Director’s Blog
A last resort for young offenders?
March 3rd, 2010
Recent reports of the decline in youth offending are very welcome as it would appear that efforts to divert young people away from offending are having positive effect. The Garda Diversion Programme, which aims to divert first-time offenders from further offending by the use of a caution and supervision by a specially trained Garda (a Juvenile Liaison Officer) is particularly commendable in this respect. Similarly, a pilot project in Dublin which saw 16 young offenders - some of whom had 35 convictions - receive one-to-one case management by individual Gardaí, has seen a 64% drop in offence rates.
At the other end of the scale, the number of children spending time in detention is also falling. This is especially welcome given the findings of recent research that 60% of those under 20 years who spend time in prison are back behind bars within four years of their release:
Young People and Reoffending - presentation by Nicola Hughes, IYJS Conference 2010
According to the Children Act 2001, detention should be used as a measure of last resort, and an increasing range of community-based sanctions is now available to ensure the implementation of this principle. Despite this progress, however, concerns remain about the use of detention for children, and in particular the fact that one third of all under 18s in detention (in St Patrick’s Institution and similarly in the Children Detention Schools) are on remand.
Of great concern is that of those detained on remand in the Children Detention Schools in 2008, less than half of those young people (44%) went on to be sentenced to detention on conviction. This suggests two things: first, the requirement that detention is a last resort is not yet impacting on the decisions of the courts pre-trial, notwithstanding that the Act requires all courts dealing with children charged with an offence to have regard to it.
"...of those detained on remand in the Children Detention Schools in 2008, less than half (44%) went on to be sentenced to detention..."
The second and related concern is that there is an urgent need to introduce formal systems of bail support to help young people meet their bail conditions and to reduce the number of children placed in detention on remand. If detention is to be a last resort for children, greater efforts must be made to reduce the use of detention for children at all stages.
Guest blogger: Dr Ursula Kilkelly, Chairperson, Irish Penal Reform Trust and Senior Lecturer, University College Cork.
Fresh Thinking and Common Sense
February 9th, 2010
It is depressingly familiar that recent concern about violent crime has focussed on imposing longer or mandatory prisons sentences rather than trying to understand why aspects of our current system don’t work as well as they should.
One common target of public concern has been the problem of crimes committed on bail or while convicted offenders are otherwise at large, and there is clearly a problem with some groups of persistent offenders racking up a long list of charges while awaiting trial.
The knee-jerk reaction is to make it harder to get bail, despite all of the associated problems of large-scale pre-trial detention. But if we probe a little deeper at the problem, there are fresh and promising ideas based on growing evidence about what actually influences individuals’ actions.
Jeffrey Rosen, law professor at George Washington University, writes in the the New York Times:
“Classical deterrence theory has long held that the threat of a mild punishment imposed reliably and immediately has a much greater deterrent effect than the threat of a severe punishment that is delayed and uncertain.
"Recent work in behavioural economics has helped to explain this phenomenon: people are more sensitive to the immediate than the slightly deferred future and focus more on how likely an outcome is than how bad it is.”
A recent development in Hawaii suggests that when a judicial system delivers swift and direct consequences to offending behaviour, confidence and respect in that system increases. This is a common sense approach that emphasises individual responsibility, the legitimacy and consistency of the system, with the result that you need less imprisonment to achieve less crime.
While the Hawaii initiative addresses a particular American problem of parole violations, there is a clear parallel to how our system deals with minor offending, particularly by young people. Research recently carried out for the Office of the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs by Dr. Mairead Seymour and Dr. Michelle Butler identified a number of problems with how bail operates for young offenders, with long delays before trial being identified as a key problem.
If a teenager is in trouble, the longer the delay before the State responds to that problem, the more likely it is that the situation will deteriorate. Following this analysis, the Irish Youth Justice Service has now initiated a case management system within targeted areas of Dublin to ensure that young people before the courts have their cases dealt with more quickly.
The point of all this: a criminal justice system is about human behaviour and trying to change it. Reform of that system must be based on the best evidence of what individuals respond to, and it is practical issues such as court efficiency or bail supervision that promise better results than a forlorn hope that tougher sentence will have any beneficial effects.
UK considering Justice Reinvestment
January 19th, 2010
As a human rights NGO campaigning in Ireland, it is easy to become pigeon-holed as being more concerned with finding problems than coming up with solutions. In 2010, IPRT hopes to make clear that, in calling for a reduction in the use of prison, we are also about coming up with some answers to the problem of crime.
In the face of our hugely expensive and ineffective prison system, we have been asking the same rhetorical question – “surely there must be a better way of dealing with crime?” One part of that better way is to invest in alternatives to prison at the point of sentencing, and there is plenty of potential for much greater use of community sanctions. But the bigger part of the alternative is in reinvesting our scarce resources into strengthening communities and preventing crime.
In May, IPRT will host a conference on the theme of refocusing justice policy on prevention and early intervention. At that conference, we will launch a review of the growing body of research that identifies the potential social and economic benefits of shifting resources away from imprisonment and punishment towards crime prevention and investment in communities.
In the United States, real evidence of how much can be saved by taking dollars from prison building and instead using the money to build the resilience of communities, is changing thinking around their failed crime and drug policies.
"...the prison building frenzy of the Blair years is giving way to a more considered view of how to develop crime policies built on evidence rather than on rhetoric and populism."
In the UK too, the prison building frenzy of the Blair years is giving way to a more considered view of how to develop crime policies built on evidence rather than on rhetoric and populism. I would encourage anyone interested in penal policy to read the recent groundbreaking report by the House of Commons Select Committee on Justice – “Cutting Crime: the Case for Justice Reinvestment”. This report, emanating directly from Parliament, takes a broad view of how British crime policy has descended down a sensationalist punitive road to the point where, financially, it is facing a “crisis of sustainability” (sound familiar?) Instead, the report advocates re-allocation of funds on a scientific geographical basis to local services that demonstrate how they can prevent young people being drawn into crime in the first place.
The timing of this report couldn’t be more opportune for the Irish context. The Department of Justice’s White Paper on Crime provides a window to rethink Irish crime policy. We have adopted enough of Britain’s mistakes in crime policy over the last decade – when they recognise those mistakes, shouldn’t we sit up and take notice too?
The Balances of Justice
January 13th, 2010
On Sunday, I was involved in a radio discussion on RTÉ’s Sunday Forum about justice in homicide cases.
The programme was interesting and quite balanced in its discussion, but made me think about some of the main problems in how the issue of justice in serious crime cases has been discussed in Ireland in recent years.
Ger Philpott participated on the panel on behalf of AdVic from a victim’s perspective, and gave a moving account of how his family have been impacted by the violent killing of his nephew.
The two central question posed in the programme were: whether our system of criminal justice provides justice to victims of homicide and their families; and whether there should be a mandatory sentence for murder. The framing of these two very separate questions together discloses one of the fundamental difficulties with how public debate on the issue of serious crime has become structured.
In the first instance, the assertion that an adversarial criminal justice system can in any way produce meaningful redress for the loss of human life is of course untrue. Our system of justice translates an act of violence between an offender and a victim to a formal legal procedure between State and offender. The process is aimed at finding an appropriate and just punishment for the crime, as well as considering issues of public protection, possible deterrence of others, and the potential for the rehabilitation of the offender.
"...the assertion that an adversarial criminal justice system can in any way produce meaningful redress for the loss of human life is of course untrue."
In the context of a system which is geared to punish crime, the suggestion that the degree of punishment of offenders will somehow increase respect for victims is problematic. Debate on this emotive issue, with catchphrases such “life should mean life”, has traditionally focused on the length of sentences, neglecting completely more complex questions of the purpose of sentences and what happens within sentences.
IPRT’s perspective on the questions posed in the programme is that this approach to sentencing distracts attention away from real issues of victims’ rights. AdVic have published a policy document calling for reform of the criminal process which respects the role of the victim in areas such as: legal representation for victims and compensation; providing information regarding procedures in the courts to victims and their families; and keeping victims and their families informed about the prospective release of offenders. While IPRT would take a different view to AdVic on issues around mandatory sentencing, we would strongly support their position on all of these issues.
On the central issue of sentencing, there is undoubtedly huge scope for reform to make the judicial process more transparent - but again, the goal of making the process more consistent and the false promise of making the result in different cases the same, is a confusion that has bedevilled this issue for some time.
On a highly controversial and important issue, the discussion on Sunday was refreshingly balanced and we hope that our message can get across that respecting victims’ rights is not simply about taking rights away from offenders.
On Sunday 10th January, RTÉ's The Sunday Forum discussed what society's moral response should be to murder. Panellists included: Ger Philpott, AdVic; John Lonergan, Governor of Mountjoy Prison; Prof Harry Kennedy, psychiatrist and Clinical Director of the Central Mental Hospital; John O’Keeffe, Dean of Law, Dublin Business School, along with IPRT's Liam Herrick.
To hear the perspectives of the other panellists, listen here.
Tackling violence in prisons in 2010
January 4th, 2010
It has been a violent and difficult Christmas period within our prisons with serious incidents at Mountjoy and Castlerea Prisons that have left prisoners and staff injured, with one prisoner in a serious condition.
IPRT has been highlighting the rising levels of violence in our prisons over the past two years, and it is clear that this must be a key priority for everyone concerned about our prisons in 2010.
From a human rights perspective, the duty to provide safe custody carries real legal and moral obligations for prison management and Government. More must be done to protect the lives of prisoners and staff, and we firmly believe that there are many practical measures that can be taken immediately to ensure further tragedies do not occur.
In 2010, IPRT will play its role in tackling this issue – we will continue to raise awareness of the situation politically and through the media; we will support the work of international human rights bodies – both the Council of Europe and the UN will be examining the State’s actions in this area in 2010; and we will bring forward proposals for practical measures to protect prisoners based on the experience of other jurisdictions.
However, the safety of prisoners and staff will only be improved by concerted efforts from the authorities. One key step must be the setting of safe custody limits in the prisons by the Minister for Justice and associated changes to committal procedures to ensure that overcrowded prisons do not have to accept sentenced or remand prisoners from the courts.
"One key step must be the setting of safe custody limits in the prisons by the Minister for Justice..."
Other issues, such as the threat from organised crime factions operating within prisons, will require co-operation between the Garda and the Prison Service. We are not naive in thinking that tackling inter-prisoner violence will be straightforward, but we are committed to playing our part in making sure that this chronic problem remains at the top of the agenda, that it is addressed as a matter of urgency in 2010, and that staff and prisoners are given the highest possible level of protection.
A year of damning reports and real public concern
December 22nd, 2009
As we come to the end of 2009, it is worth reflecting on a year in which prison issues have become more prominent than perhaps at any time in the past twenty years.
A number of damning reports from the Inspector of Prisons have pushed prison conditions higher up the political agenda, but it is far from clear that that attention will lead to action. We have to be optimistic that very real public concern at how we treat prisoners in a modern society will embolden our politicians to prioritise necessary improvements in inhumane conditions of detention.
There are positive signs that Government is committed to trying to end some of the more irrational aspects of our imprisonment policies – with reductions in the detention of children, initiatives to divert mentally ill prisoners into treatment, and commitment to ending imprisonment for debts and fines. There is a long way to go, but IPRT objectives of making prison a sentence of last resort is starting to gain ground.
"We have to be optimistic that very real public concern at how we treat prisoners in a modern society will embolden our politicians to prioritise necessary improvements in inhumane conditions of detention."
Finally, Christmas this year will be challenging for many families, but spare a thought for those families who have a loved one - a parent, a partner, a child or a sibling - in prison this year. Prison staff and chaplains do their best to support prisoners and families at this time of year, but being away from families is especially hard over the coming weeks. Imprisonment of a family member can have a terrible impact on innocent families, often in an invisible way. Incarceration can affect families financially, but it can also leave emotional scars on those left behind.
In 2010, IPRT will be working hard to further our vision of respect for the rights of everyone in the penal system, with imprisonment used only as a last resort. In the meantime, we wish you all a fulfilling and peaceful 2010.
4,000 prisoner mark reached for the first time
October 14th, 2009
Last Friday 9th October, 2009 marked another milestone in the Irish prison system, but not one that we should be celebrating: for the first time in the history of the State, the number of prisoners in custody passed the 4,000 mark. The official figure of 4,009 does not include those who were out on Temporary Release; it represents the number of men, women and children accommodated in already chronically overcrowded Irish prisons on Friday night.
This is yet another watershed moment for Irish prisons. We now have a prison population that is growing at a worrying rate and without strong action from Government the problems caused by this rapid rate of increase will soon be out of control. To place this level of imprisonment in context, the number of prisoners in Irish prisons was just 750 in 1970; 1,200 in 1980; 2,100 in 1990; and 2,948 in 2000.
In the short-term the impact of these numbers is on overcrowding. We are long past identifying the evils of overcrowding on these blog pages. What we need now is commitment to action.
The Prison Service must set clear safe custody limits in each of the prisons and ensure that dangerous overcrowding levels are not allowed to develop. In the short term, numbers can be reduced by careful and structured use of temporary release.
But with prison expansion now clearly out of control, long-term measures are also required. The revised Programme of Government speaks of ensuring that imprisonment is a measure of last resort. However, this welcome statement of policy must be backed up with actions to ensure that further unaffordable – in both economic and social terms - prison expansion is prevented.
- The Government needs to deliver on the long-promised fines legislation.
- Community sanctions, which are cheaper and more effective, must be resourced and supported.
- Government must address the ongoing problem of District Courts imposing short sentences of imprisonment where community sanctions are clearly more appropriate.
- We need to look again at the impact of mandatory and presumptive sentences, which may well be a major factor in this increase and whose benefit in addressing drug crime is far from clear
It is nothing less than disgraceful that when services across all sections of society are being cut, one remaining growth industry is incarceration.
What is a successful outcome?
September 29th, 2009
The recent statement by the Secretary General of the Department of Justice to the effect that he favoured the winding up of the Drug Treatment Court Programme is disappointing, and in my view short-sighted.
Sean Aylward, speaking at the public accounts committee, said that the take-up and completion rates of the court were lower than had been anticipated, but surely the fact that the current system is not performing as well as we might hope is hardly an argument for giving up on an innovative idea.
Drug courts, through which appropriate offenders with addiction problems are referred to treatment rather than prison, have worked very well in many countries, particularly in the United States where they are now a central part of the justice system. To really measure the value of this type of intervention, we need to broaden our understanding of what we mean by successful outcomes. If we expect it to lead to people becoming drug free in a short period of time then that is a failure to understand the nature of addiction and the high relapse rates involved. The previous evaluations of the drug courts here have shown that they have a great deal of potential if the proper supports are in place.
If Mr. Aylward wishes to use relapse as the benchmark of success or failure for offenders with addiction problems, then imprisonment would clearly be the most unsuccessful response. All our experience says that prison is an expensive way of making a difficult problem worse. Alternatives to prisons are essential, particularly where people's offending is linked to a drug addiction. While there may be a temptation to cut smaller programmes in the current climate, it would be a terrible shame if one of the more promising alternatives to imprisonment was closed off without really trying to make it work.
Adventures in Rhetoric
September 17th, 2009
The Minister for Justice is one of the most skilled communicators in the Oireachtas, but his statements [on Monday, 14th Sept] in relation to the quality of accommodation provided within the Irish Prison estate represent quite a remarkable adventure in the use of language. On opening a new accommodation block in Castlerea prison, the Minister announced the provision of 550 new prison spaces by the end of the year. The Minister then stated that when the prison development programme was completed, the Irish prison system would be “comparable to best international practice in terms of accommodation and services for prisoner rehabilitation and reintegration. This will put the Irish prison service in good stead for the 21st century.”
Leaving aside the widespread scepticism about plans to create 550 new prison spaces from within the existing prisons, it beggars belief that an Irish Government Minister can speak of 21st century prison conditions or best international practice when the majority of our prison accommodation is in most key respects worse than it was at the end of the 19th century.
In the current economic context, the Minister’s official position that Thornton Hall and Kilworth will go ahead at the original planned scale raises further questions. Given the clear need to sacrifice some major capital projects over the coming years, does anyone really believe that it is politically feasible or appropriate to build prisons of unprecedented size at a time when schools, hospitals and railway construction is under threat? Particularly when it is not at all clear that building on this scale will help to solve the problem beyond short-term relief.
The Minister has consistently pointed out that 1,400 additional prison spaces have been built under Fianna Fáil governments over the past 15 years. Clearly, if there has been such a huge expansion in the number of prison spaces and overcrowding has in fact worsened the logical conclusion is that prison building cannot solve overcrowding. The provision of a number of building extensions to existing prisons may help to alleviate pressure in the system in the short term, but in the long-term we need to look at the sources of the problem - many of which the Minister could easily address without resorting to the tried and failed approach of prison expansion.
At all levels of the system, there are concrete steps that could be taken to reduce the numbers of prisoners, freeing up resources to make our prisons humane and more effective:
- The prison population could immediately be reduced to manageable levels and overcrowding solved if we as a society carried out a thorough analysis of our current practices in relation to immigration detainees, women offenders, fine defaulters, and traffic offences.
- We need to analyse whether the presumptive 10 year sentence for drug offences is really impacting on organised crime or if it is filling our prisons with low-level actors in the drug trade.
- There is a growing body of evidence that investment in crime prevention strategies and investment in supporting communities at risk of crime is a cheaper and more effective way of reducing offending.
The Minister is right that we should aspire to 21st century prison conditions, but the way to achieve that goal to aim to have smaller better prisons not by building more and larger versions of existing institutions. In the real world of our prison system, bringing conditions into the 20th century should be the immediate aim. A good place to start would be to hear a concrete plan from the Minister to end slopping-out and multi-prisoner occupation of cells in Mountjoy and Cork.
If humane prison conditions really is the goal, surely it is better to address the worst features of the existing estate as a matter of urgency before building new units?
Perspectives on child detention
September 15th, 2009
Sometimes we need a reality check to remind us that things don’t have to be the way that they are. In a conservative political culture like ours, the public can be far too accepting of the status quo and what is deemed to be necessary in society – be that the “need” to support the banking sector; the “need” to vote particular ways in referenda; or indeed the “need” to lock up children.
In her excellent weekly blog, Frances Crook, Director of the Howard League for Penal Reform tells a poignant story about a recent visit to a Scottish juvenile detention facility with prison administrators from Sweden and Germany. The continental guests were completely speechless at the idea of young boys being held without meaningful activity in a cramped prison environment. This could not happen in those countries, where young offenders are only ever held in constructive, activity-centred institutions.
I recall hearing the Finnish criminologist and government advisor Tapio Lappi–Seppälä speaking at a conference in the Irish Law Society a number of years ago on issue of Finnish penal policy. In response to a reference Tapio made about the treatment of young offenders in Finland, a member of the audience asked how many under-18s were currently detained under criminal law in Finland. To gasps from the audience, he said that he believed there were two.
IPRT will shortly be launching a report on international standards and best practice with regard to youth detention. That report will set out the lessons that we can learn about how to ensure that when children are detained that their human rights as children are fully respected. This report will play a key role in setting standards for the new juvenile detention facility at Lusk and we hope that it will contribute to speeding up the closure of St. Pats. However, in the midst of all of this process we need to remember that other countries that are just like us, with just the same social problems that we face, manage to deal with those issues without resorting to locking up children.
To order your copy of the youth detention report, due for publication shortly, please email Fíona at: communications@iprt.ie