The Minister's approach is hardly new and is a response to an Opposition clamouring for 'more of the same but sooner', writes Donncha O'Connell
The package of anti-crime measures approved by the Cabinet on Tuesday includes provision for extended detention of suspects for up to seven days, judicial guidelines to be applied in the context of bail, drawing adverse inferences from the exercise of the right to silence by suspects in custody, and provision for increased sentences based on prior convictions. It also indicated an intention to progress the long-awaited DNA database.
Much of this is rebottled wine. Provision for extended detention is already provided for in law and is, according to experienced practitioners, almost never used. The judiciary already take into account the opinions of Garda witnesses about the likelihood of a bail applicant committing further offences or absconding if granted bail and, believe it or not, the judiciary do refuse bail on a frequent basis.
There are already many situations in which adverse inferences can be drawn from an assertion of the right to silence or privilege against self-incrimination; and it is routine, in the exercise of sentencing discretion, for judges to administer harsh sentences on the basis of previous convictions.
Michael McDowell has delivered the curse of the answered prayer to an Opposition clamouring for "more of the same but sooner" and excited his own battalions in the run-up to the PD pre-election conference.
It is a sad reflection on both Government and Opposition that no-one seems focused on either the efficacy or novelty of his proposals, concentrating instead on the battle of the soundbites. Timing, it would appear, is everything. But the victims of crime deserve better than this, as do an increasingly sceptical public bored by shallow responses to crime and that sees no real difference between the Government and any viable alternative.
While the chorus of party political agreement will be passed off as a reflection of common sense, it is, in reality, an unthinking, media-driven consensus that is doomed to fail.
So is all of this a solution in search of a problem?
Only the most stubbornly in denial would fail to acknowledge that there is a worrying rise in violent crime orchestrated by what are loosely called criminal gangs. More of the same laws do not, however, constitute an effective solution.
To announce an intention to legislate in the manner done by the Government on Tuesday creates an illusion of action by appearing to put shape or legislative form on the fears - including the imagined fears - of ordinary people. But does anyone seriously believe that this will prevent criminal gangs from doing what criminal gangs exist to do or that an effective response to this is impeded by the absence of such laws?
What has happened in the four months since the passing of the enormous Criminal Justice Act 2006 that had been in gestation for years to change everything? Will a "tiger kidnapper" desist because an offence has a new name or carries a longer sentence or because his due process rights have been further curtailed?
In a rare instructive moment on one of the recent focus group exercises broadcast by RTÉ, a group of people - almost all of whom admitted to having no personal experience of crime - indicated that it was one of the most important issues facing the country in the coming election. When pressed on this by the presenter, members of the group were reduced to suggesting that it must be important because the media seemed to attach a lot of importance to it!
It is deeply disappointing that politicians who once aspired to being radical instead of redundant do not see this kind of anomaly in the dynamic of public opinion as an opportunity for radicalism. It is sad that they don't lead by isolating the root causes of crime, applying radical solutions instead of pandering to the second-hand fears of those who admit to having no direct experience of crime.
The general public might well be more open to such radical alternatives if there existed a political platform where leadership as an alternative to "followership" on the issue of crime was practised. This would, of course, prompt predictable howls from macho political opponents, but there is a constituency out there - probably a minority - desperately waiting for a rational contribution to the debate on real as opposed to perceived crime.
If one wishes to apply a benign perspective to why politicians ignore this minority in preference to the easier alternative it might be that they are genuinely motivated by a concern for "victims".
However, if that were the case, much more would have been done by now in the area of criminal injuries compensation, victim advocacy in trial processes and the less glamorous area of restorative justice.
None of the measures contained in the latest crime package address the interests of victims in any meaningful way. If anything, they constitute an insult to the lived experience of crime victims and are likely to generate, through misapplication, another category of victim.
So are those of us who still believe in quaint concepts like the presumption of innocence, supported by a right to silence, the libertarians that time forgot?
Are we naive to believe that the price of extended detention for hardened criminals, in terms of personal freedom or temptations towards police abuse, is too high?
Is it now no longer a matter for debate to suggest that due process is as important as crime control in any balanced system premised on the rule of law?
What lies at the dark heart of opportunism animating the package announced on Tuesday is a cynicism about the value of misunderstood civil liberties. Some of the public may well be more discerning than their political servants perceive. Threats to democracy come in all shapes and sizes. It's not just the threat without, posed by the criminal underworld, that needs to be watched. The confusion of populism with democracy is also a threat within.
• Donncha O'Connellis dean of law at NUI Galway