James Lawless (Kildare North, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Deputy. That concludes the first round of questions. Everybody who wanted to get in during the first round has got in. I have some questions before we move to the second round. Members may indicate if they want to come in for the second round.

I have been following the debate with interest. A number of interesting points have emerged. I would like to make a few comments. I noticed that Mr. Graham’s experience is unique to the committee, in terms of his own experience, where he is and how he is getting on. I know that he has been studying. He has been looking at academics. He raised an interesting point about whether prison is about retribution or about rehabilitation. When I studied law we were told that it is all about rehabilitation. Mr. Tom O’Malley was extremely influential in our studies. It is all about rehabilitation. It is interesting that sometimes the academic world jars with the reality. I am hearing from people other than Mr. Graham, although I know he is putting it in context of the wider debate, when we are asking the question about whether this about revenge, it jars with the world view. Perhaps Mr. Graham knows a more about it than I do because he is in the system. That is concerning, if that is the experience from inside, although I know he is couching it in terms of the wider experience.

I picked up on a few of Mr. Graham's other remarks, which relate to questions that I was going to ask to all of the group, in terms of whether some people are considered beyond hope. It is almost a case of having to throw away the key, that there is a revolving door and that some people who are in prison now will be back in prison again. That view can take hold, which again would be worrying if that was the case. I see evidence of that sometimes in courts, etc.

My first question is more about alternative policies in prison, but they go back to the opportunities for rehabilitation in prison. On the note about people being considered beyond hope, there is a view abroad, certainly among people who practise as solicitors or barristers or others involved with the criminal justice system, that if somebody has not been in prison before, there is an imperative to keep them out of prison. This is because there is a view that if somebody goes across the line once and goes behind bars once, they are almost gone for life, even if it might be a three- or six-month sentence. There is almost a deterrent. Much of the discussion today has been around sentencing, but I will not go into that. There is a view that if someone appears before a court and they have not ever been inside, they are less likely to get a custodial sentence. However, there might be someone coming along and say, “They were there before and it is no big deal and they can go back again”.

I have experience from when I was practising in the criminal courts at one stage. One issue that shocked me in my early years was that people who had up to and more than 100 convictions for minor offence would arrive into a court. These are not people who have had very serious charges against them, but who have repeated minor offences.

Evidently, prison is not working in their cases. Some of them were in for terms and were then out again. I am not sure what else could work. Perhaps it is a rhetorical question, but how have we as a society ended up in a situation where someone can be before a court with that number of convictions? If keeping people in prison as a place of rehabilitation is not the answer, then what is? Perhaps we will start with that point and if anyone wishes to contribute, he or she is welcome to raise a hand.