The situation is dire: the government is on the brink of putting countless vulnerable women in jeopardy of severe harm or even death. Survivors of domestic violence, many of whom have endured prolonged periods of physical abuse and intimidation, are bracing themselves for the impending release of 5,000 inmates scheduled for October. The pressing question arises: What options do these women have? Where can they seek safety? Their abusers are well aware of their residences and the schools their children attend.
In response to public outcry, the government has decided to exclude rapists and certain sex offenders from the early release program. However, the exclusion of individuals convicted of domestic violence sends a troubling message: this form of crime, which is repetitive in nature and linked to the deaths of one woman every five days, is not a priority for the current administration.
Earlier this year, Keir Starmer made a commitment to reduce violence against women by 50% over the next decade. While this ambitious target was noteworthy, it seems contradictory in light of his plan to release thousands of convicted offenders back into society if he assumes the role of prime minister. Although Andy Burnham faces an overcrowding crisis in UK prisons, his proposed solution—essentially a modified version of the previous government’s strategy—risks the safety of women.
Having served as co-chair of the Mayor of London’s Violence Against Women and Girls Board for eight years, I witnessed firsthand the severe impact of intimate partner violence and the lack of adequate resources for victim support. I have reviewed domestic homicide cases and noted with dismay the missed opportunities to save lives. In the current climate of justified concern, both Burnham and his justice minister, Alex Norris, cannot claim ignorance of the warnings they have received.
Dame Nicole Jacobs, the domestic abuse commissioner, has stressed that the decision to include domestic violence offenders in this early release initiative “endangers the lives of victims,” emphasizing that these individuals are often fixated on their victims and willing to resort to harmful actions. The nature of intimate partner violence is distinct, as men harboring resentment toward former partners are particularly likely to reoffend.
Data on reoffending rates among domestic abusers is sparse, as it is often grouped with other criminal offenses. However, recent instances of public disorder have shown that men with histories of domestic abuse are more prone to violence; for example, many individuals arrested during violent protests linked to the sentencing of Henry Nowak’s murderer had prior domestic abuse reports. In my book, “Home Grown: How Domestic Violence Turns Men Into Terrorists,” I noted that many individuals who engage in extreme public violence often have a background of family abuse.
What is clear is that a significant portion of released inmates reoffend. Reoffending rates vary but can be as high as 43.8% for adults released from custody in early 2024, indicating that rehabilitation efforts within prisons are largely ineffective. Claire Waxman, the victims’ commissioner, has pointed out that “effective risk management, meaningful license conditions, proper supervision, and timely, trauma-informed communication and support are vital” if the early release plan proceeds as currently designed. This expectation places an enormous burden on an already strained probation system.
Recently, the National Audit Office reported that nearly 9,000 individuals required to wear electronic monitoring devices did not have them (the government contends the figure is closer to 5,450). The report also criticized the monitoring of released prisoners, concluding that “police and probation officers often lack relevant information or the capacity to swiftly address violations.” Almost half of alerts regarding breaches result in “no further action.”
This chaotic landscape is what government officials are relying on to assure domestic abuse survivors that their attackers will be monitored and restricted from certain areas. How can these assurances instill confidence in a woman when her assailant could unexpectedly confront her at home or in public? Many victims have already reported feeling dismissed when they attempt to report violations of license conditions by their former partners.
Women are rarely the perpetrators of violent crime; instead, we predominantly find ourselves as victims. The criminal justice system has consistently failed us, achieving fewer than 3,000 convictions in the more than 70,000 rape cases reported annually in England and Wales. We have long asserted that rape has become effectively decriminalized, which makes the initial proposal to include sex offenders in the early release program particularly offensive. Now, we are informed that the Prime Minister wished to exempt even more offender categories from this scheme; however, the severity of the prison crisis means that victims of domestic violence must accept the reality of their abusers being released after serving just a fraction of their sentences.
Prisons are inherently violent and overcrowded, plagued by crime and understaffing. The primary function they serve, in my view, is to shield women and children from men who have previously inflicted harm and would likely do so again if given the chance. The grim reality behind the sanitized term “domestic violence” encompasses broken bones, severe injuries, and the tragic consequences of repeated abuse.
