103 / 346
GAZETTE
APRIL 1983
local knowledge — their knowledge of previous offenders
whose pattern of crime is similar — so it is hardly
surprising that those more likely to get caught are those
who have been caught before.
Roots of criminality
Of those the police prosecute — only one third are sent
to prison — but once again we find that judges have a
tendency to go easy on first timers and to send back to
prison those who have been there before — so each time
the sieve is shaken the core of people staying inside it are
those who are more likely to be firmly committed to a
deviant career and who are unlikely to respond to
rehabilitation insofar as that is designed to profoundly
change their way of life. About 6 0% of those sent to prison •
have been there before. If we add two other factors to that
it becomes apparent that the judges who send people to jail
to change and reform them and public who expect them to
be better people as a result of incarceration have little
notion of the real root problems which provoke criminality
as we define it. Those two factors are, one that the majority
of these repeat offenders are sentenced to six months or
less which often means weeks rather than months in
prison. Two, they are by and large from the lowest social
stratum, the unemployed, unskilled, ill educated, the
disadvantaged. The opportunities which exist for them on
leaving prison are almost invariably the same as when they
entered it. They have little in the way of work experience,
many are illiterate or semi-literate. The kind of work they
are equipped for, semi-skilled or unskilled manual labour
is in short supply even for those with no criminal record
and in any event tends to be insecure and seasonal. Let us
assume that on release from prison they are confronted
with a set of options — to go straight or to rob and steal.
Going straight may mean living on the dole. It means no
new clothes, no weekend drinking in the pub with your
mates, no holidays by the sea, no motorbike, no car, no
new tapes or records, no discos, no participation in sports
or clubs, no hope, no future, no part of the good life. Why
should we expect him to be satisfied with that?
If we are realistic we can without too much difficulty see
the advantages and attractions of a life of crime —
relatively easy money, power, fun, excitement, access to
the good life and if his conscience does bug him he can
neutralise its effect by pointing out to us, the goodies, the
moral majority, a number of areas where our thinking is
less than straight. We preach equality and equal
opportunity, yet one million people are consigned to
poverty and it is from these that our prisoners are
predominantly drawn.
.
There are those who do nixers, who pretend to be sick so
they can stay home and do the garden, those who abuse
expense accounts, those who abuse office privileges like
stationery and telephones and postal privileges. We have
managed to subtely redefine certain activities so that they
are seen as official perks rather than dishonesty and we
have created a society where the moral bind is weakening
gradually but perceptibly, where the cult of greed and self
is eroding traditional beliefs and values. Those of us who
have jobs know only too well the access to 'legitimate
dishonesty that most workers have in some shape or form,
and the immunity we enjoy from prosecution, yet those
who have no jobs, who live in slumbs or suburban morgues
are expected to display a level of honesty and satisfaction
with their lot we forgot years ago.
My contention is therefore that in relation to those
committed to a life of petty larceny and burglary, the
causes of their recidivism are rooted firmly in society and
its structures and are only incidentally related to the prison
experience. If we are seriously committed to the idea of
rehabilitation and of reintegration of the offender into
society then the answer does not lie in building bigger and
better prisons with bigger and better workshops and
training facilities but in accepting that there are two things
prison can do and does do well. It does punish — the
deprivation of liberty, the isolation from family and
friends, the lack of control over one's life are all in
themselves dreadful punishments, even under the most
caring, humane and enlightened regime. The second thing
it does well is that it contains people, keeps them out of
trouble for whatever period, successfully. Any claims over
and above that are unrealistic, and it is about time we gave
up talking about them.
That does not mean to say that we should accept a harsh
and rigidly disciplined prison model undiluted by attempts
at education or worktraining provided we see the
rehabilitative role of the prison as only a tiny part of what
is required if this offender, this human being is to live in
the centre rather than on the fringes of our community,
then the confusion, resentment and frustration often felt by
prison officers to the whole notion of rehabilitation is
understandable. Prison officers have in the past in this
jurisdiction and in others, been accused of standing in the
way of prison reform. They wanted to hold fast to the good
old days of militaristic regimes whose sole concern was
control and containment and which did not suffer from
crises of identity or confusion about role and expectations.
All too often the transition to correctional and
rehabilitative models from the simple custodial model, has
been achieved in a hamfisted way in the course of which
prison officers have perceived their authority being
undermined, their influence dwindling and their territory
growing smaller as other personnel entered the prisoners
l i f e . . . the social workers, welfare officers, teachers.
Recruitment into the service too has changed radically
with more and more experienced personnel being
recruited whose main function is to train and educate
rather than to lock up. So we are seeing the development of
two strands of officer type. The changes the prison system
has undergone over the last decade in particular must have
had profound effects on you the officers who have been in
the front line of change. Some officers particularly those
who work in the 19th century institutions like Mountjoy
and St. Patrick's must realise that the bones of the work
they do has not altered radically since the 1850's. Others
have been able to participate more fully in a more
contemporary role, but overall no attempt has been made
to cope with and resolve this role conflict — indeed much
that has happened may have made it worse. It is time that
we focussed some attention on this area of the penal
system so that those who are the frontline implemented of
penal policy have a clear idea of their role and more
important have a decisive input into the development of
that policy.
I do not believe as Clemmer does or did, that prison
officers are men who by "dominance over a helpless group
are able to tackle their egos and obtain some satisfaction
through the power of their authority, who are imbued with
a spirit of retaliation towards inmates and who believe that
the essential purpose of imprisonment is incapacitation".
95