Fairly in-depth

Just say no.

It is “highly, highly unlikely” that a trans woman with a history of violence against women will be sent to a female prison, MSPs have been told.

Never mind the highly highly; just don’t do it. Ever.

Teresa Medhurst, the head of the Scottish Prison Service (SPS), said such a move would only happen in “exceptional circumstances”, after a “fairly in-depth analysis of the individual’s life history.”

Oh well if it’s fairly in-depth that makes it fine.

The SPS boss was being grilled by MSPs over the service’s new Policy for the Management of Transgender People in Custody, published at the end of last year. It was developed following the row over trans rapist, Isla Bryson, who first appeared in court as Adam Graham.

Following conviction, the SPS made the decision to divert Bryson to Cornton Vale, Scotland’s only women’s prison, rather than the planned destination of HMP Barlinnie, sparking outrage. 

Yeah no shit. Endangering a bunch of women for the sake of the feelings of one violent man – what the hell is wrong with you?

The new policy is due to come into force in February 2024. It initially states that a transgender woman “will not be eligible to be considered for admission or transfer to a women’s prison” if they have been convicted for a raft of crimes, including murder, assault, robbery, abduction, rape, and sexual harassment.

However, it then goes on to say that there is an exception to this rule if the SPS’s Risk Management Team, and subsequently an executive panel, “are satisfied there is compelling evidence that they do not present an unacceptable risk of harm to those in the women’s prison.“

What would such “compelling evidence” look like? And why does it have to be compelling? Why are there all these barriers in place to prevent men from being sent to men’s prisons? Why is so much energy being devoted to forcing helpless women into the presence of men 24/7?

4 Responses to “Fairly in-depth”