THE criminal justice agencies in Ireland are demonstrably unable to cope with a spiralling crime rate. The informal social controls which generated law abiding behaviour in a cohesive and traditional society have atrophied. Modern Ireland is characterised by fragmentation and individualism. It is a brutish placed where people are right to be fearful.

The only way to restore order through penal expansionism. In addition to the provision of extra prison places, more gardai should be recruited and put on the beat, and sentences should be sufficiently punitive to have some deterrent value.

When the Dail holds its special sitting this week to debate crime policy it must demonstrate that it has seized the initiative. It must set itself the task of wresting control back from the criminal classes. If firm action is not taken without delay, all may be lost.

This disturbing view of a society under siege, as enunciated above has become the orthodox account of the "crisis" besetting Ireland. It has taken root in the public psyche, seven though it is based upon a flawed analysis and the measures which flow from it are unlikely to have much impact on crime.

Little consideration has been given to the principles and values which should underpin a rational and humane criminal justice policy. Rather than focusing solely on the repression of criminal conduct we should be discussing how to strike a workable balance between effectiveness, efficiency and justice.

THE English academic David Faulkner, who is always eloquent in the cause of penal reform, expressed it well when he declared recently. "The purpose of the criminal justice services should not be seen narrowly as controlling and punishing crime, but as public service in a broader sense protecting the weak and vulnerable, promoting social stability and public safety, upholding standards of justice and civilised behaviour."

This does not mean being soft on crime. It is merely to accept that measures to reduce crime cannot be sought solely through the mechanisms of the criminal justice system. This is for the simple reason that few offences are ever reported to the police, and only a fraction of these are officially recorded or result in a prosecution.

Crime surveys in Britain have revealed that only about 3 per cent of known offences result in a police caution or a conviction in court. Fewer than 1 per cent result in custodial sentence.

It is clear, therefore, that any approach to crime, if it is to have a realistic chance of success, will have to be broadly based. This means a shift from a narrow focus on punishment to a wider concern with preventing crime and reducing the harm it causes. A criminal process with such goals might have the following priorities

1. Crime prevention. It is crucial to address the underlying social and economic causes of crime. Of central importance here is the development of strategies to reduce the demand for drugs and to tackle the consequences of alcohol abuse.

2. Improved detection. We know from studies of criminal decision making that increasing the likelihood of apprehension has greater deterrent value than does increasing the severity of the punishment. A. high probability of arrest exercises a more powerful influence than a remote chance of punishment, however harsh.

3. Trying to uncover what works in order to reduce re offending. It is important when offenders are in prison or on probation that the opportunity is taken to minimise the risk they will pose to the public then they are no longer under supervision. Programmes which challenge offending behaviour should be devised and implemented.

4. Co-ordination. A multi agency approach to crime reduction is the logical way to address this problem in all of its complexity. For example, any attempt to tackle youth criminality would have to involve liaison, at least between the gardai, courts, schools, and church and community groups.

5. A new deal for victims. The consequences of crime for victims are all too often forgotten. Serious attention should be given to providing the support and information which victims need, and to piloting schemes which allow for mediation and conciliation either in place of, or in addition to, the sentence of the court.

6. Social inclusion and reintegration. Criminals are not a separate class to be singled out and rejected. They come from the wider community and, in the vast majority of cases, will return to it. A key element of any punishment should be reintegration. If an ex-offender has no stake in society and feels alienated from it then further involvement in crime will not lose its appeal.

7. Independent inspection and audit. It is important to develop a culture which is reflective, critical and open, and in which the lines of's accountability are clear. Regular and independent inspection must be integral to any strategy.

8. Understanding more and condemning less. Policy makers should draw upon criminological knowledge to inform their decision making. If we could achieve this alone it would result in a more civilised approach to crime and punishment. To begin with, an important lesson that can be learned from other countries is that the only guarantees which accompany penal expansionism are a massive and steady drain on the public purse, a marginal reduction in crime and a confirmation of public anxieties.

AN eight point plan such as that outlined above would constitute a reasonable opening agenda for the forthcoming Dail debate. It would be irresponsible for the Government to ignore the wider issues and respond to public fears with increased punitiveness when the very basis of these fears has not been tested.

The role of government is not simply to reflect public opinion, but to mould and inform it. It is to be hoped that the opportunity to develop a coherent and effective strategy for crime and punishment will not be squandered on the grounds of political expediency.