Bailing Out
There are various views that one can take about the prisoner early release scheme. You can say that it is ridiculous that prison places are not made available for people to serve sentences that the courts have decided upon. In contrast you can say that the prison population is ridiculously large anyway and that emergency measures are necessary. In a sense this mirrors the various views one can take about imprisonment and sentencing policy. However whatever your view is, as a matter of practicality there is insufficient room to house existing prisoners and pressure on prison places is likely to get worse.
At the same time there have been a number of recent instances where there has been uproar about various offences committed by persons who have been on bail. Two murderous examples will indicate the nature of the problem. Most people will recall the murder of Garry Newlove, who was kicked to death outside his home in Warrington by a group of yobs including one assailant, Adam Swellings, who was on bail at the time. There was also Police Inspector Gary Weddell, who had been charged with murdering his wife. He was released on bail by a Crown Court judge after a hearing, with his bail subject to a surety of £200,000 given by his barrister brother. The accused then went on to murder his mother-in-law before killing himself.
One can understand the feelings of despair and rage that the families of victims in such cases (and the families and victims themselves in others) must feel. However calls to routinely lock up alleged offenders pending trial, or to change the strong presumption that bail ought to be given, must be resisted .
Firstly it defies belief that one could have a system where convicted criminals were being released early from their sentences at the same time that people who have not yet been convicted were going to be locked up.
Secondly the presumption of innocence should still mean something. Even in a serious case, bail has to be considered because otherwise people who would eventually be acquitted will have served a substantial sentence before they are eventually released. No doubt the same tabloids that rail against the stupidity of the courts ever having granted bail to people who commit further crimes would then decry equally the stupidity of a system which effectively makes people serve prison sentences for crimes they were eventually not convicted of.
Far more of a protection for society would be balanced objections to bail. If the prosecution target their efforts on the right cases, that is more likely to be beneficial all round. Moreover bail conditions should be enforced. If they are breached they should be dealt with severely. The person who breaches bail conditions is no longer innocent because they have thereby committed an offence.
It is heartbreaking when people have to suffer the consequences of further crimes committed by those who already stand charged with other crimes. Without minimising the significance of this, short of locking up all offenders on the off chance it is difficult to see how that risk can be excluded. Knee-jerk solutions are certainly not the answer.