Depends what safeguards they've got in place to monitor those serious offenders, and if it's an "Open door" policy, or they only take the lowest risk. Any move away from the out of sight, out of mind method for dealing with ex-cons must be good, but not if it's at the expense of local residents.

I don't live next to a bail hostel, but Romford is just down the road.

The safeguards depend on the individual 'resident', as I understand it, and the curfew for the higher risk cases can be extended, as well as insisting that they check in every hour or so. Tagging is a possibility.

I feel pretty neutral about it, but I'm leaning towards thinking that supervised release is better than unsupervised, even though I've heard one person say that they would rather have a serious offender living next door and not know it than have one at Ryecroft (???)

A good question, since it's probably way too late to stop the policy from happening now (I don't personally think that the local protest group did a great job of publicising their concerns), is 'will this be an alternative to serving out the last part of a sentence in prison (which costs more than a bail hostel, especially since, from what the Gloucester FM interview with a representative of the Probation Service says*, the inmates pay for their keep), or will they go into the hostel instead of just being released?' I'm cynical enough to think it's probably the former, because the government like to save money where they can, but I think those who object to the scheme would be a lot happier if it was the latter. Never happen, though?

* the Windows Media Player used by GFM is not a great tool, but the interview is about halfway along, and it doesn't take too long for the programme to load to that point.

---

by The_Host
I've heard one person say that they would rather have a serious offender living next door and not know it than have one at Ryecroft (???)
.....
'will this be an alternative to serving out the last part of a sentence in prison (which costs more than a bail hostel.

---

I can understand why people wouldn't want to know. Because what you don't know doesn't exist. If you know it you start to worry about it. Many ex-criminals are no danger to their direct surroundings. If my neighbour was a murderer for hire, he / she most likely no real danger to me (aslong as people put out a bounty on my head ), but the moment I know he / she is a murderer for hire I get a little ickey feeling deep down in my stomach.

And a bail hostel is most likely going to be "instead" of spending their last few months in a jail cell. As after your sentence is up you are a free man / woman (presuming there are no other restrictions in your sentence). So after their sentence is up the state has no right to ask people to go live anywhere. Why would people want to be free and still have forced restrictions put upon them? Probation offers people earlier release but with restrictions and with the promise that if you cross the line in any way while on probation, you are bunged back into jail.

Personally I'm not against it. People who commited lesser crimes don't need to block up cells for the full duration of their sentence, we can use them for long term stays, and it saves money. Also easing people who commited heavier crimes into society after years of being locked up seems a lot more sensible than just dumping them onto the street after their sentence is up.

Of course I can understand why people don't like something like that in your backyard.... But you cannot "ease" people back into society without putting them back into society.

I think you nailed it, Chambler. I sort of knew it couldn't be prison plus, but you, and a fellow on another site, clarified it in my noggin. That leaves the question of whether a bail hostel isn't an option which allows inmates to leave prison just a little bit earlier, and save the prison service money.

The thing that really niggles is that if they changed the policy, that means at some point that someone made the decision that high risk offenders should not be placed in hostels, presumably because they realised that the public wouldn't stand for it, but now common sense, or perhaps more likely money if they do get out earlier, has overruled that original decision. I would prefer that they come clean about that.

Hmm, Radio 4's 'Any Questions?' is back this week...