TheJournal.ie uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Click here to find out more »
Dublin: 19 °C Wednesday 19 June, 2013

Column: Criminal justice policy should be shaped by our heads, not our hearts

While outrage is understandably high when particularly heinous crimes are committed, we are doing victims no service by letting emotions rule out rational debate on how to reform the justice system, writes Alan Greene.

Alan Greene

THE IRISH CRIMINAL justice system has had a bad couple of weeks. The release (then subsequent imprisonment) of Patrick O’Brien for the rape of his daughter caused a public and media outcry.

Outrage then reached unprecedented levels with the murder of Garda Adrian Donohoe while on active duty in Co Louth last Friday.

The debate on criminal justice policy that this clamour has created, must, however remain rational and informed; notwithstanding the fact that emotions are running high. The Irish criminal justice system has been shaped and influenced for the worse by policy changes taken in the aftermath of these ‘moral panics’. The murder of Veronica Guerin and Detective Garda Jerry McCabe within two weeks of each other in 1996 led to unprecedented levels of public anger and anxiety at crime in Ireland. The following ‘war on crime’ resulted in a huge spike in the Irish prison population at a time when the overall level of recorded crime had decreased.

Ireland is not alone in this respect. Unfortunately it’s the case that criminal justice policy in many states is not guided by research and level-headed analysis of what ought to be done, but instead is built upon knee-jerk reactions to populist outrage. In the UK, the murder of two-year-old Jamie Bolger by Robert Thompson and Jon Venables, who were themselves children, lead to a similar spike in the prison population, with John Major’s Tory government ‘condemning a little more and understanding a little less’.

In such instances it is all too easy for politicians to pander to these emotions and talk ‘tough on crime’ for the sake of courting votes. We have seen in Ireland what populist measures have done to the economy. A similar populist mindset, fuelled by tabloid criminology, can have an equally harmful impact on the Irish criminal justice system. One need only look at California in the United States where politicians would rather close down schools than prisons in tough economic conditions. When approaching what ought to be done to reform the criminal justice system in Ireland, we must look first and foremost at what ‘works’.

Sentencing policy

There is little evidence to suggest that increasing the length of sentences operates as an effective deterrent. Harsher punishments may temper our outrage and anger at a crime, but the fact of the matter is that the minimal deterrent factor they have will not make us any safer.

Similarly, mandatory sentences or mandatory minimum sentences are rather crude, blunt instruments that fail to recognise effectively the principle of proportionality: that the weight of the sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence. A mandatory sentence, by definition, removes any flexibility for a judge when sentencing, and consequently, removes any incentive for the accused to plead guilty.

Instead, the case goes to full trial, with the prosecution adducting evidence to prove its case. In rape cases, this invariably involves the victim testifying in front of the accused, forced to recount the traumatic events of the offence. This can be a very stressful, harrowing and scary experience for rape victims to have to endure.

From the perspective of deterrence, harsher mandatory sentences sound good in theory, particularly to an angry and anxious public. However, research has shown that these have little effect on the overall crime rate. At most, imprisonment reduces the crime rate, not by deterring individuals but by incapacitating those likely to commit offences. However this effect is minimal, with a study conducted by Roger Tarling in 1993 showing that the UK prison population would have to increase by 25 per cent in order to decrease the crime rate by 1 per cent.

With the cost of imprisoning an individual in Ireland amounting €65,359 a year (in 2011), this would represent a poor return of money, particularly given the dire state of the public finances.

Prison conditions

The notion that tougher prison conditions will reduce re-offending is similarly misguided, with no link proven between the two. Indeed a US study has indicated the opposite, with offenders imprisoned in maximum security prisons more likely to re-offend than those housed in minimum security institutions. All of that can be said before even taking into account the powerful humanitarian arguments against introducing degrading prison conditions. That slopping out – a process condemned by the UN Committee against Torture – continued in Mountjoy Prison until last year is a damning blotch on the reputation of Ireland, particularly given our recent election to the UN Human Rights Council.

No zero-sum game

There does not exist a zero-sum game between offenders and victims. Advocating rehabilitation projects for offenders, better prison conditions, or cautioning against the introduction of longer sentences does not mean one is against the victim, or harming victims.

Victims do of course need to be recognised and vindicated by the criminal justice system. However, the current system merely relegates them to the role of witnesses in trials and the state instead inflicts punishment on the offender on their behalf. This can lead to the victim feeling passive and helpless. Where it is possible, restorative justice programmes that seek to heal and address the harms caused specifically to a victim ought to be utilised.

Conclusion

Suggesting that there ought to be a rational debate on criminal justice policy; that perhaps longer sentences, mandatory sentences, or harsher prison conditions are not the way to reform the criminal justice system leads invariably to accusations of being ‘soft on crime’ or ‘a bleeding heart liberal’. However, as these policies do nothing to reduce re-offending, rejecting these proposals is not being soft on crime, but being smart on crime. When approaching criminal justice reform we must think with our heads, not our hearts.

Alan Greene is a PhD Candidate and IRC Government of Ireland Postgraduate Scholar at UCD School of Law. He holds a masters degree in Criminology and Criminal Justice, and is currently a Visiting Researcher at Durham Law School. His research is available to view here.

  • Share on Facebook
  • Email this article
  •  

Read next:

Comments (50 Comments)

  • There is definitely a perception that the Irish criminal justice system is too lenient.

    i.e. http://www.thejournal.ie/at-large-prisoners-778736-Feb2013/

    and what is the story with concurrent sentences? buy one get one free!

    Reply
  • Jason 01/02/13 #

    Mr. Greene,
    An interesting piece well researched and well written. However I feel that you have missed some of the realities in relation to crime (as seen from ground level). You mention knee jerk reactions to events such as the murders of Veronica Guerin and Gerry McCabe and only talk about a spike in prisoners following it. You amazingly haven’t bothered to mention that the formation of the criminal assets bureau was a well thought out well needed knee jerk reaction brought about by “moral panic”. This legislation does not lead to prison sentences but rather hits the criminals in the pockets and is internationally acclaimed and used as a model for police agencies across the world. You do accept that the one comfort in harsh sentencing is that the perpetrator is locked up ergo the public are safe from that offender for that time. I suggest that this is enough as the vast majority of realists in this country realise that the prison system don’t even pretend that they are trying to rehabilitate offenders anymore. I see a phenomenon occurring every day where a sentence is imposed of we’ll say 6 months from a district court and is well deserved. The offender will walk in the door of the prison and will in all likelihood be released on “temporary release” within two weeks at most. With all the talk about prison reform and rights of prisoners how about putting the rights of victims first for a change and simply enforce the reasonable sentences imposed by the courts.

    Reply
    • Simon P 01/02/13 #

      Spot on Jason

      Mr Greene is talking about a Law system, like the one Ireland has in place

      Problem is the people want, and should have, a Justice system, where wrongdoers are punished and victims feel justice.

      Anybody who has sat in a district or circuit or really any courtroom in the land would be able to witness lots of Law being performed, but a minute amount of Justice being returned to the innocent victim, as the wrongdoer walks free or gets a pathetic “token” sentence completed in no time and reoffending occurs.

      I recall a taxi driver being killed in a crash in Fairview a few years ago and the offender was found to have 90-odd previous convictions. That offender should not have been out of prison. Period.

      Reply
  • There is outrage because of the wildly differing sentences with some actually based on your income. Point in case jail term for Vat fraud by misslabelling fruit and a suspended sentence of attempt rape because the defendant coughed up 65G. So i think moral outrage is justified and your case should not point to the economic cost of a prisoner as if this should be considered by the judicial process. Ireland has a woeful history of under sentencing and leniency.

    Reply
    • Jonathan

      Apparently we have the opposite of what you claim . According to recent analyses of the ISIS reports Ireland is at the higher end in terms of both jailing and the duration of such imprisonment after conviction.
      The author of this treatise is quite correct in suggesting that emotions should not play an important part in sentencing.

      Reply
    • Julie 01/02/13 #

      Neither should someone’s social class, who their parents are or how much money they have available to bribe, let’s sort that out first.

      Reply
  • Only today there’a story about a man who was invited into an appartment by a woman and her boyfriend/fiancee to shelter from the rain. This man then proceeded to steal her keys and, when the boyfriend had gone home, let himself back into the flat with her own keys where he raped her brutally and humiliated her by laughing at her and taunting her during the rape.
    His sentence was 9 years with 3 suspended and a sentence for the theft of the keys to – wait for it – run concurrently which means that with good behaviour he’ll be out in about 3. It’s disgusting. I wonder have judges been given the nod and the wink to give shorter sentences because it costs the State a fortune to keep these people in prison.
    You can get 6 years for misdeclaring garlic and more or less the same sentece for rape.
    This sentencing just isn’t good enough. In fact it’s a rapist’s charter. In terms of offences against the person, rape has to be up there with murder and sentencing should reflect this.
    I wonder how one of the judges would react if this happened to a member of their own family (God forbid).

    Reply
  • We stray into a dangerous territory if we start legislating based on individual cases or rush through legislation due to emotional reactions to an event. Policies need to be properly investigated and researched before being passed. Obviously prior incidents related to the policy area and public sentiment towards the policy area will be important considerations in deliberations over a policy, but it needs to be thoroughly thought over before legislation is introduced.

    Reply
  • CABK 01/02/13 #

    “There is little evidence to suggest that increasing the length of sentences operates as an effective deterrent. Harsher punishments may temper our outrage and anger at a crime, but the fact of the matter is that the minimal deterrent factor they have will not make us any safer.”

    I find this somewhat contradictory to your original statement of acting with your heads – if increasing the length of sentencing by a few years does not operate as an effective deterrent against re offending then surely this means that a life sentence (which means life) is then the only deterrent we have? If they are in the prison system then they cannot re offend. So then calls for stricter sentencing and for life to mean life in particularly abhorrent cases is logical rather than ‘acting with your hearts’.

    I also don’t see the reasoning behind there being little economic return from prison – surely this is not about the economic return but the safety of us citizens. For example, I wouldn’t care if there was zero economic return to keeping someone like Larry Murphy in jail for life – I would measure my benefit to him being in prison to be that he is not out unsupervised around the country and may abduct/rape/attempt to murder another woman.

    Reply
    • It’s stated in the article that having a large prison population does not have a significant effect on crime. That to reduce crime by 1% there would need to be 25% more people in prison. The logical thing to do is use sentencing that allows prisoners to repay their debt to society and their victims. Not lock them away until they die, even though the last few decades they would spend in prison they wouldn’t be committing crime anyway.

      Reply
  • Spike in prison population coinciding with decrease in levels of crime.
    How is that not cause and effect?

    Reply
  • He was drunk your honour. He is from a disadvantaged home your honour. His mother died when he was a child your honour. He was bullied as a child your honour. Of course done of this is relevant to the case and all are designed to pull at the heart strings of judges/juries. It’s usually the defense that is ruled by the heart and not the prosecution.

    Reply
  • Prison sentences are not just about punishment, deterrance of potential criminals, rehabilitation or even prevention. It is also about the emotional need of people in general & especially the victims, to feel safe in their own Society, and as such performs a vital function for keeping a Society healthy. Without the belief that barbaric behaviour will not be accepted, some people take the law into their own hands, others will spend their lives in fear – curtailing their potential, inhibited from giving the best they have to offer to, themselves, those around them, or to society as a whole. In addition, the victims of crimes like rape have an especially long road ahead of them, to try to recover their faith in the protection of Society. It affects their families friends, future relationships and their work. If emotion cannot be seperated from the human social experience, then it cannot be detached utterly from the exercise of justice. Even from the coldest perspective, rape & other deeply traumatic criminal abuses have a wider and more destabilising impact on society than the current lack of mandatory minimum sentencing is adequately addressing. If the murder of a Garda carries an additional burden of injury to the State, then surely the rape of a child (for instance) should also have a bottom line minimum sentence, that cannot be appealed. As an assertion of the value of every child to the State. Knee-jerk responses may sometimes be ugly, but they reflect valid concerns.

    Reply
  • The number of prisoners in the US is enormous yet crime rate exceedes any country i Europe. Does imprisonment work?

    Reply
  • Denito 01/02/13 #

    Unfortunately, most of the comments on this article show that most people are led by emotions and hysteria when it comes to Criminal justice policy.

    The “Zero tolerance” and “life should mean life” approach would soon lead to the prison population jumping from around 5k at present to around 10k or 20k all at average annual cost of around €70k.

    Increasing the prison population by a factor of 4, through harsher sentencing and curtailing parole, would cost over €1bn annually while only reducing crime by probably less than 10%.

    Do people really believe that this would be money well spent?

    Reply
    • Simon P 01/02/13 #

      Who cares if the prison population is 20k, if they’re rapists and murderers? That’s the point of prison, you should never ever try to keep prison numbers down because the whole point of them is somewhere to put the bad people away from the good, I’m not saying high figures are good, but keeping prison numbers down should never be a priority over justice being done for the innocent victim

      Reply
    • And how much money do burglars and gangsters and murderers and rapists cause?

      Denito, how much money is too much to stop a rapist raping?

      We should decide on fair sentencing. 10 years for rape or whatever. If that results in more prisons, so be it.

      Reply
  • Of course those detained in minimum security prisons in the US are less likely to reoffend. More often than not they are perpetrators of tax offences and other such white collar crime as opposed to armed robbers, rapists etc who tend to be imprisoned in maximum security prisons. You are not comparing like with like in that sense, or is the suggestion that violent offenders, murderers and such, be housed in minimum security facilities?

    Reply
  • Alan this is a disgracefully biased article in favour of the offender. Your softly softly approach is what got us into this revolving door mess. Murders increase because the deterrent is gone, offenders get free legal aid and soft sentences. Even when convicted they are out after 10 to 20 years. Life should mean life behind bars 4 murder etc. burglary sex offences etc should have minimum sentences in jail. My friend was broken into and murdered and his killers got soft charges and small sentences. You haven’t a clue Alan and surprised you are given this forum by the journal. Zero tolerance is the only way. Your research only suits your article do proper research

    Reply
    • The article specifically states that long sentences do NOT work as deterrents. Life behind bars is a complete waste of potential and money. What use is it To keep a man who is massively unlikely to reoffend behind bars at a cost of €63000 a year?? It’s not good for the victims, the offenders or society.

      Reply
  • “At most, imprisonment reduces the crime rate, not by deterring individuals but by incapacitating those likely to commit offences.”
    That sounds good to me.

    “However this effect is minimal, with a study conducted by Roger Tarling in 1993 showing that the UK prison population would have to increase by 25 per cent in order to decrease the crime rate by 1 per cent.”

    So what you’re saying is it works. The problem is the sentences are too short.
    7 years should mean 7 years. That’d be a start.

    Reply
  • When there was capital punishment (hanging) there was very little murders rapes etc (maybe once or twice every other year) . Now it’s 60 or 70 murders every year. There’s your prove Alan not to mention other crimes . I suggest you go out into the real world and meet the victims and they will tell you where to put your restorative justice. At the same time you might notice that the offenders don’t care and do what they like because we are too soft. Take your head out of the books Alan. You are seriously mistaken on this and I guartee you I know what I am talking about

    Reply
    • What rubbish, that was back in the days before the country became awash with drugs. Most of the murders we hear of nowadays relate back to drugs or drug gangs. The United States still retains Capital Punishment in a number of states yet it’s murder rate is astronomical. Capital Punishment has no effect on murder rates. And thankfully one of the only good things about our EU membership is we can never reintroduce it.

      Reply
  • A great article at setting out what doesn’t work.

    “Alan Greene is a PhD Candidate and IRC Government of Ireland Postgraduate Scholar at UCD School of Law. He holds a masters degree in Criminology and Criminal Justice, and is currently a Visiting Researcher at Durham Law School.”

    Perhaps Alan could apply his knowledge of the subject to give us some insights into what he thinks does work. The current system certainly isn’t.

    Reply
  • White collar crimes go unpunisished or with a gentle slap on the hand in this country. Our prisons are full of poor lower class debtors for unpaid TV licences etc.

    Reply
    • Non payers of tv licences or fines account for a tiny percentage of prisoners on any one day. It’s well known that these people are committed to prison and released as soon as they can be processed, usually with hours, despite whatever length of time they are due to serve. This is to make room for people who should be there. I would say Irish prisons are, for by far the most part, full of robbers, thieves, burglars, drug dealers, murderers and violent people.

      Reply
  • Capital punishment. Just takes a rope, don’t need to feed them or house them. If they’re going to be serial offenders, who takes responsibility. The courts who said 10years was enough to rehabilitate a particular criminal? Someone’s head needs to roll besides the criminals.

    Reply
  • Well done Alan. However, the main flaw in your article is that it doesn’t speak of rehabilitation of the criminal while in prison. In essence, taking the time understand the convicted and why s/he broke the law. With this… A program can be devised that aid the criminal when their debt is paid.

    I understand that there are some people that cannot be saved. However, there are many that can and want a hand-up.

    A revolving door prison system doesn’t work. It appears strict sentences for crimes, with rehabilitation and probation after release does work.

    I’m a firm believer of the three strikes and your out policy of crime. Which means… If in time a criminal is deemed a habitual criminal.. Habitual can be defined as a person who is convicted of 5 to 10 minor offenses of varrying degrees and weight. .. The judge can then pose sentence. .. Which is… Freedom. .. But the judge insures the criminal that he is now designared as a habitual criminal. He has three times to commit any crime. After the third he will be convicted to life imprisonment.

    Reply
    • Jason 01/02/13 #

      Hi marlon. Your reasoning is sensible and correct in my opinion. However the three strikes rule has been shown to be a bit difficult to enforce sensibly. Apparently there is a man in the US serving a life sentence for a third strike which was stealing a pizza (theft being a felony). There is also a real problem if you think of a scenario as follows. A guy commits a burglary which is his third strike offence. The police arrive on the scene and chase the culprit. That culprit has absolutely nothing to lose as he knows he’s facing a life sentence anyway so anything goes. Even worse if a victim of a relatively minor third strike offence sees the offender one has to wonder how likely are they to survive the crime when it would be seen as safer by the culprit to leave no witnesses??

      Reply
  • Who decides where to draw the line.
    In many cases my head says an eye for an eye.
    We can’t do that.
    Then we have cases like garlic/ apples where the heart should have ruled the head.
    Sometimes a public outcry is needed to push change, we have a habit here of putting it on the long finger (x case).
    Perhaps it’s time to try a different approach with citizens more involved in the law making process.
    Just my two cents.

    Reply
  • Ger 03/02/13 #

    The justice system should be about reforming prisoners (where possible), not punishment for its own sake (that has to be there somewhere, but it should be very much the secondary objective). Giving a rapist FIFTY years isn’t enough if he’s unrepentant and just going to do it again.

    Punishment for its own sake contributes nothing to society: unlikely reoffenders waste tax money in prisons, while the unrepentant are just released whenever their time’s up, regardless of how likely reoffense may be.

    Reply
  • mcula 01/02/13 #

    “… caused a public ‘and’ media outcry.”
    What is it that you suppose media do Alan?

    Reply
  • Mjhint 01/02/13 #

    Yes we should decide with our heads but compassion must not be completely thrown out. There are cases where compassion is key. Dont be foolish enough to have to rigid system.
    There’s no way to rule innocent men. The only power government has is the power to crack down on criminals. When there aren’t enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws.” Ayn Rand

    Reply
    • The judges need a little help as they seem to have problems locking up fraudsters/rapists/paedophiles but throw the book at minor offences

      Reply
    • It’s not hysteria or emotions running high, it’s a democracy, it’s the will of the people, if the tax payer / electorate want longer sentences and a tougher stance on crime then our representatives should listen. they are meant to run the country on behalf of the people, not their own agenda. Irish people are just sick of being walked all over and not listened to by the government

      Reply
  • We need much longer periods of incarceration for a much broader range of offences. It is important to criminalise as large a sector of the population as possible, undermine any prospects of those with criminal convictions of securing employment or a fresh start.

    Incarceration has wonderful advantages.

    It uses and exploits primitive and sub standard accommodation of 19th century standards, it makes us feel good, it de sensitises us, it gives a longer training period in prison to commit more serious offences more effectively and it helps to terrorise those too poor to pay TV licences . It helps us disregard any notion of Christian Charity, it keeps the under privileged and disadvantaged housed, and it makes us law abiding people feel really good about ourselves.

    More importantly, we make sure we don’t put bankers, the politically corrupt or those who commit economic treason in prison

    If we take away criminal legal aid we can put plenty of innocent people in jail. After all sure they must have done something wrong.

    Keep child abusing priests and those who suppress the truth of child abuse out of jail.

    Because we have a socially just, egalitarian and 100 per cent employment country, we should be free to incarcerate, flog, hang and generally abuse those who can’t afford to pay fines.

    I would like to see those evicted from their homes for being unable to keep up the repayments on their extortionately high mortgages accommodated in prison and charged for the privilege.

    Bring back fascism and let us cast off the shackles of compassion, decency, charity and fairness.

    Reply

Add New Comment