A smaller prison system is worth considering, leading to savings of €62 million a year, writes Ian O'Donnell.
Imprisonment involves the deliberate infliction of pain through the deprivation of liberty. For this reason, to say nothing of the financial and social costs, it must be applied sparingly and with precision.
It should be the option of first choice for serious or dangerous offenders and a last resort for all others. This is clearly not the case.
A constant theme in prison reports over the past 150 years is the frequent use of short sentences. The most recent report of the Irish Prison Service shows that four out of every 10 committals to prison were for less than three months, six out of 10 were for less than six months and eight out of 10 were for under one year.
These short-sentence prisoners have committed minor offences and could be dealt with effectively, and much more cheaply, in the community. It is often thought that there is a simple inverse relationship between the rate of crime and the number of prisoners.
In other words, as one goes down the other goes up. This seems obvious and seems to make sense. As with many things that appear simple the reality is complex.
There is no natural relationship between trends in crime and imprisonment. Each rises and falls according to its own momentum.
A general rule of thumb is that to reduce the crime rate by 1 per cent will require a 25 per cent increase in the prison population.
This is because most offences are not reported and of those that are, most go undetected and therefore unpunished.
This heavy rate of attrition means that major adjustments to the level of imprisonment are required to effect minor changes in the crime rate. The prison population has risen swiftly since the mid-1990s and today stands at 3,200.
At a time when there is so much talk about social inclusion, the level of incarceration should be a matter of public concern.
It would be reasonable to expect that, without jeopardising public safety, the number behind bars could be reduced by 25 per cent within 10 years.
At first glance this suggestion may seem naive or utopian. It is neither.
Despite regular bouts of hysteria our crime problem remains relatively modest, and a scaled-down prison system is worth considering.
The economic savings - around €62 million each year - could be redirected to a range of socially beneficial projects.
It seems that the more we punish the more anxious we become. Tough talk and a soaring prison population are seen as evidence that the crime problem is out of control.
This confirms and intensifies public fears: why are so many people behind bars unless things really have taken a turn for the worse?
There are several inter-related strategies that could be adopted to challenge the fixation with prison. The first involves cutting off the inflow of prisoners through:
Crime prevention. Most of this will involve bodies outside the criminal justice system, such as schools, families, and local communities. Urban design has a role to play also.
Diversion from prosecution and from prison. Community penalties should be viewed as the norm with prison as an occasional alternative.
A focus on restorative rather than retributive justice, with the emphasis on remorse, apology and forgiveness. This can have a powerful effect on the healing of victims.
Legislation providing that prison must be the sanction of last resort for adults, as it now is for children.
Requiring judges to consider and rule out all other options before imposing a prison sentence, and to give a written reason when imprisonment is the chosen penalty.
The second set of strategies addresses keeping prisoners in custody no longer than is necessary to satisfy the demands for retribution and deterrence. This could involve measures such as:
Increasing remission from 25 per cent to 33 per cent for all offenders serving fixed sentences.
Introducing a structured system of parole with defined eligibility periods. For example, automatic release after serving half of the sentence for first-time offenders who do not pose a demonstrable risk.
Weekend and evening prison, so suitable offenders can remain in employment, compensate their victims and retain responsibility for their families.
Waiting lists for offenders who are not an immediate threat.
Early release with electronic monitoring.
The final ingredient is to make a return to prison less likely. The entire sentence should be seen as an opportunity to prepare the individual for release.
Underpinning all of these initiatives are the principles of proportionality (making the punishment fit the crime) and parsimony (achieving the minimum level of custody consistent with public safety).
Leniency is a virtue. It is a hallmark of a confident government, a responsible media and a well-informed public. A civilised society gains nothing from allowing the number of prisoners to swell.
Regular seminars that bring together prisoners, politicians, judges, academics and civil servants would be an innovative way to begin the difficult job of deciding what constitutes an appropriate level of incarceration.
Dr Ian O'Donnell is deputy director of the Institute of Criminology, Law Faculty, University College Dublin