The Case Against Early Release Schemes | Yasser Maait

With an increasing crime rate and the growth of anti-social behaviour, society faces a pressing issue regarding the practicality of justice. Western society prides itself on its unwavering moral values of justice, fairness and equality, yet the early release scheme illustrates how easily we are willing to compromise these principles in order to “cut costs.” The tension between justice and functionality stems from longstanding complaints about overcrowding and budget constraints in the criminal justice system. Proponents argue that early release can facilitate rehabilitation while simultaneously easing the financial burden. However, such claims disregard fundamental national security risks and moral concerns.

The scheme fails in its core duty to preserve public safety and, in turn, undermines the essential purpose of the modern justice system: deterrence. While the scheme claims to improve the practicality of criminal justice, its supporters ignore the logistical challenges of monitoring released offenders. The underlying issue with the scheme is its neglect of you, the public, whose right to safety is compromised by its inherently negligent nature.

Recidivism and Public Safety Risks

Recidivism is the consequence of incomplete justice; it is the result of criminals having undergone incomplete rehabilitation and, consequently, being unprepared to reintegrate into society. This is a natural consequence of an impartial and inefficient justice system that fails to administer fair and reasonable consequences. This is precisely the type of justice system that would emerge if early release schemes were widely implemented.

Numerous studies confirm this concern. A BBC report highlighted that prisoners released early from HMP Nottingham under the End of Custody Supervised Licence (ECSL) scheme were quickly reoffending and being recalled to prison. Between October 2023 and September 2024, 13,000 prisoners were released early under the ECSL scheme. The impact of this is shocking when considering the recidivism rates between April and June 2024: during this period, there was a 44% increase in the number of offenders recalled to prison, totalling 9,782 recalls.

How can a reasonable society tolerate such statistics? It is crucial to recognise that this is not the fault of the criminals themselves; they were sentenced with the expectation of rehabilitation, yet their sentences were expedited against their will. This exposes a glaring contradiction in the moral and practical justifications for early release schemes: they claim to reintegrate offenders into society yet frequently return them to prison shortly afterward. Somehow, this is supposed to solve prison overcrowding. There is sympathy to be had, not for the fallible system, but for the victims of it.

To fully understand why these flaws exist, we must consider the external societal factors contributing to the failure of early release. With a declining housing market, stigmatisation of former convicts in the job market, and worsening poverty conditions, is it empathetic to send unprepared individuals into an increasingly unstable world?

The argument that rehabilitation can take place outside the prison system also falls apart. A report from The Daily Pulse revealed that many early-released individuals lack access to essential rehabilitation programs. This exacerbates homelessness and further increases the likelihood of reoffending.

There is no present reality in which an early release scheme could work effectively in the UK. As a society, we must not accept this facade of practicality and efficient justice. British values prioritise safety, security, and morality—principles that an early release scheme threatens to erode and hence our social stability along side it.

Erosion of Crime Deterrence

Across the globe, judicial systems acknowledge the power of deterrence in maintaining social order. This principle is especially significant in the British legal system, which historically relies on the concept that the fear of consequences prevents crime. The early release scheme undermines the very foundation of this system.

The scheme promotes flexible sentences, which are influenced by an offender’s behaviour and cooperation. To put this into perspective: serious offenders are given non-binding sentences that are immensely shortened based on their conduct. What message does this send to society—to our children, our families, and our communities? It implies that periods of harmful, dangerous behaviour can simply be excused by episodes of good conduct; this promotes social imbalance.

For deterrence to be effective, full sentencing must be enforced. It becomes clear that the implementation of an early release scheme contradicts the principles of justice. The power of deterrence works by instilling a fear of consequences in offenders, discouraging them from reoffending and prompting rehabilitation from within. This process also influences wider society: when people see leniency through early release schemes, they may come to believe that the repercussions of crime are minimal, thus incentivising further anti-social behaviour.

Critics of this argument contend that history has shown deterrence to be flawed and inconsistent. However, we argue that this is due to the existence of early release schemes themselves. As demonstrated above, these schemes directly weaken deterrence.

Our justice system must reflect fairness—clear, consistent, and firm. The shortening of penalties not only undermines justice but also prevents criminals from truly acknowledging the weight of their actions.

Judicial and Logistical Challenges

Proponents of early release schemes argue for their practical benefits, yet they conveniently overlook the numerous logistical difficulties that would strain the criminal justice system. To maintain public order, the government must ensure effective prisoner monitoring, enforce probation, and implement further public safety precautions—all of which require significant administrative resources. These requirements coincide with growing economic burdens, which, ultimately, will be felt by taxpayers.

Extensive media coverage has highlighted the government’s failure to provide adequate oversight, with Sky News reporting that many prisoners are released without proper transition plans in place. As a society, we cannot expect an understaffed and underfunded probation system to maintain stable levels of public security. Likewise, we cannot ignore the significant financial costs of such a scheme, which will be borne by taxpayers.

Beyond logistical issues, there are significant concerns about fairness in determining eligibility for early release. The early release scheme compromises principles of justice, as release decisions are often based on administrative convenience rather than legal criteria. In some cases, high-risk individuals have been released before those who demonstrated genuine rehabilitation.

Would you feel safer knowing that your friends and family are exposed to unnecessary risks due to a system that prioritises functionality over security? The scheme exploits these concerns, persuading the public to accept false promises of security. It is our duty to reject this.

Conclusion

While early release schemes may have noble intentions—reducing overcrowding and promoting rehabilitation—their real-world implications tell a different story. These policies pose significant risks to public safety, weaken crime deterrence, and create administrative burdens that far outweigh their perceived benefits.

The solution lies not in early release but in reinvestment: funding rehabilitation programs within prisons, supporting community centers, and allocating resources to youth education. Without structured and risk-averse sentencing approaches, early release programs will continue to fail both offenders and society at large.