WE ARE a paradoxical nation. Only a few months ago this State was asked to vote yes in a referendum to alter the bail laws. In purely democratic terms, one notes that access to basic information in order to make an informed choice was denied to the Irish public.
Since the referendum, however, much has changed; so much has been said about crime, law and order and the issues relating to basic humanitarian conditions for prisoners. Much of the "debate" about crime has been emotive, contentious and unnecessarily polarised.
The Irish Penal Reform Trust is about to take its first step to end this self-defeating polarisation. Michel Foucault, the French philosopher, has said "prisons are the darkest region of justice". The trust believes that no society can claim to be truly democratic unless it exposes this darkest region to public scrutiny.
By constructively doing this, it would embrace a holistic approach which would be concerned with the causes as well as the results of crime. Like it or not, prisons belong to society; they do not exist apart from it. It is our responsibility to see they work properly. This responsibility can only be actively ours if mechanisms of transparency are built into the system as surely and as sturdily as the walls surrounding our prisons.
In that regard, the Minister for Justice is to be congratulated for taking the initiative in facilitating recent media attention into and about our prisons. But will it last? Not unless we all lay claim to a penal system that is explicitly defined by principles of human dignity.
This is nothing to do with being "soft on crime" - quite the opposite. In reality, the present system is soft on crime. For example, the revolving door phenomenon allows approximately 50 prisoners who have not served their sentence to be released on a daily basis. Despite the inability of The Joy (the current RTE series) to portray the daily tensions in prison, its strength is the convincing portrayal that Irish crime is characterised by social exclusion.
No prison system can be accountable without public acknowledgment of the deprivations associated with crime. This is why the trust's belief in prison rehabilitation programmes should be seen, not as a "soft" option, but as an essential attempt to reduce crime while addressing basic social inequalities.
The trust also puts forward the view that less crowded, humane and imaginative prison regimes are better workplaces for prison staff. Nobody wants prisons to be palaces, but officers have a tough job, particularly in prisons like Mountjoy. They deserve to work in better conditions.
Our present prison system is a shocking failure. Furthermore, there is a grave danger the new Prisons Board might be expected to act as a panacea for all the prisons' evils. The very most it can do (and this will be against all odds) is to insist explicitly on the creation of a culture of accountability and a new effective management system.
The trust believes that a truly just penal system should strive to respond to the needs of both victim and prisoner. Community sanctioning services for all but the worst offenders are one of the best (and most cost effective) measures in this regard.
The trust is organising a conference tomorrow and delegates will hear how certain community-oriented approaches actually work.
Mr Tim Newell, governor of Grendon and Springhill Community Prison in England, will outline how community-based prisons work. Ms Mariette Horstink from the Netherlands will describe the best and the worst of a probation system that refuses to lock the door and throw away the key, while Mr Rod Morgan, of the University of Bristol, will provide an insight into the forces fuelling the politicisation of law and order.
For those who refuse to polarise the crime debate, the conference, "Is Penal Reform Possible?", is a day of hope: hope that we can all benefit from the experiences of other countries and groups who have tried more constructive and innovative ways of treating offenders and victims than perhaps this country has.