The Gazette 1984

75 / 322

INCORPORATED LAW SOCIETY OF IRELAND
GAZETTE
Vol. 78 No. 3 April 1984
In this issue
Comme nt 67
Office Au t oma t i on — The Society's Comp u t er
Wo r k i ng Party 69
Executive Editor: Mary Buckley
Editorial Board: Charles R. M. Meredith, Ch a i rman
J o hn F. Buckley
Ga ry Byrne
William Earley
Michael V. O ' Ma h o ny
Maxwell Sweeney
Advertising: Liam O hOisin, Telephone 305236
Printing: Tu r n e r 's Printing Co. Ltd., Longford
T h e views expressed in this publication, save where
other-wise indicated, are the views of the contributors
and not necessarily the views of the Council of the
Society.
T h e appearance of an advertisement in this publication
docs not necessarily indicate approval by the Society for
the product or service advertised.
Published at Blackhall Place. Dublin 7.
Comment . . .
. . . My Neighbour's Keepers
THE first report of the Dáil Select Committee on
Crime, Lawlessness and Vandalism is welcome, not
only as an indication that the new Commi t t ee system is
seen to be productive but also because the report has
focussed on a topic of immediate public concern — the
prevention of crime.
The Ne i g h b o u r h o od Watch system, the introduction of
which the Commi t t ee recommends, has its recent origins
in the United States where since its introduction in the late
1970s it has already met with remarkable success. There
a r e r e p o r t e d ly 8 0 , 0 00 N e i g h b o u r h o od Wa t c h
p r og r ammes in operation in the United States and there is
clear evidence that the crime rate in various communities
operating the system has d r opp ed significantly. The
introduction of the system came as a result of the recogni-
tion that the ordinary citizen could not lock himself away
in his fortress-home and require the State, through its
police force, to provide him with protection without some
participation by him in the preventive process.
The introduction of a Ne i ghbou r hood Watch System
must not be seen as an endorsement of vigilante groups.
While it is appreciated that in some cases frustration with
the apparent inability of the Ga r d ai to cope with the
problem of drug-pushing has led law-abiding citizens to
form such groups — and apparently rid their
communities of these merchants of death — the dangers
inherent in such unofficial groups have already
manifested themselves.
Such systems will not, by themselves, eliminate crime
and would in no sense be a substitute for adequate
policing. Hopefully, however, they will reduce the
a mo u n t of s p o n t a n e o us o p p o r t u n i st crime a nd
vandalism. Once the need for the citizen to involve
himself in this area of crime prevention is seen, and seen to
be beneficial, it may encourage greater participation by
the citizen in other activities devoted to the reduction and
elimination of the causes of crime.
Some might question the choice of the Finglas area of
Dublin for the introduction of the first pilot scheme in
Ireland. Perhaps the choice of other longer-established
communities in the City such as Dr imn a gh or Bally-
fermot, where there is already substantial evidence of
c ommun i ty spirit, might have been more appropriate. It
would be a pity if the scheme were not to be seen as
successful in its first test merely because an area admitted
to have its own special difficulties had been chosen as the
locus for the test.
A minor caveat: it must be questioned whether, in these
days of acronyms, the name Civilian Observation Patrol
is the best that could be chosen for the Irish version of the
Ne i ghbou r hood Watch. •
67