The Gazette 1983

APRIL 1983

GAZETTE

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

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.