Sir, - There have been many recent calls for the provision of more prison space. One of the questions that should be asked, when debating this issue, is: do we make the best use of existing prison accommodation and the money that pays for it?
I was recently contacted by a woman who was sentenced to one month in prison for contempt of court, arising from a very emotional custody and access dispute. She was not legally represented in court, nor was the probation service involved. While the judge was perfectly entitled to do as he did, the question must be asked if this is the sort of person who should be behind bars?
In 1986, the Committee of Inquiry into the Penal System, under T. K. Whitaker, recommended that "imprisonment should be imposed only if the offence is such that no other form of penalty is appropriate, and normally, only after consideration of a full social inquiry report . . . from the Probation and Welfare Service". A reading of the Whitaker Report would not go astray on those who advocate punitive (and expensive) responses to crime.
Those of us who advocate keeping prison exclusively for the most dangerous criminals are usually dismissed as "bleeding heart liberals" who are "soft on crime". I completely reject this type of ill informed labelling.
Over the past five years, the Northside Inter Agency Project (of which I am a team member) has provided weekly group therapy sessions for 30 young sex offenders and their parents. This work has been effective: none of those who completed the programme has been charged with committing a new sexual offence. There was no extra cost to the State. However, to keep these young men in prison, for one year, would have cost in the region of £1.5 million.
Those who play politics with crime - by calling, unthinkingly, for more and more prisons - may gain voter sympathy but do next to nothing to reduce the crime levels. - Yours, etc.
Editor,
Irish Social Worker
Pearse Street,
Dublin 2.