Welcome to our Public Beta Site - What does this mean?
Dublin: 12 °C Thursday 24 May, 2012

Column: Long jail terms don’t work in tackling crime – no matter what ‘common sense’ says

Image: amandabhslater via Flickr

THE RECENT DECISION to abandon Thornton Hall will, hopefully, turn out to be a watershed moment in Irish penal policy. The abandonment of the hugely expensive ‘white elephant’ plan to massively increase the size of our prison system has finally shifted attention to the quality of that system, and whether it is working as it should in terms of making society safer.

More importantly, the end of grandiose building projects that are now unaffordable (arguably they never were affordable in the first place) means that we can finally concentrate on the most cost-effective ways to tackle crime – something that has not been at the centre of justice thinking in this country for some time.

Over the past twenty years (possibly even longer) there has been a destructive drift towards ‘common sense’ and posturing policies on crime, and away from cold evidence of what actually works in making communities safer. The growth of our prison system – which has doubled in size in the last 14 years – is just one symptom of this problem, but more widely the tone of justice policy discussion started to deteriorate from the moment John O’Donoghue, then Minister for Justice, started to talk about “zero tolerance” in the mid-1990s.

From that point, being seen to be tough on crime became more important than actually focusing on what was likely to work in reducing crime. In a time of prosperity, with an apparent surplus of public funds with which to play populist politics, successive Governments ploughed ahead with prison expansion – and with putting in place the laws and policies to fill those prisons.

‘The political message was clear’

The political message was clear – getting tough on crime means locking up more prisoners – but it is interesting to chart the factors that caused our prison population to double between 1997 and 2010. For example, it is striking that crime rates overall haven’t changed significantly, either up or down, over the past five years, but imprisonment has gone up by 11-13% every year. The main explanation behind this increase is that people convicted of the same crimes are spending longer in prison. This is down to changes in law, the creation of new offences and the introduction of mandatory minimum sentences for existing crimes.

‘Common sense’ tells us this should make us all safer, but the evidence doesn’t support this. Take drug crime, the area in which the change in sentencing has been most pronounced. Does anyone seriously believe that imprisoning low-level players in the drug trade for 5-10 years is an effective strategy for reducing the volume of the overall drug market? Is there any evidence from anywhere in the world that this has worked? We only have to look at the United States to see the absolute social and economic disaster that a sentencing-led response to drugs has produced.

What has happened in Ireland since 1999, when mandatory sentencing for drugs was introduced, is not that we have detained more high-level drug dealers, or even that we have detained high-level drug dealers for longer – what has happened is that we have been imprisoning large numbers of low-level figures in the drugs trade (the “mules or users” in the words of Minister Shatter) on disproportionately long sentences because our law treats anyone found in possession of a certain amount of controlled substances the same, regardless of their position in the pyramid.

‘Locking up more prisoners is a highly expensive response’

Of course locking up more prisoners for longer is a highly expensive response to crime – the most expensive means at our disposal. When building prisons was not a problem, Government could ignore that these policies have a direct cost and, in real terms, were taking funds away from other, more effective crime reduction policies. Now that financial resources are vastly reduced, there has been a welcome if overdue return to looking at what actually works.

Speaking at an IPRT event in September, current Minister for Justice Alan Shatter referred to research carried out by the RAND Corporation in the US, which found that investing in ordinary policing is more cost effective than imprisonment in reducing drug use or drug-related offending; and providing appropriate treatment for serious drug abusers is more effective still.

It is hardly rocket science: it costs upwards from €70,000 per year to hold an offender in prison (and this figure does not include education or training provision) – think what could be achieved if just a fraction of these amounts were spent on resourcing services, treatments and supports in the community. In simple terms, prevention and intervention is cheaper and more effective than the ‘cure’ which is not working: rocketing levels of imprisonment.

In the cold light of day, we have ended up with a huge and expensive prison system and the services that are actually capable of addressing problems such as drugs in society continue to be underfunded. The good news is that if we want to move to more effective crime policies, which have a safer society as their core goal, we have a clear picture of where we should be investing: we need to invest in community policing, in service and amenities for communities faced with high crime rates, and most importantly we need to invest in services for alcohol and drug treatment and in mental health services, especially for adolescents.

‘We need to make our prisons work’

We also need to make our prisons work for those who we do imprison so that released prisoners don’t continue to offend on their release. IPRT believes that prison has a role to play in making society safer – but not as the prison system is currently run: locking people up in overcrowded, unfit conditions, with 25% of prisoners slopping out, closed workshops, little access to drug-free landings, and so on, does not make society safer.

In order for prisons to function as they should, we have got to get prison numbers back down to levels at which the IPS can fulfil its function – which, after all, is to change offending behaviour and prepare prisoners for their eventual release back into society as active citizens. A good start would be to review – with a view to reversing – mandatory sentencing policies, alongside recent proposals for incentivised early release of some prisoners, and an increase in the use of community service as an alternative to prison.

Ultimately, it is in everybody’s interest that crime prevention in communities should be the main justice priority, not building prisons. It is also in everybody’s interest that prison conditions and regimes support and encourage change in offending behaviour. For every prisoner who does not reoffend on release, there is one less victim – and for every young person who gets the services he or she needs in the community to stay away from criminal behaviour, there is a substantial reduction in economic and social costs to society. Now that’s common sense.

Liam Herrick is the Executive Director of the Irish Penal Reform Trust: www.iprt.ie. Byline photograph by Derek Speirs.

Read Next:

Comments (54 Comments)

  • Doreen Strydom 12/12/11 #
    Report this comment

    I have a better idea. How about the ‘three strikes and you’re out’ policy? How come that people with dozens upon dozens convictions are still mollycoddled by the system and excuses are found of why they need yet another chance? Or rapists or murderers or child molesters? If they’re of the streets then society we all will be a lot safer.

    Reply
    • Gerard Murphy 12/12/11 #
      Report this comment

      Why Doreen? Will it make you feel happier? Three strikes and your out does not reduce crime. Look at the American prison situation, nothing more than modern day slavery, more black 17 year olds in prison than college.
      What is needed is prevention of crime, not more people in jail for longer.

    • Doreen Strydom 12/12/11 #
      Report this comment

      I agree with you, Gerard. Prevention is indeed better. There is something fundamentally wrong with our society to spark crime levels such as ours at the moment. The point is though that everybody is making their own choices. There are millions of people living in this very same society and choose to do the right thing. Everybody makes mistakes. Give them a second chance. But how many chances are one too many?

    • Diego Attley 12/12/11 #
      Report this comment

      When you see some dirt bag get something like seven years for killing somebody and they have about 80 previous convictions.

    • Aydo 12/12/11 #
      Report this comment

      You could argue that a huge percentage of these people are in fail because of drug crimes, which would be eliminated with their legalisation and taxation.

      But then again the war on drugs has proven itself successful right?
      Only thing it’s successful at is putting money in the hands of criminals and creating employment.

    • Bernadette Dunne 12/12/11 #
      Report this comment

      Firstly I agree “while” the murderers,rapist, child abusers are locked up Society is a far safer place BUT here we let them out WRONG MESSAGE and we also lock up folk for non-payment of fines and having no t.v. Licence ????? community service would be a better way of “Punishment” for the “Minor Crimes” for the most heinous crimes lock up for life

    • Phil Mc Donald 12/12/11 #
      Report this comment

      Decriminalise. Duuuuude!

    • Jeff Kennedy 13/12/11 #
      Report this comment

      It’s very simple ,legalize drugs ,prohibition DOES NOT WORK!!! violent crime is the only resulting effect of banning a drug as proved by history . Whether its 20s America or present day .Instead of Billions on prisons, millions on education and rehabilitation would have far better results .In many places the hardest drug for a teenager to find is alcohol so the present system ain’t working is it

  • James Galvin 12/12/11 #
    Report this comment

    Very well said

    Reply
  • John Woods 12/12/11 #
    Report this comment

    You’re right Liam, let’s leave the “low-level” drug dealers off the hook, the murderers, the sex offenders, the thieves. People who break the law in the most serious ways should be locked up and over crowding should not be used as an excuse. We owe it to every single law abiding citizen in this country to eradicate the threats posed by criminals. I think that there should be community service legislation introduced for low level crime but I find myself shaking my head in despair that you consider it wrong to lock up drug dealers for 5-10 years because they are low down in the chain!!! The most worrying part of this article is your job title – this is going to send shivers down the spines of many people this morning.

    Reply
  • Seán Lynch 12/12/11 #
    Report this comment

    In the Netherlands the Dutch are closing prisons due to a lack of crime. The decriminalization of cannabis and regulation of its sale certainly turned a lot of would be criminals away from being able to deal in illegal cannabis to their friends, something that is prevalent across many schools in Ireland – we are drawing people into dealing where they can easily climb the ladder. Instead of living an unproductive life and being able to consume drugs for free, dutch cannabis users are to work to purchase cannabis, giving it greater value, more appreciation and lessening their use. Significantly a multi million euro trade for criminals has been wiped out which obviously has many positive outcomes for society. Not to mention the revenue gained and saved – in the billions, trillions eventually – helping them with their top class health, transport, jail and other services. But at home we are wasting our resources trying give decent people like myself and many of my friends – all participants in the smart economy – criminal records. Doesn’t work, simple as. The regulation of cannabis will happen eventually, you need look no further than any online debate to see that this is a largely generational divide, but how much more resources will we waste until it happens?

    Reply
  • Aaron McKenna 12/12/11 #
    Report this comment

    Tell that to communities who have to absorb scumbags with more convictions than fingers and toes.

    Reform is necessary, I agree – But at the same time, we cannot have a revolving door system where criminals get an automatic 25% remission mainly because there isn’t enough prison space to house all those convicted of serious crimes.

    How many murders and other serious crimes have been committed by those “known to Gardai” or “who had XX previous convictions”?

    Case in point last week, the father who raped and tortured all of his daughters.

    Reform all you like. Work on crime prevention, I agree, it’s much cheaper. But when a scumbag has 20 convictions and they’re for more than littering, it’s time to lock them up permanently.

    As to the €70k cost to house prisoners, that’s public sector efficiency for you. Average cost in the US is $23,876 ranging from $47k in California to $13k in Louisiana. Private sector run prisons had lower costs and lower violence levels etc.

    Reply
    • John Woods 12/12/11 #
      Report this comment

      Great comment Aaron. I think you make a great point about privately operated prisons.

    • Niall Mulligan 12/12/11 #
      Report this comment

      Lot of clichés there, Aaron. “Scumbags”, “revolving door”, “lock them up permanently” … “prison works”, does it?

      Remission doesn’t actually relate to overcrowding at all, it’s a means of keeping the prisons functioning – you lose your remission by misbehaving. Easier and quicker than having to send someone back before the courts for disruptive infractions of prison discipline. And I wouldn’t much fancy being a Governor or Prison Officer watching a few hundred prisoners with nothing to lose, or nothing to gain by toeing the line.

      I don’t believe that the perpetrator in that particular rape case was “known to Gardaí” until one of his daughters made allegations against him, although other people in the community may have had an idea what was going on, but did nothing. Don’t think that’s a “case in point” at all, just a particularly horrendous crime, for with the perpetrator was sentenced to life imprisonment.

      As for private sector prisons – it’s economies of scale, is it not? And of course, the US has failed spectacularly to control its crime rate by “mass incarceration” and heavy sentencing. I believe that “mass incarceration” has political uses, alright, but crime control is not one of them.

      And, if you want an illustration of the corrupt American prison-industrial complex, look no further than the two judges in Pennsylvania, “who plead guilty to taking bribes in return for placing youths in privately owned jails.”

      http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.295693-U-S-Judges-Plead-Guilty-Sold-Children-to-Private-Prisons

      Just out of curiosity, do you have a citation for, “Private sector run prisons had lower costs and lower violence levels etc.”?

    • Aaron McKenna 12/12/11 #
      Report this comment

      Hey Niall – Good questions. Firstly, I’m in favour of reform and in favour of preventative measures – As Herbert Hoover said, ‘The high chair is better than the electric chair.’ The best crime prevention is done through eradication of poverty.

      Nevertheless, there are criminals who are free roaming communities thanks to a revolving door prison system. These individuals commit further crimes, subject their law abiding community to anti social terror and, having lived in an area plagued by such ills, I can tell you that it feels like you are living a prison sentence to have these people among you.

      As to the rape case, he had 87 prior convictions, mostly related to the rape of another daughter but a substantial part of them were for unrelated violent crimes, theft, etc.

      €70k is too expensive to keep a prisoner. Are we sure that in this area alone the public sector is as efficient as it could possibly be and keeps prisoners at the lowest cost possible?

      I doubt that.

    • Aaron McKenna 12/12/11 #
      Report this comment

      Sorry Niall, I forgot to mention costs – via Archambeault, William G.; Donald R. Deis Jr. (1997/1998). “Cost Effectiveness Comparisons of Private Versus Public Prisons in Louisiana: A Comprehensive Analysis of Allen, Avoyelles, and Winn Correction Centers”. Journal of the Oklahoma Criminal Justice Research Consortium, by way of Wikipedia.

      “A study was performed using three comparable Louisiana medium security prisons, two of which were privately run by different corporations and the third was publicly run. The authors report the data from this study suggests the privately run prisons operated more cost effectively without sacrificing the safety of inmates and staff.

      They conclude the privately run prisons had a lower cost per inmate, fewer critical incidents, safer environment for employees and inmates, and a higher proportional rate of inmates who complete basic education, literacy, and vocational training courses. However, the publicly run prison outperformed the privately run prisons in areas such as less escape attempts, controlling substance abuse through testing, offered a wider range of educational and vocational courses, and provided a broader range of treatment, recreation, social services, and habilitative services.”

    • Niall Mulligan 12/12/11 #
      Report this comment

      Fair enough – all the reports I’d read of that rape case made no mention of previous convictions, I stand corrected.

      I don’t believe that the private sector is necessarily more efficient than the public sector in general, but in the case of prisons, the profit motive creates particular difficulties – the system will tend to fill private prison places, a quota type approach, based on systemic concerns, doesn’t much fit my definition of justice, either. As illustrated above.

    • Niall Mulligan 12/12/11 #
      Report this comment

      Now that I’ve had the chance to check it, isn’t it the case that all of the perpetrator’s 87 previous convictions relate to attacks on his other daughter, and that he’s currently in prison following conviction for those offenses? Hardly a good example of a “revolving door”.

      I think we need to deconstruct what’s meant by “common sense” here – rather than being based on observation or first-hand experience, very often it derives from shared cultural understandings. In a country where crime has become an abiding obsession for the press, particularly since 1996 – Ireland was deemed a nation “not obsessed by crime” in an international survey carried out in the early 80s – the influence of the popular press should not be understated.

      By way of illustration, in the last Garda Public Attitudes Survey, a sizable majority were of the opinion that crime country wide was on the increase, but crime in their own areas was static or decreasing. How can this finding be explained, other than by reference to disproportionate press coverage?

      By no means am I trying to downplay the significance of crime, or the damage done to individuals and communities, I’m just suggesting that “common sense” and reality may not be coterminous on this issue.

      And, of course, bring seen to be “tough” on crime is politically useful in such circumstances.

    • Aaron McKenna 12/12/11 #
      Report this comment

      Reports I saw had him with priors for theft etc. That was prior to his conviction, so maybe the press was constrained in reporting the context?

      Anyway, as I say, I’ve lived in a community that is the dumping ground for said revolving door. That is a prison sentence… And you did nothing wrong.

    • Niall Mulligan 12/12/11 #
      Report this comment

      Been living in north inner city Dublin for the best part of five years myself – I fully accept that it’s people from certain areas and families that make up the majority of the prison population, who will be in and out of prison all their lives, and likely to rack up scores of convictions.

      But, for me, that speaks more so to the ineffectiveness of prison as a solution to crime. Seems to me that a cliché from the other side of the argument rings true, that “prison is an expensive way of making bad people worse”.

      The question of how people come to be “bad” in the first place, why certain communities are disproportionately affected, and what can be done about it seems to get lost in the current discourse.

    • Chris Connolly M 12/12/11 #
      Report this comment

      Ah here, private prisons, really? Do you really want a private, for-profit company in charge of rehabilition and punishment? I can’t see them cutting corners at all.

      Dina Perrone and Travis C. Pratt, “Comparing the Quality of Confinement and Cost-Effectiveness of Public Versus PrivatePrisons: What WeKnow, Why We Do Not Know More, and Where to Go from Here”
      The Prison Journal 2003 83: 301

      Thats a good paper explaining the difficulties in comparing public and private prisons.

      Anderson, Lucas, “Kicking the National Habit: The Legal and Policy Arguments for Abolishing Private Prison Contracts” (January 10, 2010). Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1534372

      A good overview of the challeneges and problems you get when you privatise your prisons.

      Also @ Aaron, that paper you posted is a joke, did you read it? Its all based on secondary data “Derived from
      formal reports submitted by each prison to the Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections”. Yeah, I can see the them being honest. And comapring two private to one public? I don’t think thats a generalizable sample size.

      Also I feel it should be made clearer the report shows that the public prison out preforms the private prisons in areas such as escapes (zero in the public vs 7 for the private), aggravated sex offenses, reduced substance abuse, training and vocationalcourses (although the private prisions report more ‘course completed’ outcomes, the public and private courses are different) and habilitative services.

  • Ballyer Rules 12/12/11 #
    Report this comment

    I for one find the current system of justice deplorable and a scandal. Repeat offenders are released back into society on bail the morning after there caught, it takes way too long for the court cases to proceed, then the sentences handed down are a disgrace and finally they get remission off those lenient sentences. Justice is not provided to the victims of crime. This week – 7 years for a repeat offender who brought a knife in a premeditated manner and stabbed a person to death? out in 4. Week after week were hearing about criminals committing the most appalling of crimes with 20, 30 , 40 previous convictions. These people shouldn’t be allowed live in society.

    Reply
  • Ciaro 12/12/11 #
    Report this comment

    Liam, have you ever been to new York?try it some time.

    Reply
  • Ciaro 12/12/11 #
    Report this comment

    One important factor not mentioned in this article; you have to have many many convictions for petty crime to go to jail in Ireland, therefore your entire article is based on a falsehood.

    Reply
  • Shane Gleeson 12/12/11 #
    Report this comment

    Feels like I’m reading the Daily Fail with most of these comments

    Reply
  • Auntie Dote 12/12/11 #
    Report this comment

    Basing policies on evidence would be the obvious choice if people were taught critical thinking in school. Certainly, we’d be far better off if every policy included an evaluation process to see how well it met its stated aims.

    I think, Liam, you are on the right track, but you may have work harder to explain things to people who have been taught that knee jerk reactions are sufficient reason for policy making. All the comments here that suggest locking people up is equal to better safety, didn’t actually use their brains to read this.

    We can all gain by putting study into what ACTUALLY makes us safe, and then apply it, whatever that involves, but only if we’re willing to take the blinders off and think rationally.

    Reply
    • John Woods 12/12/11 #
      Report this comment

      People who have an opinion which does not conform to yours ‘do not use their brains’. You must be a pleasant person to live with. Oh and I’m glad you used your brain in coming up with your username. Perhaps you could call yourself Bacardi Anne Coke next time you log in to rant, rave, insult and slur. In the meantime i will respect your opinion and I will keep keep hold of my own (if that’s ok with you).

    • Report this comment

      Well Said – Evidence should be the only way to build policy.

    • Bernadette Dunne 14/12/11 #
      Report this comment

      @Aunty Dote firstly I did not post on this page and topic as a knee jerk reaction I do believe we are safer in our everyday life without CRIMINALS ROAMING OUR SOCIETY and giving These CRIMALS EITHER EARLY RELEASE OR TEMPERARY RELEASE IS NOT ACCEPTABLE in my opinion the CRIMINALS ARE GIVEN TOO MUCH CREEDENCE AND ATTENTION these people are the rapists murderers child abusers drug dealers and anyone who knowingly harms law abiding citizens
      But I feel there are people in our jails that should not be incarcerated at all……and I might remind you this is Not A Knee Jerk Reply

  • Shane Gleeson 12/12/11 #
    Report this comment

    Well said Auntie!

    Reply
  • Auntie Dote 12/12/11 #
    Report this comment

    Ps, privatising prisons is a very bad idea. The Stanford Prison Experiment showed how corrupting that sort of power can be in the hands of an ordinary citizen given the power to punish their peers.

    Punishment, like execution should only be carried out by the state, representing all of us.

    None of us benefit from setting up private citizens as unaccountable mini dictators of their own fiefdoms.

    It spills over!

    Reply
  • Chelsea Byrne 12/12/11 #
    Report this comment

    I know I may not have a greater knowledge on the judicial system but personally i feel that any offence should be guarded as criminal offence. Debating on the crime of course, there should be punishments for all, from petty thievery to murder etc all dealt with, not just trow them in prison but by doing community work ( small offences) or for those who commit continuous offence (prison) and of course anyone who murders or is on the grounds of manslaughter (prison).
    Iv heard a lot of bad rap about our system and never good.
    We do need to sort out the little to big offences and the likelihood of that person offending again.

    Reply
  • Paddy Fagan 12/12/11 #
    Report this comment

    Not one person commenting here has relayed any information or format that will work. One things for sure is the cuts to the ce schemes in community based program’s is going to have more homelessness and prison populations will increase. Consequently leaving the government spending more money on things that don’t work whilst taking money away from things that do.

    Reply
  • Joe Sixtwo 12/12/11 #
    Report this comment

    We need to look at Democratic Countries with low crime rates to see why their system is functioning better than our system. Locking them up and throwing away the key attitude does not work nor does the three strike system. The American penal system is bursting at their seams and crime is on the increase so that clearly does not deter crime.

    Reply
  • jason bourne 12/12/11 #
    Report this comment

    To compare a small country like Ireland with 4 or 5 million people with the USA in terms of prisons and prisoners is ridiculous. This myth that investing in infrastructure to help or reduce crime in the system that is not working. Over the past 10-15 years money has being pumped into preventative measures, poor socio-economic areas have numerous drug support groups and organisations aswell as referral programmes to help people with drug problems, the Childrens act was introduced to assist child offenders before they go down the road of crime, millions was spent on an emphasis on community policing and the juvenile system in the garda. Essentially you CANNOT rehabilitate someone who doesn’t want to be rehabilitated. It is this which hasn’t worked not the prisons. Unfortunately the only way to keep violent recurrent offenders off the streets is to lock them up.

    Reply
  • Keith Maguire 12/12/11 #
    Report this comment

    Crime prevention isn’t just about mollycoddling criminals as some people seem to think. It’s also about reducing criminal opportunity. Regulating cannabis and prostitution would take a lot of money out of criminals hands and put it into the state. Coming down hard on pawn shops, markets and scrap yards that take in stolen property would be another. There should also be a government led program for home security and internet protection projects

    Reply
  • linda marvel 12/12/11 #
    Report this comment

    Definitely agree that prisons don’t work. Criminals develop their trade, and come out as (for want of a better word) better criminals. John Lonergan once said that if a convicted person spent just 1 night behind bars, they would never offend again. I don’t think we should test that theory just yet. I do believe that we should invest more money in drug services, community service, cdps etc, with the view of reforming the prison service. And before anyone jumps down my throat, I don’t believe in mollycoddling people, but at the end of the day prevention is better than cure.

    Reply
  • David Conroy 12/12/11 #
    Report this comment

    I noticed that no mention was made of the legal profession and the other ” Millions” that are made from crime. With this many snouts in the trough I dare anyone to try and reform a system that offers legal advice like ” if you ( or your girlfriend ) were pregnant the Judge would be much more lenient ”
    The dogs in the streets know what needs to be done but have we the political will to change it ?

    Reply
  • Seán Lynch 12/12/11 #
    Report this comment

    The eradification of poverty is the fundamental principle in reducing crime. Denmark has one of the lowest crime rates in Europe and also has one of the largest middle classes. They have a progressive tax system whereby money from the rich is channeled towards the needier. Simple!

    Reply
  • Sean Claffey 12/12/11 #
    Report this comment

    Great article.

    Reply
  • Chris Mcdonnell 12/12/11 #
    Report this comment

    Anyone who says prison dosent work has never lived beside a scumbag. I’m from finglas and when certain locals got a holiday in the joy the standard of live for most families living in our estate went up dramatically. Personally anyone with 3 or more violent crimes should never see the streets again.
    It should be about the victims not the poor unfortunate criminal.

    Reply
  • Niall Mulligan 12/12/11 #
    Report this comment

    Chris, I really don’t think that it is “about” an either/or choice of supporting the victims or supporting offenders. I think that most people want a system that’s fair and effective, protecting and vindicating the rights of both offender and victim.

    This idea that it is some kind of zero sum game was pushed particularly by Mr. McDowell, setting out to “rebalance” the criminal justice system, it’s a disingenuous logic.

    Problem is that, at the moment, non-violent offenders on short sentences make up the bulk of our prison population – only 10% of prisoners have committed violent crimes.

    http://www.examiner.ie/ireland/no-escaping-the-truth-about-prisons-138005.html

    I wouldn’t be against opening a debate on measures to deal with repeat serious offenders, but I don’t agree with removing judicial discretion in any case. It will inevitably lead to absurd outcomes, like a life sentence for stealing a slice of pizza:

    http://www.nytimes.com/1995/03/05/us/25-years-for-a-slice-of-pizza.html

    Reply
  • Cormac Ginty 12/12/11 #
    Report this comment

    Many interesting points here. In my opinion long sentences have nothing to do with solving any problem. They take dangerous people off the streets. The problem I see is that short sentences are not long enough. Punishment of smaller crime is not deterring it. This is where it starts. A one month spell is a joke. Modern thinking is that outreach is better. A combination of both harsh penalties and outreach is the best.

    Reply
  • Chris Mcdonnell 12/12/11 #
    Report this comment

    Niall if you ask any victim of violent crime how they feel if the person who committed the crime gets caught and given a real sentence it gives some sort of comfort but then tell them that the person was out on bail and or has had 30 or more prosecutions for the same type of thing. Most of the crimes against people in this state are committed by repeat offenders. If any dogooders want to let violent criminals out of the sentence they deserve then let them put up the scumbag in their own homes and keep the rest of us a little safer

    Reply
    • Niall Mulligan 12/12/11 #
      Report this comment

      “The sentence they deserve” depends on the particular circumstances. Not all offences are similar in character – there’s a big difference between two grown men wilfully stepping outside to fight and a grown man attacking an elderly person, for example. This is why judicial discretion is necessary – no two cases are the same, a one size fits all sentencing regime will inevitably lead to injustice.

      And there’s a massive difference between violent offences and non-violent, which makes up the overwhelming majority of the prison population.

      You’re right about repeat offending, about half of all prisoners will be imprisoned again within four years, with violent offenders being slightly below average at 45%. But I think that the problem is a bit more complex than you’re making out – you seem to be saying that some people are just “scumbags” – really hate that term – and that we should lock them up on sight, and throw away the key? And anyone who says otherwise is just a wooly liberal “dogooder”, right? And of course, once we get rid of all the “scumbags”, everything will be rosy?

      Whether you like it or not, problems with reintegration, poverty, low standards of education, poor living conditions, social exclusion, and mental illness all contribute to recidivism, but prison isn’t doing a thing to deal with these. Also, it has been shown that victims of violent crime tend to be young men who are involved in crime themselves. It’s not as simple as an innocent victim and an evil perpetrator.

      But, like I said, I wouldn’t be against opening a debate on measures to deal with repeat serious offenders. It’s just that the vast majority of prisoners are way on the lower end of the scale.

      The purpose of the Criminal justice system isn’t to give comfort to victims, nor should it be. It’s about doing justice for both perpetrator and victim, and keeping the country safe. It’s not right to base the whole thing around convicts’ rights, but it’s equally not right to base the whole thing around victims’ feelings. Prison has its uses, but I don’t believe that a massive increase in the prison population will do anything to make this a less violent country, either, just look at the US.

    • Sean Claffey 12/12/11 #
      Report this comment

      There would be less violent crime if the correct preventive measures were taken, such as better education. If the crime doesn’t happen in the first place then there is neither a victim or a perpetrator. That seems better to me. I think any victim of crime would rather not be a victim at all than be a victim and have the offender get a longer sentence.

  • Cho Kahana 13/12/11 #
    Report this comment

    Public humiliation for petty crimes, corporal punishment and indefinite imprisonment for serious offenders, and capital punishment for the most heinous of offenders.

    There, problem solved!

    Reply
  • Alison Irving 13/12/11 #
    Report this comment

    As far as I see it the point is that the crime level in Ireland has not actually risen, but the numbers in prison have as the use of imprisonment as a sentence has increased. Obviously there are plenty of prisoners who are not going to be rehabilitated and will continue to offend whenever they are released – but there are a proportion of offenders who would be better served (and the community in turn better served) by the use of a different type of punishment for their offences, which would enable them to contribute to society rather than be a detriment. In many cases all that prison achieves is to introduce small petty criminals to much more dangerous offenders in the “University of Crime”

    Reply

Add New Comment