not committed any serious rule breaches while in prison.

Criminals convicted of burglary, theft, assault and repeated shoplifting will be freed as little as a third of the way through their sentences, rather than the current 40 per cent, provided they have not committed any serious rule breaches.

It is understood that the first 700 offenders will be freed in September, followed by similar numbers for each of the next nine months in a staggered release plan to get the new system up and running.

Article continues at https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/06/25/killers-rapists-freed-early-first-time-prison-overcrowding/

And at https://archive.is/yPCul

This was announced 6 days ago and somehow never made the news. Only because C4 news today had a segment on it. Interviews with women who have received letters about their rapist being released.

Comment here https://insidetime.org/newsround/earlier-releases-under-sentencing-act-to-start-in-september/

Of course I agree that murderers, rapists and sex offenders need to be locked up. But the current system even fails these groups and reoffending rates are high following prison.

I think it’s not just about the crime that’s committed but also the underlying issues. If someone is addicted to drugs they will continue to offend until they get clean. If someone is illiterate they will struggle to get a job and avoid crime until they can read and write etc. That is why in my original post I said that my views aren’t popular- I don’t think punishment works if there is an underlying issue prompting offending. Experiments in Norway with creating small communities with more freedom but away from general public (they used Islands) where inmates lead relatively normal lives, are allowed to make decisions, learn essential skills and get support for their issues have been very successful. If I remember correctly reoffending rates were in single digits. I feel like society needs to see ‘punishment’ even though that punishment actually makes the problem worse.

Norway is a very different country. It's a high trust, homogeous society. You can't just transfer one aspect of their system to UK and get the same result.
Also I don't see evidence that they are more successful at dealing with sexual violence which is what we're talking about.
Do you really think the dark triad sexual predator can be reformed by a bit of tea and sympathy?

A docudrama where the victim is not the focus and we are meant to feel sympathy with the killer because he’s been “radicalised”.

If people don't want asylum seekers on military bases they REALLY won't want convicted rapists and murderers placed there. The problem is those bases aren't designed to keep people locked in, so making them secure would I imagine being very difficult. Prisons have a very specific spec.
The other issue that isn't talked about that much is the staffing issues for prisons. It's not just the buildings themselves. This is exacerbated by the fact that a suprisingly large number of prison officers are actually from places like Nigeria. We get told all the time about the role of immigrants in the NHS but not in the prison service. Working in a prison isn't particularly appealing and the more understaffed they become, the less appealing it becomes. So the gap is filled with immigrants. But that also means that "fixing" overall immigration levels (not just asylum seekers) will be having an impact on prison staffing.

I agree it's a completely bad idea though. Even paying for some to be housed in other countries would be a better idea (I believe some European countries have this arrangement with I think Sweden as their prison population has been reducing). It would cost a lot but be better than just releasing them.

Also to be fair, the Tories did have this problem! The overcrowding situation had been getting bad for years, especially post COVID and eventually it reaches the point where there is no space even for overcrowding. They started warning that very soon there would be no places at all for newly convicted prisoners to go from court from 2023/early 2024 I think.

I think it's true that lots of crimes happen because of poverty/trauma/low self esteem etc. Treating crime like a public health issue (as in Scotland) can be really effective. As can restorative justice and alternatives to prison for some types of crime.
But I agree, rape and sexual violence (even more than murder) is in it's own category. Where I think some people go wrong is thinking that because some crime is because of poverty it all is. Whereas there have been plenty of rich, powerful men who have turned out to have done unspeakable things. Jimmy Saville was rich and successful and well respected and he still did awful things. And one of the main experts on domestic violence talked about how they had to stop their "reformed" offenders from doing talks etc because they found the self esteem boost it gave them led to them backsliding into abusive ways again.
When you think about it you have to be so incredibly selfish to commit sexual violence especially against a child. It's basically putting their needs for sexual gratification over ruining a child's life. And that's more likely to come with abnormally high self esteem not low self esteem. And I don't know how you cure that.

I have no words for just how evil the UK government are proving to be.

Lammy must really hate women. He seems to be on the side of the rapists.

This is ridiculous when they're locking people up for social media posts at the same time.

They don't mean what they say about VAWG - deeds not words. If they go ahead with this they're actively enabling VAWG. You can't judge if a man who rapes or murders women is still a risk if he's in an entirely male prison, this is obviously going to be a disaster and the perpetrators of the grooming gang scandal should be in prison for life if they're not deported.

Like the Taliban, the government just doesn't see women as that important, clearly.

Do we know what crimes are going to be exempt from this new early release rollout? I assume Murder (but nothing would surprise me) but what else? I'm so pissed off because nothing reassures me about the government's claim that there will be strict supervision, probation control, monitoring in the community. And are they going to gove the victims notice if any.

I do hold the Conservative partly responsible for the complete lack of action in planning for the need to increase prison places whilst they were in power. They left government with a prison service not fit for purpose. Our population was increasing year on year. Just as with the NHS our prison service did not keep up.

This made my stomach drop so hard. My state was one of the states in the US to do this, and it led to very obvious tragedy.

No, I agree that murders and rapist need to be in prison (though with much better provision for rehabilitation than currently). My point is those who have not committed violent or sexual crimes might be best served elsewhere (but not with tea and sympathy)

I suspect the only thing that will stop early release will be another death.

You may or may not be right, but as the C4 report and the Times article about the early releases are focusing on the impact on women who have been victims of male violence, someone wants to in fact talk about the men.

I don't think that will have any effect. This is an obvious consequence.

Sending the victims letters seems so utterly sadistic.

Are they a warning? In which case, anticipating harm?

Need more prisons, I read about the murder of Michaela Hall, her partner had had 47 previous convictions and 78 offences. What the fuck was he doing outside of prison. Prison isn’t just about rehabilitation, it is also about keeping the public safe. This was clearly a hardcore recidivist yet he wasn’t where he should have been.

There is also that statistic that something like 1% of the population is responsible for 30% of crime. Fucking lock them up. So sick of this handwringing shit that focuses on perpetrators instead of the victims. It’s ok to demand justice instead of worrying over whether someone had a bad childhood. Plenty of people come from shit circumstances and never rape and murder anyone.

Really think about the psychology of someone who rapes, what are they actually like, how do they see others? It’s not a bad habit, it’s a psychological orientation towards others that is profoundly immoral and narcissistic.

That's correct procedure before someone is released though. It's considered better to tell the victims first before they hear it on the news etc. it also gives them the opportunity to complain about the release, raise it with their MP or the media. Where the police did fuck up recently was in NOT writing to alleged victims of repeat offenders whose own cases had never made trial (as in they only wrote to the victims it was proven he had done it).
Obviously noone wants a letter telling them their rapist is being released. It's much better if the rapist isn't released at all. But if they are released, it's better to be informed of that ahead of time than via the media,.social media or (worst case) themselves or someone they know bumping into the man in the high street.

These are being released early because the prisons are full of people who should not be there.

Who are these people that should not be there filling the whole prison up? I certainly imagine some men shouldn’t be there, but a majority or half? That doesn’t sound realistic to me.

The prisons being full is a result of decades of underfunding in every other area including the Tories reducing police numbers by the tens of thousands, the cutting of family support like Sure Start, offshoring of decently paid manual labour, the vast reduction in Legal Aid, porous borders and jumps in organised crime increasing the flow of drugs and different types of drugs and it goes on.

Unless and until there’s resources ploughed back into those services and areas, then releasing prisoners into the streets will only lead to a surge in crimes that can’t be dealt with currently.

And we’ve seen this approach taken with mental health services. It went from large locked facilities to ‘care in the community’ on the back of good intentions. All that happened was an increase in adverse incidents as seriously unwell people (a lot of them men) were freed without sufficient supervision or support.

Good question about who are the people in prison that should not be there

The Metropolitan Police record an average of approximately 40 to 46 knife-enabled crimes per day in London. This equates to around 14,000 to 16,700 incidents annually, with the vast majority involving a knife being used as a threat or resulting in minor injury.

Just in London alone. Just knife crime. Thats 16000 per year. Most people would agree that knife crime should be dealt with by custodial sentences. Every stabbing has the potential for a life to be ended. Hospitals are having to use resources to prioritise these stabbings to save lives. That leaves medically unwell waiting longer in corridors.

Repeat that in Birmingham, Manchester and already you see how many prison places are needed.

This is before you consider child sex abuse, rapes, aggravated burglary, DV, Dangerous driving.

I do think that there are some (not sure how many) people in prison who should probably be in a mental health facility, and just as likely they end up in prison because they were released inappropriately, or not detained to begin with, from a mental health facility.

But these too do not function as they should because we (the UK) does not have enough money.

The prison guard from West Africa who featured in the BBC in depth report I mentioned earlier, talked about the impact of those who clearly needed mental health support, being sent to prison.

In the article linked in the OP what they are bringing in is not shorter sentences, but a shorter time it has to be served in prison.

Plus a carrot and stick approach to managing prisoners, such as those who behave / cooperate with the system could be rewarded by having less prison time. And those who do not co-operate, could have the time served in prison extended.

The laughable part of this is a presumed expanded support service outside of prison. But as this has been shown to be one that is already struggling I just dont see how this can, let alone would happen.

From AI - I am sure someone has written about this in detail:

Murder sentences have not been shortened; the mandatory penalty remains a life sentence. However, starting in Autumn, the portion of certain standard determinate sentences (SDS) served in custody before automatic release will drop to one-third, down from the previous 40% or 50%.

Key facts about the reforms impacting sentencing and release in England and Wales:

Mandatory Life for Murder: Murder carries a mandatory life sentence with a minimum term ("tariff") set by a judge. Statutory starting points remain strictly enforced, ranging from (15) to (30) years depending on aggravating factors (e.g., weapon use), and there has been no reduction in these tariffs. Whole life orders remain the standard for the most heinous cases.

Early Release Progression: Under the Sentencing Act 2026, eligible prisoners serving standard determinate sentences will be able to be released after serving one-third of their sentence. This is being rolled out in stages beginning 2nd September 2026, depending on the length of the sentence.

Exceptions for Violent and Sexual Offences: For those serving sentences over four years for certain violent or sexual offences, the earliest release point is reduced from two-thirds to half (50%) of their sentence.

Increased Suspended Sentences: Since 22nd March 2026, courts can suspend custodial sentences of up to three years, up from the previous two-year limit.

For full, official guidance on the statutory starting points for murder, you can consult the Sentencing Council Life Sentences Guidelines.

For a comprehensive breakdown of the staggered early release dates, refer to the Prison Reform Trust Sentencing Act Guide.

I think we are on the same page. Around half of men in prison have not been convicted of violent or sexual offences. I’m not saying that they are innocent but prison won’t help them or society. They are the result of the chronic underfunding you cite. Until we have social services, policing, education, mental health and other services that offer decent provision these men will simply reoffend.

Good point, I think many of the perpetrators of these knife crimes are walking the streets. Along with most of the sexual predators. Our prisons are full yet many of the most dangerous are never brought to justice

A victim of the infamous Rochdale grooming gang led by Shabir Ahmed is being given additional security measures at her home by police to ensure her safety.

“I’ve known Ruby for 15 years and supported her through everything,” said Maggie Oliver, a former detective constable with GMP, who resigned in 2012 after blowing the whistle on police and local authority failures to protect the girls.
“And in 15 years I’ve never seen her so frightened, feeling so angry and powerless and triggered and actually outraged. She was promised so many things. She was promised therapy, a team to support her, and that her abusers would be deported. None of it has happened.”

https://www.thetimes.com/article/05ddcac8-1fdb-4a9b-86b2-e7df03cda415?shareToken=a93a5a93d431d1348816093daf29c68e