Ian O'Donnellargues that the decision to build Thornton Hall took place in the absence of informed debate
GIVEN THE rapid growth in the discipline of criminology, and its likely further expansion if trends in other countries are any indication, it is salutary at this juncture to reflect on its potential contribution to criminal justice policy.
There is a range of views on this matter. Some criminologists feel it is incumbent upon them to try and make a difference in terms of influencing policy and practice, while others believe such activity to be at best irrelevant or at worst a dangerous distraction. Those who wish to have an impact are often dismayed at the limited attention paid to their research findings.
Although criminologists and governments share many core concerns, the risk of the former becoming the servant of the latter must be guarded against.
The objectivity of the social scientist could be seriously compromised should a relationship of dependency emerge.
Criminological knowledge has a valid role to play in shaping political priorities but it is crucial that the criminologist, as critic, maintains an independent stance.
The extent to which government support of research, coupled with a more entrepreneurial attitude on the part of universities, creates a context where challenging questions are not asked is of fundamental importance.
There is no doubt that a jurisdiction's funding arrangements go a long way towards shaping the criminological studies carried out within its borders; both by denying resources to dissenting or discomfiting voices and promoting a narrow view of the discipline that emphasises administrative efficiency as a means and an end.
This has created a situation where certain facets of the criminological endeavour - such as crime prevention and programme evaluation, however narrowly focused - have become disproportionately influential while others - such as sentencing reform, corporate crime and penal abolitionism - create barely a stir.
When reflecting on the role of criminology in policy formulation and implementation, it is useful to take a long backwards glance and consider some observations made by Robert Merton in a paper published in 1936 in the first volume of the American Sociological Review.
The theme of this paper was the unanticipated consequences of purposive social action. It is worth returning to because it helps to elucidate the conditions under which public policy is likely to fail.
The factors that are specified show how the absence of good quality research can be an impediment to sound policy-making.
The first factor identified by Merton as limiting the correct anticipation of consequences is the existing state of knowledge.
While we often act without complete information, the hazards are inversely related to the knowledge base. In other words, the less we know the greater the possibility that unforeseen consequences will follow. (It must be said that these are not invariably negative).
The second factor is error. Whether through force of habit, selective attention or a determination to proceed despite the evidence, decisions can lead in unexpected directions.
The third factor is immediacy of interest. This refers to situations where "paramount concern with the foreseen immediate consequences excludes the consideration of further or other consequences of the same act".
In other words, the urgency of the here and now can trump the less pressing but possibly more significant demands of the future.
What Merton argued is that if we are ignorant, error-prone and preoccupied with immediate effects the unanticipated consequences of social policy will be magnified.
The poor quality of available information and the desire to make a swift impact render criminal justice policy-making peculiarly vulnerable in these respects. This is a strong argument for strengthening our capacity to conduct criminological research.
We need to add to the mix another factor identified by Merton, namely that predictions can prove false when the prediction itself changes the way events unfold.
Consider the Thornton Hall penal colony project in light of Merton's ideas.
This is a policy decision that seems designed to provide an immediate response to a political desire to do something tangible about crime. It was taken in the absence of an informed debate about the size and shape of the prison population, and in the face of a surprising stability in the level of sentenced prisoners. It is being clung to despite substantial reservations about the scale, location and composition of the proposed cluster of institutions.
Here we see at play the factors of immediacy of interest, underdeveloped knowledge and error.
Furthermore, the sheer fact of the prison-building programme may be responsible for introducing an upward shift in the use of imprisonment even if there is no change in the pattern of offences coming before the courts.
The prospect of more prison places coming on stream may lead to custody being used more frequently or for longer, rather than resulting in a reduction in overcrowding. This is Merton's point about the decision itself influencing outcomes.
It follows from all of the above that the purposes of this policy - more humane conditions, lower recidivism and improved treatment of prisoners through enhanced sentence planning - are not necessarily those that will flow from it.
That such a scenario is predictable will not be welcomed by penal planners. To articulate it may cause irritation, or even despondency, among diligent public servants who are striving to improve a prison system that is manifestly sub-standard in so many ways.
In any event, the likelihood is that the implications of this argument will be ignored or resisted; thereby reinforcing the case for an engaged and robust criminology.
This is an edited version of the keynote address to the Fourth Irish Criminology Conference, which takes place today.
Prof Ian O'Donnell is director of UCD's institute of criminology