THERE ARE times when a prison sentence is the correct response to breaches of the law and there are times when it is not. Such penal sanction can transform the futures of young men and rather than act as a deterrent, set them firmly on destructive careers of crime. That negative outcome is almost guaranteed when prisons become grossly overcrowded, are drug-infused and lack basic educational, psychiatric and rehabilitation services.
It would wrong to lay the blame for overcrowded jails and a dysfunctional prison system on the judiciary. The main culprits are the politicians and successive governments that made getting tough on crime a major issue in their election campaigns. They recognised the appeal of harsh retribution to the electorate and they milked it for every vote, without providing for the consequences of recidivism and prison overcrowding. In the course of those campaigns, they passed laws requiring the imposition of mandatory sentences for certain offences and they pressurised the judiciary to fall into step with their populist approach. The outcome is all too clear today.
“Degrading, inhumane and unsafe” is the verdict passed on the Irish prison system by Europe’s leading human rights organisation. If that doesn’t make law-abiding citizens ashamed, it should. Governments have been consistently warned they were failing in their duty of care to young offenders and that, rather than helping the situation and controlling crime levels, their policies were making prisons a finishing school for young criminals. Since those stark warnings were issued, the situation has worsened. Drug gangs and their culture have become more embedded in the system and stabbings, slashings and assaults can occur on a daily basis.
In the past decade, the prison population has increased by two-thirds, many times the rise in the crime rate. Even then, thousands of minor offenders have been turned away because of overcrowding. The prison system, its staff and its various services simply cannot cope. There is a cheaper, more effective, and humane alternative. Rather than rely on prison sentences as the prime deterrent, when the approach has clearly failed, politicians and the judiciary should switch their attention to probation and community service orders.
Monitoring young offenders in their localities and ensuring they carry out useful community work directed by the courts costs the State between 10 and 30 per cent of the prison alternative. That is a good deal for taxpayers. The approach has been shown to be effective in tackling crime and it frees young men of the stigma of a criminal conviction. Despite that and prison overcrowding, the number of such court orders fell last year. Friction between government and the judiciary has been dragging on for years over issues of sentencing and bail. A law has now been passed that requires judges to consider imposing community service orders as an alternative to jail sentences of 12 months or less. It would be invidious if an instinctive reaction by some judges caused them to stick to traditional sentencing practices.