A White Paper on crime could bring about much-needed reforms, writes IAN O'DONNELL
DEBATES ABOUT crime and punishment have a staccato quality. There are moments of intense concern, often after a particularly heinous killing, and then long periods of stasis. Sometimes fundamentally new ways of doing justice are promised. But they are not always introduced, their impact is seldom assessed, and the focus can waver.
The background to this is a criminal justice system where reform is slow and piecemeal.
It took 60 years for revised prison rules to appear; the Probation Service is still guided by a piece of legislation more than a century old; and it remains impossible to link the information systems of the various criminal justice agencies.
This is not to suggest that change is always necessary. Indeed, the sentiments contained within the 1907 Probation Act withstand the test of time, in particular the duty “to advise, assist, and befriend” those who come into conflict with the law.
The Irish criminal justice system has two notable characteristics. The first is the extent to which it operates in the shadows. Data deficits are considerable and there is little in the way of external scrutiny. The second is the frequency with which the way forward is not taken, even when it is clear.
In January the Government announced its intention to publish a White Paper on crime and to consult widely in the process. This has been heralded as an opportunity to take a strategic approach and to map out the direction of the criminal justice system over the coming decades.
This could be a once-in-a-generation opportunity to produce a set of guiding principles for a fair, humane and minimalist justice system.
While a laudable initiative, previous experience shows that its successful completion cannot be taken for granted. The publication of a White Paper on crime was promised for 1998. It remained an objective in the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform strategy statement for 2003 to 2005 where it was described as “a significant task in the coming period”.
However, it did not appear and when the next strategy statement was published it was silent on the question of the White Paper. It took another several years for the idea to be resuscitated.
This is not to downplay the need to stimulate an informed debate about crime and how best to respond to it. Rather, it is to suggest that one important element of the current process should be to identify, and then chart how to overcome, the obstacles that stand in the way of translating recommendations into actions.
There are quite a few statements of where change is needed. These go back as far as the Whitaker Committee’s inquiry into the penal system in 1985 and the National Economic and Social Council study of the performance of the criminal justice system in 1984.
Reading these publications, and a number of others that followed over the years, one is struck by how often the same recommendations are made, and then remade. What is called for with monotonous regularity is greater operational clarity and accountability and a rebalancing of the system so that the prison is no longer centre stage.
But how to achieve these results is not spelled out in sufficient detail. Criminology has something to contribute here in terms of:
- Providing the raw materials for sound policy, legislation and public debate.
- Stimulating a culture of innovation and reducing the traditional reliance on models imported from other jurisdictions.
- Making available the baseline information that allows difficult decisions to be taken with confidence during a crisis.
- Enhancing democratic accountability by opening up areas that have previously been closed to independent inquiry.
In addition to taking account of the potential academic contribution to fresh thinking about crime and punishment, it might be appropriate to look across the Border for inspiration.
A major review of criminal justice in Northern Ireland (excluding policing and aspects of the system relating to emergency legislation, which were subject to separate consideration) was initiated in July 1998.
This had been provided for in the Belfast agreement. In March 2000, after extensive consultation, the final report emerged. It contained within its 450 pages a total of 294 recommendations. Published simultaneously – and running to an additional 1,600 pages – were reports of 18 research projects that had been specially commissioned as part of the review process.
These ranged across a variety of areas including public attitudes to crime, community safety, restorative justice and juvenile offending.
A further round of consultations took place before the UK government drew up its implementation plans. These set out areas of responsibility, timescales and actions that would have to be taken to ensure that each recommendation was given effect. An Oversight Commissioner was appointed to monitor implementation and he reported regularly until 2006, by which time he was satisfied that the process of reform was virtually complete.
The seriousness with which the review group in Northern Ireland took its task, the speed at which it concluded its work, the breadth of the research base, and the emphasis on implementation and independent oversight provide useful benchmarks for the White Paper that is being prepared in this jurisdiction.
The fifth Irish Criminology Conference takes place today and tomorrow in the UCD Quinn School. The programme includes papers on penal policy, prisoners children, piracy on the high seas, media portrayals of paedophilia and the reintegration of ex-offenders.
Ian O’Donnell is professor of criminology at UCD