Lynn Ruane (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister. On Monday, a man in the prison system who has been both a victim of violence throughout his life, including in his childhood, and a perpetrator of violence, which led him to the prison system, directed me to somebody I had not previously come across in my work, although the Minister might have done so. His name is Professor James Gilligan. I have spent a lot of time since Monday reading his work. He has done work with the WHO and has been a psychologist in prison systems throughout the US. I found his work fascinating insofar as I had the capacity to read it within a week. For me, while we can look at policing responses, it is always about looking at the bigger picture.

My question relates to the idea of law and order and the notion a justice Department or Minister has to respond to violence or crime with yet more punishment and policing. I do not think that should be the only role of the justice Department. In the context of the root causes of violence, we might focus on advanced democracies and economies for the moment. The United States has the highest rates of violence and murder, but it also has the highest rates of policing, there is still the death penalty in some states and it has the highest number of people in prison. Moreover, as Professor Gilligan points out, the greater the gap between the rich and the poor in a country, the higher the incidence of violence and murder, and the US is an example of that. Europe is slightly better in that regard, but as that gap widens, we see an increase in violence and crime. Can the justice Department begin, in parallel to policing situations, to look at the other aspect? One aspect is policing crime and the other is ending crime, but they are two different things that require totally different responses. When we think of law and order, we do not think of ending crime but of a police state approach.

Is the Department undertaking, or will it undertake, empirical research into the root causes of violence, such as inequality, structural violence or adverse childhood experiences? Obviously, the goal should be to end violence, but we will not end violence with violence. When we increase the powers of police, we increase the capacity for violence on violence. If violence ended violence, one person responding with violence to someone shooting them in a family or gang feud would resolve the issue. Rather, it goes back and forth. Is the Department looking at, or will it look at, independent research on the root causes of violence and how to end it, rather than only how to police it?

How does the Minister, who has responsibility for justice, view her role in ending, rather than just policing, violence? What does the idea of Fine Gael being the party of law and order mean when it comes to ending violence?

We have worked well on the issue of spent convictions and I would love to see progress on the legislation before any election. One of the men who works from my office is still in prison at Loughan House and he said something crucial to me on Monday. He is serving a life sentence but he has earned degrees, done work for my office and presented to the justice committee previously. Nevertheless, he said he will be welcomed back into crime more quickly on his release than he will be into society or the workplace, and that, obviously, perpetuates people re-engaging in violence and criminality. How can we move along the spent convictions legislation in order that we can reduce instances of crime and violence?