Dáil debates

Thursday, 1 February 2007

Prisons Bill 2006 [Seanad]: Second Stage

 

1:00 pm

Photo of Jim O'KeeffeJim O'Keeffe (Cork South West, Fine Gael)

Unfortunately, it is quite rare for Members to have an opportunity to have a proper debate on prison conditions and on the Prison Service. That said, Members must confront the stark reality of the current situation, namely, that Ireland's prison system is failing. This system produces a recidivism rate of more than 75%. A recent study by the Institute of Criminology, University College Dublin, showed the shocking reality. One out of four prisoners released from prison in Ireland today will be back behind bars by the end of January next year. Three out of four will be back within four years. In many ways, it is a massive understatement to observe that the prison system is failing.

However, this is not the biggest problem. The main problem is that significant numbers of people are being sent to prison. In 2005, nearly 9,000 people were committed to prison in Ireland. A significant number of such committals involved people who should not be there. Many involved people who committed minor offences that could be dealt with using a wide variety of other sanctions.

I will state my basic position in respect of prisons. There are hardened, serious criminals in our society who must be sent to prison and who must be shown that their activities will not be tolerated. I have no compunction, whether in Government or in Opposition, in authorising or supporting their incarceration, from the perspective of the protection of the public. There are also significant numbers of people being sent to jail for non payment of fines, or debt in some instances, for being drunk and disorderly or misbehaving at an incidental level. Wherever possible, these people should be diverted from the prison system into alternative systems. There is a bounden duty on those of us who are analysing and considering the prison system to make that clear divide. Let us put into prison those who should be there and keep them there are long as is necessary. However, the corollary of that is that we should keep out of prison those who should not be there.

Members will be aware that I recently published the Enforcement of Court Orders Bill 2007 on this subject. This would treat one aspect of this problem by allowing the courts to make attachment of earning or welfare orders to ensure that court-ordered fines were paid, thereby keeping people who might otherwise end up in jail out of the prison system. With modern technology, I believe this approach is now possible. There may have been difficulties with such a system in the past, but by utilising modern technology this system could readily and easily be made work. It would give the benefit of fines being paid by order while simultaneously saving the taxpayer the cost of imprisoning defaulters. It would have the additional benefit of not exposing people, who in most instances are not criminals, to contact with hardened criminals.

Our prisons have been described by many as universities of crime and we must take that seriously. I am advised that in many instances those sent to prison either learn new ways to break the law or pass on old tricks to new inmates. Surely this is another reason we should focus on keeping people who should not be there out of prison. This is particularly true of young offenders. Our young offenders' institutions leave a lot to be desired. In many instances the same methods are applied to juvenile prisoners as are applied to adults. I am not satisfied that adequate efforts are made to rehabilitate young offenders, even though they are at a formative stage in their lives. I do not think there is sufficient political direction, and sufficient resources are not being provided to achieve that outcome. In some cases no incentive is being given to young offenders — children — to mend their ways or change their habits once released.

I am aware of some of the practices that are being handed down in St. Patrick's Institution. I have in my possession a letter from an inmate in St. Patrick's sent to a friend on the outside in 2005; it is stamped and approved by the censor's office. It contains detailed descriptions of how he picks up drugs inside the prison grounds, how he takes Valium within the prison and how he is smoking other illegal substances in his cell. Based on this letter, the greatest sanction he faces for this behaviour is to have the television temporarily removed from his cell. This individual is at the coalface and it is worth quoting parts of this letter. He wrote: "The governor said to me that if I don't pick up hash out in the yard he would let me out in two weeks, but stupid me goes out in the yard and starts picking up. And I went in the next morning to the governor over picking up and he took my telly off me for two weeks." This seems to be common practice. He continues — I will omit some of the more colourful language: "So I'm in my cell for two weeks without a telly ... I am sitting here listening to Bob Marley, flaking out with a nice spliff in me mouth."

He then goes on to describe what he is going to do when released. This is what I mean when I discuss rehabilitation. "I'm in 12 months now and I tell you I won't be robbing cars that's for sure. When I get out I'm going to get a bit of coke and go down to [placename] and sell it. [Two friends] went down one night and made €1,300 on E30 bags." The "E" is presumably a reference to Ecstasy.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.