IT is to the credit of the Department of Justice that it allowed the media access to its jails and prison officials in recent weeks.

But it is to the shame of successive governments that the story to be told is one of perpetual crisis resulting from appalling mismanagement and lack of planning.

There are positive aspects to the prison service which should not be overlooked, but the overall picture is truly dreadful.

We have prisons for four reasons to punish offenders, to keep them away from the rest of us, to deter potential offenders from criminal activity, and if possible to rehabilitate those who might be turned away from crime.

Generally, our prisons system fails in a significant way on all four counts.

The overcrowding problem dominates everything. Offenders are punished by being locked up, but overcrowding means most are detained for a much shorter period than the courts or their victims expect. A high recidivism rate coupled with these early releases increases the number of crimes committed, against law abiding citizens, so the obligation to protect society is not fulfilled.

Large scale early releases diminish the deterrent effect - most criminals know that if you do the crime, you'll probably do less than half the time. And the early releases also damage such attempts at rehabilitation as exist, by disrupting schooling band work programmes.

During the series of visits to our prisons one compelling statistic kept cropping up seven out of 10 prisoners had been in jail before. This reflects the reconviction rate rather than the recidivism rate, which must be higher.

Unfortunately there is little qualitative research to allow us to use the significance of this reconviction rate - the 70 per cent figure lumps the full time, career criminal with the man who has committed two car thefts 10 years apart. Nonetheless, the reoffending rate is clearly higher than it might be if a properly resourced and planned prison service existed.

THE overcrowding leads to what prison officials term the "tyranny of numbers", whereby up to 50 prisoners are set free daily to make space for the 50 new ones sentenced by the courts. A few releases may bed "planned" but most, it is freely admitted, are prisoners being let out so other convicts can have their bunks.

Meanwhile, there is a constant shuffling of prisoners between prisons - vans run back and forth to Mountjoy or Cork or Limerick or to wherever there is an empty cell. Coping with overcrowding dominates the management of the prisons and leaves little time for planning, or assessing the effectiveness of the system.

The gardai are catching more and more criminals, the courts are convicting them, the Department of Justice is releasing most of them too soon and many are committing new crimes when they get out. Can this properly be called a criminal justice "system", or is it simply madness, with a harp at the top of the page to make it look official and organised?

The Department knew all this would be apparent when it opened the prison doors. It has two responses. It says the building of new prison spaces, bringing the total prisoner population up from 2,300 to about 3,000, will relieve some of the "tyranny of numbers".

And it points out that many of society's crime problems can only be properly tackled at source - with resources and jobs being found for those living in deprived areas who are most likely to embark on criminal careers unless they can be diverted when young.

In a few areas the system does succeed. Murderers are kept away from the rest of us for an appropriately long time, while sex offenders do not enjoy early release. And Britain and Ireland are undoubtedly safer places with 40 IRA men and other paramilitaries behind bars in Portlaoise.

Within the prison service there was much to be admired. The prison governors proved to be articulate and strong willed. The teachers running classes appeared very committed to their difficult jobs, and many prison officers appeared to be genuinely concerned about the prisoners.

Outsiders often forget that it is not simply a question of locking up prisoners and forgetting about them, except at meal times.

A prison population has to be managed, much as a workforce has to be managed, and the tension which can result from severe overcrowding seems to be controlled only by the careful endeavours of those running each institution.

There are anomalies within the system. Most drugs are passed to prisoners in the visiting area, and in the main prisons physical contact between visitors and prisoners is banned. But Mountjoy - with the highest level of drug abuse - more relaxed about of this rule than Cork Prison, where breaching it leads to visits behind screens.

While all prisons have education programmes, prisoners have varying chances of getting a place in a class, depending on which institution they are in. The governors were at one in wishing for more resources for education.

AND there is clearly not enough effort directed at reforming sex offenders, considered among the worst recidivists. There are 10 places a year on the main therapy scheme for, a sex offender population of 250 or more. Officials say only 40 applied to join the scheme last year, and perhaps only 20 are ready for it. But the shortage of places surely means the idea of joining the programme is not promoted in the same way as if there were spaces for everyone.

If the overcrowding problem can be tackled and the current building programme may be no more than a useful starting point - a few priorities should be established.

The most obvious would be to ensure that small scale, young offenders are kept away from more serious criminals. At present they can mix, and the career criminals undoubtedly influence those young prisoners, who might yet be turned away from crime. The core of prisoners who will always be criminal, no matter what attempts are made at rehabilitation, should not be allowed to inhibit rehabilitative efforts with the rest.

It also makes sense to try to separate drug addicts from other prisoners. A jail with an emphasis on all types of drug treatment, and an appropriate regime in the visiting room, should be a priority.

Anyone suggesting that the required resources are not available; might examine how money is spent within the service. The prison officers overtime bill last year was £18 million, and it has been consistently high for many years.

This is defended with arguments about the constant need for court escorts and the constraints of the public service recruitment embargo. But is there any private sector business which would allow that scale of overtime, year after year? Only taxpayers would tolerate it.

A Government appointed review group is preparing a report on how the Government's promised "independent" prisons board should be set up. This is a rare opportunity for a change of direction. The key will be the level of independence allowed. If the new board is not genuinely independent of the Department, the change will be cosmetic and worthless.

Only new ambitions, and some new ideas, can give hope for the future.