Colm Brophy (Dublin South West, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I want to follow up on the question asked by Deputy O'Callaghan. While he seemed happy with the answer, I have a problem with a particular aspect which I would like to tease through with the witnesses. There is a constant reference to minor offences that are deemed by certain groups or whatever to be low impact or not affecting victims. However, the reality in terms of victims of crime and communities is that many of the offences the witnesses or the system might deem to be minor are high impact on both the victims and the communities when they are committed repeatedly. I refer in particular to the impact of the crime of burglary. A single act of burglary can destroy an older person's entire life. It can destroy their home, where they live, relationships within families and their ability to live independently in a community. I do not believe they care much for the terminology to the effect that it was a one-off, low impact, minor or non-violent crime because for them the impact is almost as great as violence.

In the event of somebody committing multiple offences such as burglary, and without going back to the entire system that got them there, particularly if they are affected by drugs, what is the witnesses' view as to what they should do in that situation? Fining the person will not work. I do not believe that keeping them within a community will necessarily work if there is not a willingness to change a behavioural pattern. I agree with a host of what the witnesses advocate in terms of the reform process, the resourcing process and so on. What worries me is that when giving a number of answers they seemed to step over to a certain point with which I have a real difficulty, namely, the lack of recognition of the impact of crime on victims and how there must be an element of recognition of that by the State through the judicial process. They are correct to say there is a cost in terms of imprisonment but sometimes there is a real cost to society from non-imprisonment.

Another area on which I would pick a fault with the witnesses, and I am on record as having said this previously, is that the behaviour in terms of some of the media coverage here amounts to nothing short of the glorification of crime and the creation of almost Kardashian-like characters who, while being vilified by "media sources", are almost portrayed as people we should look up to and whose lives we should be interested in and follow. On the other hand, they went a step too far when they queried the right of anybody to ask the victim of a violent crime their view on parole for the person who committed that crime. There is a right to have that voice heard and if the way that voice is heard is through the media, that is a right. I put in the first caveat clearly but I strongly disagree with the witnesses that there is no role further down the line for the family of a victim of a murder to have their voice heard on how parole should be decided in the future. I would like the witnesses to come back on that.