Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I welcome this legislation for a number of reasons. I refer to the important points made by other speakers on the detention of juveniles and the detention of all prisoners, which I will speak on in a moment. In 1985, TK Whitaker wrote, on the viability of St. Patrick's Institution as a corrective, rehabilitative or educational centre for reintroducing young people who have erred into society, that, "The dominant features of St. Patrick's for the majority of those contained there are boredom and demoralisation." That was a very significant remark at that time.

In the intervening years much legislation has passed through the Houses and a large number of prisoners have been through the system of detention. The 1985 report should have been adequate to force change to occur much sooner. It went on to state:

Rehabilitation is not possible where the physical and environmental conditions are such as to nullify any personal developmental programmes. Facilities and services which a human and morally acceptable detention centre should provide for juveniles could not be provided even in a renovated St. Patrick's Institution.

In his annual reports for 2004 and 2005 Mr. Justice Dermot Kinlen described St. Patrick's Institution as "a finishing school for bullying and developing criminal skills", which is a sufficient epitaph that whatever the initial purpose of the institution was, it was not capable of delivering services of a rehabilitative nature or improving in any way the opportunities for those who had deviated from the right path.

Deputy Finian McGrath made an interesting contribution. It should be remembered that, in the case of juvenile offenders, insecurity is often at the heart of their problems. They may be insecure for many reasons such as dysfunctionality within the family home and so on. Without a shadow of doubt, dysfunctionality impacts on a child and moulds his or her character such that when first introduced to what is commonly known as corrective training it should be conducive to re-establishing his or her confidence in the system and improving his or her chances of induction into society in a way that is reassuring from his or her point of view.

I probably have a little more knowledge of prisons than many of my colleagues. If one looks into the eyes of a prisoner, particularly a young prisoner, one will see doubt, fear and concern about the future and know that there is a lack of knowledge of what might happen to him or her in certain circumstances. If the system is to be rehabilitative and educational, it needs to provide reassurance for the prisoner that society will look after him or her if he or she co-operates and helps it. When we point the finger and say people are beyond salvation, that there is no hope for them and so on, all we are doing is abdicating our responsibilities. I do not agree with that approach. With proper intervention and the right programme, it is possible to rehabilitate the person who has erred and help him or her to regain confidence in the system. It is vital that an offender who has had a deprived childhood or suffered social and economic deprivation or abuse in the home or society is, through proper intervention, given an opportunity to change and thus make a valuable contribution to society.

I have mentioned that insecurity has a huge impact on a family and, in particular, the children within it. That insecurity can lead to a deviation from the straight and narrow early on in a child's life or during his or her teenage years. This brutalisation of children, incidences of which have been brought to our attention, leads them to believe only the fittest will survive and that if they are not able to stand up for themselves, they will not survive. Fear then takes over. When fear takes over a child or teenager, he or she is liable to do anything to distance himself or herself from the place in which he or she finds himself or herself at the time.

A number of speakers referred to dysfunctionality within the family home and poverty as being among the reasons young people became involved in crime. I do not agree. Poverty may be a contributory factor, but there are many people who come from poor families who do not engage in criminality or regard it as a natural progression. It is not true to say, therefore, that all people who are poor are naturally inclined to engage in lawlessness or criminality. There are other influences at play also, about one of which nobody talks about any more. A number of years ago parents were discouraged from giving their children cowboy outfits and guns for Christmas on the basis that it would give the wrong message. The messages being sent in terms of the violence depicted in films shown on television these days which are often considered appropriate for viewing by small children are very worrying. I have no doubt that this is impacting on young people who are subject to peer pressure. Witnessing gratuitous violence has, without doubt, an influence on criminality. Violence against women is depicted in a way which indicates that it is normal practice. Previously if a person was shot in a film, he or she fell down. Nowadays he or she will have his or her throat cut, followed by people stomping on his or her head, which violence no human being could withstand in the ordinary course of events and this is portrayed as entertainment. It is also portrayed as being normal activity in today's world. This is hugely damaging to children, in particular those who are impressionable. There are many people, including children and teenagers, who are impressed by gratuitous violence and accept it as being part of life today, which is sad. This is very damaging to our young population. It is important that those with responsibility address this problem before it gets worse.

It is important that, on leaving an institution after a first incarceration, a young offender recognise that what he or she did was wrong and that he or she has the wherewithal, by way of a rehabilitation and education programme, to become part society. I agree with the remarks made by colleagues about juveniles with mental health problems. There is no point in referring a juvenile or an adult to an institution of correction if, on leaving it, his or her greatest achievement will be acquiring a masters degree in criminal activity. Where this occurs, society has done the offender a disservice because he or she has learned more in prison about criminality and how to succeed in that environment than he or she would have learned had he or she never been sent to prison.

The extent of the intervention, in particular in the case of firsttime offenders, has to be focused on looking after their education, presenting them with the various options that can, should be and are available and trying to ensure the intervention is made not so much in a punitive and regressive way but in a way that is helpful to their ability to live normal lives in society. It must help them recognise there is another, better way and that, if they follow that route, they are likely to get support from the State. Unfortunately, it is easy for people to say these offenders were wrong, which they were, and should be condemned for ever more but that is not the way to do things. If we proceed along that route, we will only end up with bigger and bigger prisons holding more and more people. There will be no possibility of rehabilitation or reintroduction into society or of changing their views on society. That is not a good thing.

Various people who have progressed after prison have been mentioned. Johnny Cash comes to mind, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle. Both you and I well know his story. He sang about it many times in the past. I am sure the Minister of State has heard it as well although he was before her time. It is a fact, however, that he overcame the difficulties with which he was then surrounded and saw another side of society in which he excelled.

I do not wish to delay the debate but I am strongly of the view that if corrective training does not carry the degree of education, support, reassurance and rehabilitation of the human being it should, no matter what we do in terms of location, it will not work. However, it should work. We need to focus on that element. Having tabled numerous parliamentary questions on it, I have already spoken on previous occasions on what prison and detention does for an individual. It should be an improvement and a reassurance. When juveniles are referred to a place of detention they need to feel the people into whose charge they are going will help them. They need to know the system will help them. They need to know that when they come out, the date of which they will know when they go in, they will be in a better position to survive in society. What they should not have coming out with is a Ph.D. in criminality. They should not have learned more about how to take on the system they feel has not been fair to them.

In the old system, when health boards had visiting committees, I was one of the people who had to visit the various institutions from time to time. It was a great way for public representatives to learn about the system and how it affected people. I saw some appalling situations, including inappropriate referrals, in particular of young people, to mental institutions where they were associated with people way older than themselves. Juveniles were being treated the same way as people with serious mental disorders who were to be detained for a long time. If they were in a different institution, they would have had a very good chance of survival and a different attitude to society.

It would also have been far better value for money in so far as the State was concerned. Value for money comes into it as well. There is no use spending money on something that will not improve society or the individual and which will do nothing other than punish someone. Punishment is fine in so far as those who administer the punishment may feel they have done their bit and avenged society. This, however, is not about vengeance or reprisal. It is about doing best for those involved. The end benefit should be one to society.

See this speech in context