Liz O'Donnell
Question:5 Ms O'Donnell asked the Minister for Justice the progress, if any, that has been made towards the introduction of a comprehensive treatment programme for sex offenders; and if she will make a statement on the matter.
Ceisteanna — Questions. Oral Answers. - Treatment Programme for Sex Offenders.
Mary Harney
Question:22 Miss Harney asked the Minister for Justice the progress, if any, that has been made towards the introduction of a comprehensive treatment programme for sex offenders; and if she will make a statement on the matter.
Liz McManus
Question:64 Ms McManus asked the Minister for Justice the total number of prisoners serving sentences arising from sexual offences in the State; the number currently undergoing an approved rehabilitation programme for sexual offenders; the plans, if any, she has to ensure that such a programme will be made available for all sexual offenders; and if she will make a statement on the matter.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 5, 22 and 64 together.
There has been a considerable amount of public comment on the subject of sex offending. The concern which gives rise to this debate is understandable. Some themes which keep coming through in relation to the treatment of sex offenders, however, are, I believe, based on error and I want to comment particularly on this matter.
While we must obviously do everything possible to encourage sex offenders in custody to mend their ways, it would be quite wrong to give the impression that treatment programmes represent some sort of panacea. All experience and the best professional advice indicate that the following propositions are true: first, sex treatment programmes must be voluntary — a compulsory treatment programme is a contradiction in terms.
Second, the international experience in this respect is that only a small percentage of sex offenders, perhaps as low as 20 per cent have a prospect of benefiting from treatment programmes. No treatments that are known and acceptable are likely to succeed in changing the behaviour of a great many of these offenders. This has important policy implications in terms of education, custodial provision, and so on. It is clearly necessary to bear in mind that the whole question of sex offending and of treatment raises issues well outside the prisons context. The law and order system intervenes when the tragedy has already occurred. We need to know more about causative factors and about preventative possibilities. The very positive developments in the education field in this regard are of great importance. It is especially important that people who are rightly concerned about the problem should understand that treatment for offenders inevitably comes late in the day and that it has substantial limitations.
The third point is that there is no advantage in rushing a treatment programme for sex offenders into operation and sacrificing quality for speed. It is worth taking the time necessary to study the options because no single approach is guaranteed to provide sure fire results.
As to the specific issues raised by the Deputies, there are approximately 200 offenders serving sentences for sex-related offences — in other words, the figure now amounts to about 10 per cent of the prison population.
Sex offenders have access to a wide range of medical, psychiatric, psychological and welfare services in the prisons. One of the primary objectives of the prison system is to provide prisoners, including sex offenders, with such help, guidance, counselling, education and training as will enable them to live a constructive law abiding life in the community on release. This rehabilitative objective is extremely difficult to realise in practice, but I believe that we should never cease trying to achieve it.
With regard to the introduction of a more specific treatment programme for sex offenders, I have endorsed the work of a special group in my Department which carried out a detailed study of possibilities. The group was asked to advise whether there may be available a programme or programmes of treatment which will be practicable, deliverable, sustainable and susceptible to proper evaluation at all stages and which will be effective and cost efficient. The group published its report last July. I have accepted its recommended approach and commenced the process of putting it in place.
I have appointed a special steering group within the Department to direct the delivery of the programme. Two programme leaders have been appointed — one senior clinical psychologist and one senior probation and welfare officer. An extra psychologist has been recruited to my Department to facilitate this arrangement. Arbour Hill Prison, in which the programme will operate, must be fully supportive and all staff there will be given a special course to prepare them for the programme. An information leaflet for offenders has been prepared and given to prisoners in Arbour Hill to make them aware of what is proposed and this will be followed up with a series of explanatory talks.
The research and groundwork have commenced, the resources have been allocated and it is the intention to commence delivery of the therapy next spring when the support systems and training are in place.
What is proposed has the best prospects of achieving optimum results with sex offenders. A great deal will depend on the commitment put into it and on the determination to devote sufficient resources, including adequate research facilities, to it. I am confident that it will be at least as successful as any equivalent programme being pursued elsewhere.
I thank the Minister for her comprehensive and positive response to a very important question. In relation to the Minister's comment that approximately 20 per cent of paedophiles in particular respond to treatment which, of necessity, must be voluntary, is it not important when a judge is deciding a sentence for a sex offender that psychiatric evidence is given as to the likelihood of that rapist or paedophile reoffending? This is taken into account by judges when deciding whether to impose a determinate or life sentence. Is psychiatric evidence provided in relation to whether the particular sex offender will reoffend?
There is no written rule or regulation that the judge is obliged to request such evidence but my understanding is that in a great number of cases the presiding judge requests it. That practice should be encouraged and, in answer to a further question tabled to me, I may be able to indicate certain changes in relation to the Judiciary generally in this whole area.
Why was the Arbour Hill pilot scheme abolished in 1991? Why was that scheme, which was very successful and which worked quite well, not developed further? Will the Minister confirm that in regard to any representations she receives for the release of sex offenders, she will take the advice of the probation and welfare service within her Department before she authorises such releases?
The answer to the second part of the Deputy's question is yes. In relation to the first part of the question, the pilot programme in Arbour Hill was just that, a pilot programme. It worked on the basis of the ideas of people in the probation and welfare service and in the psychology and psychiatry services attached to the prisons. It worked successfully for a period of time and then came up for evaluation. As a result, having consulted a number of groups who had concerns in this area and taking cognisance of the views of Members of this House, I set up a group who subsequently made recommendations which I accepted.
We now have the steering group which is responsible for the delivery of the proposed service and it is important to ensure we do not sacrifice quality for speed. It would be easy to put a programme in place tomorrow morning but there would be no guarantee it would be the correct programme. The level of training necessary for the prison staff, the level of necessary support from prisoners and the appointment and training of additional staff is very important if we are to put in place a programme that will be at least as good as programmes available in institutions such as Arbour Hill.
I have two questions for the Minister. First, if the Minister is saying that only 20 per cent of sex offenders are likely to benefit from therapy, is she saying 80 per cent are beyond rehabilitation and likely to commit the same or similar offences again, given the same circumstances, when released? Second, in relation to the programme which, thankfully, will begin in the spring of 1994, what is the assumption about participation in that programme? For example, is it assumed that a particular percentage of sex offenders will participate in that programme, or that all of them will participate, and on what basis has the level of resourcing for that programme been struck?
The level of resourcing will be based on the maximum number of sex offenders, in other words, that all of them would participate. However, as I said at the beginning — and I think Deputy O'Donnell in particular accepted — it would have to be a voluntary treatment programme, anything else would be a contradiction in terms. Therefore, there is no way in which we can say to each sex offender that he must participate in the programme. Leaflets have been prepared and given to each sex offender in custody. In addition, that will be followed up by a number of preparatory talks with prisoners to explain to them what would be involved in the kind of treatment programme we intend putting in place. With the special training of staff in prisons we hope they will be able to positively advise prisoners-offenders to participate in the programme — on a voluntary basis. I should say that the figure of 20 per cent has been taken from statistics available worldwide. That appears to be the level of success of programmes such as the one we are putting in place in Arbour Hill. Of course, that does not mean the remaining 80 per cent will reoffend immediately, or in the future, but neither can we say that the 80 per cent will not do that. What we are saying simply is that a treatment programme, such as that we are putting in place in Arbour Hill, has already been in operation in a number of countries worldwide. Most particularly the pioneering work on this is undertaken in Vermont in the United States and in a number of custodial places in Canada, in particular, where the experience has been as I explained. Apart from that I hope — as I am sure most Members do — that all sex offenders will take part in that treatment programme and that it will be highly successful. Perhaps the percentages here will be better at the end of the day.
Given that there is such a high propensity among sex abusers and paedophiles to reoffend, will she agree that a life sentence would be more appropriate rather than a determinate sentence in that, in cases where a life sentence is imposed, the State will have control over that offender for a longer period rather than a determined one, ensuring that a prisoner would be released only when the Minister or his or her advisers considered they were no longer a danger to society?
It may well be that a life sentence might be more appropriate in certain cases than a determined one for a set number of years but, as Deputy O'Donnell knows, it is a matter for the judge of the court to take a decision. The Law Reform Commission will incorporate in its report a number of suggestions in relation to changes in the law in regard to sentencing policy. I very much look forward to receipt of that report because the recommendations will need to be incorporated in our laws as soon as possible. Certainly I am determined to do so.
Perhaps it is appropriate at this stage to say that quite an amount of focus and public attention has been devoted to the question of judicial training in recent months, particularly arising from a number of high profile cases which raised issues of concern in the public mind. While it is not appropriate for me to comment on any specific case I should say that, as a result of that public comment, I sought and received funding from the Department of Finance for the specific purpose of judicial training. I have made that funding available to the Chief Justice, who responded in a very positive way. I understand that he, with all the judges, will be taking certain initiatives in the not too distant future in relation to that overall area, which I welcome.