The Government's constitutional proposal to extend the grounds for refusing bail to persons accused of serious crimes, has been approved by the people and will form the basis of new legislation, once signed by the President. The turnout of voters in the referendum was low, reflecting a combination of confusion, apathy and uncertainty on the part of many citizens as to where the balance of interest lay.
But of those who did go to the polls, a decisive majority voted for the amendment. And the scale of that majority, especially in some rural areas, reflected a feeling of vulnerability and a sense of concern over the incidence of crime. Nor can there have been much doubt from the beginning that with the support of all the parties in the Oireachtas (except the Greens) the amendment was virtually certain to pass.
There should be no lingering doubts about this decision. It enables Irish law to be brought into line with other jurisdictions. It will give the community an additional weapon in controlling the incidence of serious crime. It will save many persons from becoming victims of violence. It will probably save lives.
Those who opposed the amendment nevertheless have done a considerable service. For we got, arguably for the first time, something that approximated to a real debate on Irish criminal justice policy. Many of the inherent contradictions in the system were highlighted; the fatuity of the revolving door traffic through the prisons; the failure to provide proper programmes for drug addicts; the non enforcement of existing provisions on bail and many others.
The campaign also highlighted the paucity of research and scientifically based information on the causes, scale and possible remedies for crime which might be applied in this society. Generalisations flew thick and fast in the debate, with statistics of doubtful provenance, and none, being invoked on both sides of the argument. A figure of 80 per cent of Dublin crime is cited as being drug related. It seems highly improbable if drugs were eliminated from the scene, that Dublin's crime rates would drop to a fifth of what they are.
The airing of these issues, coincidental with the Judge Lynch debacle in the Department of Justice, must surely serve to convince the public that this is an area in which the State is scarcely on top of its responsibilities. The Minister for Justice, Mrs Owen, has worked mightily and improvements will flow from many of her decisions. But she has made no attempt to put in place anything that resembles a policy for the future - in the sense that it would be understood in other areas of State activity. Nor has there been any commitment to research of the kind which would be - the norm in ministries abroad.
This Government is chasing after the problems rather than getting ahead of them. The referendum has brought wider issues into focus. But it would be wishful thinking to imagine that the political will exists to look beyond tomorrow. The people made the right decision on bail. But those who recognised in the referendum, firstly, a need by the politicians to be seen to be doing "something", will be proved correct.