Blog Introduction: Imprisonment for public protection, or IPP, is a sentence handed down in the United Kingdom that allows individuals to be held in prison indefinitely. It was introduced in 2005, and since then has been subject to much debate about its effectiveness, fairness and legal implications. In this blog post we will explore what exactly IPP is, why it was introduced and the potential consequences of using this sentencing structure.
IPP is a sentence imposed on an offender who has committed a serious crime but does not qualify for a life sentence. The person sentenced to IPP will be subject to an indefinite period of imprisonment, which means they can remain incarcerated until it is deemed safe by the Parole Board that they are no longer a threat to the general public. This means that there is no fixed release date and offenders can be held in custody beyond their tariff (minimum amount of time required to serve) if they do not meet the criteria necessary for release.
The purpose of IPP was to protect members of the public from dangerous offenders who pose a high risk of re-offending. When someone receives an IPP sentence, they must pass through several stages before being released from prison. This includes completing courses in anger management or drug/alcohol rehabilitation as well as showing consistent good behavior while incarcerated. The Parole Board assesses whether these criteria have been met before deciding whether or not it is safe to release the offender into society.
While there are certainly benefits to having an indefinite period of incarceration for those who commit serious crimes, there are also potential drawbacks to this system. Firstly, due to overcrowding in prisons across Britain, many inmates receive limited access to rehabilitation programmes and other services that could help them reintegrate back into society once they are released from prison. As such, many inmates end up serving longer sentences than necessary due to lack of access to these important resources. Secondly, some argue that IPP violates human rights as it effectively amounts to "preventative detention". This means that offenders can be kept behind bars even if there is no evidence that they pose any risk whatsoever. Finally, critics point out that IPP creates a two-tier sentencing system where those convicted of similar crimes may receive vastly different sentences depending on their perceived risk level at the time of sentencing - something which some consider unfair and unjustifiable.
Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP) was introduced with the intention of protecting members of the public from dangerous offenders who pose a high risk of re-offending upon release from prison; however its effectiveness remains debated due its potential violation of human rights and lack access to rehabilitation programmes leading offenders serving longer sentences than necessary due overcrowding within prisons across Britain . When considering whether or not an individual should receive an indefinite period imprisonment it's important that all factors are taken into account including any evidence suggesting they pose no further risk after completing courses in anger management or drug/alcohol rehabilitation as well as showing consistent good behaviour while incarcerated so justice can be served appropriately and fairly under UK law accordingly.