It is all too easy to dismiss Fine Gael's latest idea of Army-run boot camps for young offenders as a mad-cap scheme, in the words of Minister for Justice Michael McDowell this week, writes Mary Raftery.
This is not to say that they are a good idea - far from it. But the Minister's reaction does contain a rich element of the kettle calling the pot black.
But to deal firstly with Fine Gael. The boot camp notion has come from Billy Timmins TD, the party's spokesman on defence, and a former Army officer. He clearly has such a high opinion of his previous employer's capabilities that he thinks they can sort out the highly complex problem of juvenile delinquency without even the slightest training in the area.
If it was just Billy Timmins's idea, though, one might not be too worried. However, he has been quoted as saying that it was his party leader, Enda Kenny, who asked him to examine the proposal.
If this indicates the extent of Fine Gael's thinking on youth justice, then it represents an appalling level of ignorance. Internationally, the militaristic approach to young offenders, the short sharp shock treatment, has been shown to be both highly ineffectual and savagely abusive. Some of the stories emerging from these kinds of institutions elsewhere are genuinely hair-raising, to the extent that they are increasingly being either shut down or severely controlled.
Primarily designed to break children, they typically employ the drill sergeant tactic of intimidation by yelling in their faces and punishing physical chores and exercises.
One can hear the baying from a chorus of Fine Gael TDs already - good enough for them, the hooded thugs who make life a misery for hard-working, law-abiding citizens. Vote for us and we'll hand them over to the Army to give them a taste of their own medicine.
It is hard to think of a more unsuitable agency than the military for dealing with children. An army is premised on the legitimate use of force (or violence) to pursue the aims of the state, both internally and externally, and to which end its members are trained to kill. It embodies the ultimate in authoritarianism, demanding unquestioning obedience to orders. (This is not particularly unreasonable in the context of its purpose - concepts of consensus and widespread consultation are hardly feasible on the battlefield.)
In Ireland, though, we have a tendency to think of the Army as a kind of super-aid agency, going out into the world to do good deeds and keep the peace. While not without an element of truth, this perception is largely misguided. The Army itself views peace-keeping as an opportunity to provide it with vital operational experience. If a military force does not know how to fight, has had no experience of danger and battle, one could certainly validly question if it has any function at all.
While the nation can justifiably take considerable pride in the acclaimed professionalism of Irish soldiers in their peace-keeping activities, to confuse this with the idea that the Army is a suitable body to deal with troubled or criminal youth is dangerous nonsense.
In case Fine Gael has forgotten, we used to hand children (most of them not criminal at all) over to untrained people who ran the precursors of the kind of boot camps proposed. These of course were the industrial schools, and we are all too familiar with their legacy of terror and abuse. It is truly staggering that this party could propose a measure which would negate overnight the painstaking lessons which society is slowly learning from its mistakes.
However, while Fianna Fáil and the PDs gleefully pour scorn on the boot camp notion, their own record in Government in terms of the treatment of juvenile offenders is hardly without blemish. They preside over a regime for the detention of young people for which the inspector of prisons, Mr Justice Dermot Kinlen, has said they should be ashamed of themselves. He has demanded that St Patrick's Institution for young offenders should be immediately destroyed. Despite this, it appears that it will remain with us until at least 2011.
In addition, the sections of the Children's Act 2001 dealing with the appointment of an inspector for children's detention schools were never enacted. Consequently, no such inspector has been appointed. Even worse, new legislation is now in place which substantially waters down the provisions for independent inspection of such schools. Furthermore, the Children's Ombudsman remains excluded from the area.
It would be foolish to minimise the problem of anti-social behaviour by youngsters in certain areas. It is also true that detention quite properly continues to be a sanction for youngsters who break the law. However, there is a growing awareness that it is useful only as a last resort. A range of earlier interventions by highly trained professionals are now viewed as being far more likely to effect behavioural change. It is the heavy resourcing of these policies which will assist the children themselves to control their own behaviour.