OPINION:There is evidence that prisoners repay displays of trust with reduced recidivism
THE TEMPORARY release of a significant number of prisoners every Christmas has been a defining characteristic of the Irish prison system.
In the past this was accompanied by an annual amnesty for a select group who were nearing the ends of their sentences. On several occasions – usually to mark a major religious event – more general amnesties took place. For example, prisoners were released to celebrate the Eucharistic Congress in Dublin in 1932, the Holy Year of 1950, the canonisation of Oliver Plunkett in 1975, and the visit of Pope John Paul II in 1979.
However, there has been a steep – and sudden – decline in the granting of this privilege. This is a display of mean-spiritedness that has gone unremarked.
On average, between the early 1960s and the mid-1990s around one in eight prisoners were allowed home to celebrate Christmas. There were some bumper years from a prisoner perspective, such as the record number of 390 in 1995. This seems to have marked the end of an era, with the numbers falling thereafter against the background of a rising prison population. In 2005 there were 280 Christmas releases, and by last year this had fallen to 176.
Figures due to be released over the coming days will show whether this trend has continued. If it has gone into reverse it will be important to establish whether this is driven by resurgent rehabilitative priorities or the pressures caused by overcrowding.
The Department of Justice has explained the fading popularity of Christmas release in terms of the unavailability of suitable prisoners, putting it down to the “more dangerous type of criminal” serving time.
This explanation carries little force as temporary release is only ever given to prisoners who are assessed to be at low risk and are generally in the latter stages of fairly lengthy sentences, sometimes in prison conditions from which they could walk away if they chose to do so. Also, the bulk of those jailed each year receive short sentences for minor offences and they could be released as before without placing the public at risk.
If the official account is unpersuasive, what explains the downward shift?
Part of the explanation lies in the emergence of a more diverse prison population, including a greater number of prisoners on remand (who are ineligible for temporary release) and from overseas (who may lack the requisite community contacts). But it may also indicate a punitive turn within the criminal justice system.
The willingness to exercise discretion in favour of prisoners and their families says something about the emphasis a prison system places on trust. It is a more eloquent expression of faith in the individual’s capacity to rise to expectations than any mission statement or set of performance measures. It takes a confident system to stress the compassionate possibilities of justice and the potential redemption of offenders.
That this practice appears to be quietly disappearing is a cause for concern. It is possible that a Government which has lost its room for manoeuvre in many key areas might be tempted to flex its muscles in one of the few spheres where it can still make an impact – the treatment of one of the least popular segments of our society.
There are precedents in other countries of governments pursuing a law and order agenda when they find they can control little else. Cracking down on convicted criminals gives the illusion of firm leadership and deflects attention from more pressing problems.
It is likely that a public preoccupied with economic survival will have little sympathy for prisoners. Why worry about those whose predicament is their own fault when we are all innocent victims of the actions of others?
But there is evidence that prisoners repay displays of trust with reduced recidivism, something that it is in all of our interests to foster.
Studies of temporary release schemes internationally show that, properly targeted, such initiatives can enhance public safety by preparing prisoners to re-enter society and lead law-abiding lives.
Burgeoning prisoner numbers and evaporating public finances create an opportunity to come up with fresh and economical ways to deal with the age-old problems of crime and punishment.
It would be a small consolation if the economic downturn forced the adoption of a more magnanimous approach to those in the custody of the State; a group of our fellow citizens whose interests require careful safeguarding at the best of times.
A return this Christmas to the idea that even those we like least can turn their lives around given the right circumstances would be a good way to start.
Ian O’Donnell is professor of criminology at UCD