This is the submission I made to the recently published Government White Paper on Crime

White Paper on Crime – Document No.2 July 2010

Criminal Sanctions Submission

UN guidelines for the prevention of crime emphasize partnership, working together and local insight in addressing “ the conditions in neighbourhoods that influence offending, victimization and the insecurity that results from crime by building on the initiatives, expertise and commitment of community members
– UN ecosoc 2002.

Crime comes in various guises and has multiple reasons for its existence - poverty, greed, social exclusion, addiction, family background etc..
We need to see crime prevention and not crime detection as the ultimate solution. We cannot pretend that crime happens in a vacuum. We need genuine investment in the community to prevent criminal activity in the first place.
We must invest in education, social and justice prevention programmes to ensure that another generation does not become entrapped within the world of crime and punishment.
However, those engaged in crime, when caught, must face suitable sanctions to punish the offender, prevent further acts and protect the community. The following are some of my recommendations with regard to Criminal Sanctions.

Alternatives to imprisonment.

- Prison is a one size fits all response that cannot always respond to the complex nature of crime and the individual responsible. We need a variety of options to tackle the diverse nature of the criminal justice system.

- Short term sentences for non violent crime and non payment of menial fines have in many cases proven unproductive, expensive to the taxpayer and have not reduced recidivism.

- Pretrial diversion for low level crimes– defendant agrees to sanctions in exchange for withdrawal of charges. Sanctions such as repair, restitution and training.

- Judgements for non payment of services or even previous fines also to include mandatory attendance at suitable courses on financial advice, family welfare etc..

- Jail will do little for inmates with certain problems and addictions. Social programmes may be more suitable than incarceration. While many argue about the responsibilities of offenders suffering from problems not all of their own making including those suffering social deprivation, poor levels of education, a lack of skills and even addiction, we however feel that many offenders have chosen to engage in criminal acts whereas the majority of the fellow residents have resisted this path. It is what, for the good of all involved, to these individuals and most importantly for the community, can be done to prevent recurrences.

Youth offenders

The vast majority of young people make a positive contribution to society. Their success should be recognized and praise. For the small minority, we need to identify those young people and the root cause of their misbehaviors. While we make it clear that we cannot tolerate the behaviour of the minority which causes misery and suffering to others, especially their victims who, more often than not are other young people, we recognize that with proper intervention, more young people can achieve a positive role.

Youth community sentences, diversion schemes etc.., must be well structured programmes which can reduce the rate of re-offending and should repay the damage done by crime in a way a custodial sentence cannot. This should include a mandatory offender behaviour programme, education/training opportunity, unpaid work as reparation to the victim/community and may also include a fine or compensation order. We must address the perception among the community, valid in many cases, that non judicial methods have not addressed the offending behaviour nor protected the public. Local youth diversion services need reform or greater supervision to tackle this issue.

Child curfews – for individual, underage children, whom the court deems to be engaged in anti-social and/or criminal behaviour. Reference must be made to the parental responsibility aspect of the issues arising here.

General Local curfew scheme for underage children in sites deemed unsuitable and liable to encourage anti-social and criminal behaviour on certain occasions– bonfires, lanes, parks etc..,

School intervention and absenteeism– education providers, gardai and social services intervention in truancy needs to be coordinated and enforced so as to identify children in need from an early age. Again, reference to parental responsibility must be made here.

Parenting orders – to help reinforce and support parental responsibility to prevent dysfunctionality within families where issues such as control, ability, functionality etc.., are causing problems both within the family and within the wider community.

Intensive Fostering – alternative to a custodial sentence where the youth joins a family of trained foster carers backed up by other professionals. This option is for serious and persistent young offenders whose home environment directly contributes to their offending behaviour. As with family intervention, the long term cost benefits to the taxpayer have been proven.

Non negotiable family intervention as opposed to custodial sanction–

Making families face up to and understand their responsibilities and to eliminate any offending behaviour. This allows for the rehabilitation of the problematic family members without further custodial sanctions while giving the community a chance of harmony.
In most communities, there are only one or two severe anti-social & totally dysfunctional families but their contribution to the local crime statistics are enormous. They are also a burden on already under funded services. By actually tackling these families, the reduction in overall criminal & anti-social activities will noticeably decline and the economic benefits to the state will be beneficial.
The Family Intervention Projects are targeted specifically at a small group of households demonstrating extreme anti social behaviour. Family Intervention Projects were first introduced by the UK Government as part of their Respect Action Plan. Launched in 2006, this plan aimed to “reclaim communities for the law-abiding majority” by focusing on anti social behaviour and its underlying causes.

The Family Intervention Project model takes a fresh approach to helping families who have complex social needs. Key workers adopt an assertive and persistent style, focus on the whole family and co-ordinate any agencies already involved with families. Initially set up to tackle anti social behaviour, Family Intervention Projects are now working with families to alleviate child poverty and prevent youth crime. Early outcomes show substantial improvements in families’ behaviour when they left the project.

The proportion of families in the Scottish programme:
> involved in anti-social behaviour and criminal activities had declined from 61% to 7%
> subject to enforcement action (eg, Anti-Social Behaviour Orders) almost halved from 45% to 23%
> at risk of eviction was cut by two thirds from 60% to 18%
> with educational problems (eg, truancy, exclusion, bad behaviour at school) had reduced from 37% to 21%

Eight features of the project model appear critical to its success
The 8 critical features are:
> the recruitment and retention of high quality staff,
> small caseloads,
> having a dedicated key worker who manages a family and works intensively with them,
> a whole-family approach,
> staying involved with a family for as long as necessary,
> scope to use resources flexibly,
> using sanctions with support, and
> effective multi-agency relationships.

Projects appeared to be working with their intended beneficiaries
The projects seem to be working with the right targets:
> 78 per cent of families referred to a project met the referral criteria and agreed to work with a project.
> Participating families had high levels of anti-social behaviour and criminal activity and were either homeless or at risk of becoming homeless because of their problem behaviour. These families were also well known in the community for causing anti-social behaviour.

Community Volunteer Panel - The programme where young offenders attend a meeting with a panel of community volunteers where he/she has to answer for their actions has had the lowest reconviction rate of any juvenile community sentence. ( UK gov. stats : 44.7%)

Alternatives to bail –
There are times when the Court will determine that it is in the best interest of justice that an individual can only be released to the community with special conditions that will increase the likelihood that the offender will either appear for their future hearings or decrease the potential danger to the community. Electronic tagging is one such method and the failure of the state to implement such a proven scheme is difficult to understand Home confinement is an alternative to incarceration in certain cases where an offender must remain at his or her residence during specified hours. The three forms of home confinement are: 1.) curfew, under which the offender is restricted during certain specified hours, usually at night; 2.) home detention, under which the offender remains at home at all times except for approved leave for employment, education, medical attention, or court appearances and, 3.) home incarceration, under which the offender is restricted to his or her residence at all times except for approved leave. Probation officers monitor this special condition by telephone contacts, unannounced home contacts, and/or electronic signaling devices.

Community Restorative Justice – international cases have shown the benefits of:

Restitution
According to Black's Law Dictionary restitution is an "Act of restoring; restoration of anything to its rightful owner; the act of making good or giving equivalent for any loss, damage or injury; and indemnification". Restitution has the potential to repair the financial and perhaps relational harms that crime has left in its aftermath Evarts argues restitution is preferable because instead of simply increasing the total amount of harm suffered by interested parties, restitution aims at repairing the victim, and making the offender a productive person

Community Service
Non-violent offenders who would have otherwise gone to prison were given the opportunity to provide community service or make restitution to their victims in lieu of incarceration. A meaningful distinction may help maintain the reparative purposes of both restitution and community service: restitution repairs the harm to the individual victim; community service repairs the harm to the community. Who the victim is--individual or community--determines the type of reparative sanction.
Community service provides an opportunity for the offender to see first-hand the indirect injuries caused by his/her offence. In this way, the offender may see the reasons for the limits of social tolerance. Moreover, the offender is provided with a constructive, proactive means of repairing the injuries caused by his/her crime, with the potential to improve the offender's overall sense of self-worth. The emphasis of community service is on accountability. Finally, offenders' services can be a resource or payback to community and non-profit organizations providing they do not interfere with existing work practices. In fact, it is essential that communities have a role in determining the unpaid work to be undertaken by offenders so as to be able to judge the true value of the undertaking.

Criminal Sanctions through Mandatory sentences

Minimum mandatory sentences of 10 years for drug dealing of over €12,000 must be upheld and not continually ignored by the judiciary. This poor judicial response shows an absence of understanding or care by the judiciary of the impact of drugs on society, especially those existing on the margins. Recent surveys have shown that the majority of offenders caught with over this recommended sum receive less than the recommended sentence. This is no deterrent and coupled with remission, many serious drug dealers, literally peddlers in death, will serve sentences on the smaller scale. 10 year plus sentences will lead to the prevention of further activities, the removal of offenders from communities, a reduction in respect for these drug dealers from impressionable youth as they fade from memory and will act as a deterrent for the next generation if and when they see the current crop receiving real harsh sentences.
Criminal Sanctions through Mandatory Education/Rehabilitation

Education and Rehabilitation courses for all sex offenders made mandatory and elimination of any remission and any court reduction in sentence upon failure to participate. Failure to meaningfully participate to be included on file of registered sex offenders and due consideration to this refusal to be considered in any future criminal case.

‘White Collar Crime’ –

There appears to a perception amongst the judiciary that financial irregularities & fraud are victimless crimes and therefore the perpetrators should not receive any form of incarceration. Considering the current economic crisis, instigated by fraudulent dealings, corrupt practices and lack of regulation, a stern message, in the form of prison sentences should send out a message that this form of crime which has impinged upon the lives of thousands of people shall not be underestimated or overlooked. There cannot be a culture within the judiciary where so called ‘white collar crime’ can be dealt with on a different level than other forms of criminality.

Prison and Prison Reform

Many prisoners have never engaged in real work or skills training. We should introduce them to the realities and benefits of achieving gainful and meaningful employment through enforced training/work schemes. Many prisoners are allowed to wander about on the landings or to remain in their bunks for large portions of the day, languishing at the taxpayers expense. Meaningful work and training opportunities would raise the self esteem of many prisoners, create future opportunities and allow them to contribute. We do not advocate using prisoners as cheap labour or as alternatives to existing workers. Where prisoners* have achieved a sufficient level of trust, external programmes should be considered.
*excluding sex offenders.

The following are some general comments in relation to the Questions for Consideration sections of the White Paper. I have made recommendations above on the issues of custodial & non-custodial sentencing. –

The benefit which can be derived by expanding the range of sanctions is the opportunity to isolate a hardcore of persistent criminals within the prison system while offering strong alternatives to many individuals who for a variety of reasons do not need the ultimate sanction of imprisonment. Many of the new sanctions which I have proposed above may reduce the recidivism levels and may lead to greater levels of public safety. It is my opinion that the judiciary are isolated from the reality of the effect that drug dealing, theft & anti-social behaviour amongst other crimes have upon communities, especially amongst the most vulnerable sections.

There is in my opinion, a lack of structure amongst the judiciary in relation to sentencing. It almost appears that each judge makes their own sentencing decision irrespective of previous cases. Little or no real or meaningful credence is given to the victims (or victims family) opinion. No real or meaningful attempts are made to explain the reasoning behind the chosen sentencing by the judiciary or for that matter, by the DPP. Bland judicial statements about ‘early pleas, helpful to Gardai, individuals’ circumstances’ fail to address the public concerns over sentencing as does the inconsistency in sentencing from court to court. A person that carries a knife has the intention to use it at some stage with the possible result of a fatality. A judge that then remarks about the ‘unforeseen circumstances’ sends out the message that there may be certain circumstances when carrying a knife is less dangerous than at other times.

Yours,

_________________________
Cllr. Cieran Perry,
Independent Dublin City Councillor

With reference to restorativejustice.org, Howard penal reform trust, youth crime action plan, reduction.gov.uk, Coalition of Communities against Drugs, Scottish Centre for Social Change, UNecosoc and American Corrections.