I beg to move the following amendment:—
To delete all words after the word "that" where that word first occurs and substitute the words "an inquiry into the laws and regulations governing prison treatment is desirable Seanad Éireann requests the Government to appoint a commission to consider and report what changes, if any, should be made.
I had, perhaps, two main reasons for handing in this amendment. In the first place, I did not like the wording of the motion which seemed to me to place far too much emphasis on one aspect only of the question of possible prison reform. Secondly, I do not like the wording of the motion in so far as it virtually says that solitary confinement is inhuman and, therefore, indefensible, but that the Minister may be inhuman and indefensible for 24 hours. I am perfectly certain that was not intended. I give that as an illustration of why, first of all, I conceived the idea that if this matter was to be debated it should be debated on a very much wider aspect. Now, the terms of the amendment are not perfectly satisfactory because they had to be related to the motion. The amendment would probably have been worded quite differently if it had been brought forward apart altogether from the original motion. Another reason for putting down the amendment was this: that I have felt for many years that our whole prison system requires examination, and that many reforms could be made which would be to the advantage not only of prisoners but of society generally.
Now, the death in prison of a hunger striker, to which considerable reference has been made by Senator Duffy, has awakened interest in prisons and in prison systems, an interest which has been long dormant. This regrettable occurrence raises several questions. Some of them, perhaps most of them, are of acute difficulty. To my mind they are clearly the responsibility of the Executive of the day. The question of the treatment of political prisoners and the question, what class of prisoner is to be regarded as a political prisoner, are not questions which, to my mind, can be settled by any regulation. These will always be questions which will have to be settled by the Government in power at the time and in the light of the circumstances of the time. If the public do not approve of the action of the Government in a particular case the only remedy is to vote against the Government on the first available opportunity. It seems to me that in this country, and in every other country, the treatment of political prisoners will, by the very nature of things, always be a political issue. I cannot see how it can be otherwise. What may be regarded as a serious political crime under one set of circumstances may be regarded as a patriotic act under other circumstances. Acts which our people, rightly or wrongly, believed to be patriotic when this country was ruled by Great Britain, when it was struggling for its independence, would be suppressed with the utmost vigour of the law if directed against our own elected Government.
My amendment does not deal with the recent events at Portlaoighise Prison except in so far as every prison would come under review if a commission were set up. I do not propose to discuss any further that particular case. It was the subject of a somewhat bitter debate in the Dáil. The Government has accepted full responsibility, and I cannot see that any useful purpose would be served in discussing it again in this House to which the Government is not responsible for its executive acts. I would like, however, to see the interest which has risen in this case focused on the whole problem of penal reform, because I believe if that were done permanent good may come out of it.
My interest in this problem did not arise suddenly this year. After the Treaty was signed I felt that one of the problems which should be tackled in the early years of the State was that of our prisons. I felt that we had a large number of persons with experience of prison conditions whose character and integrity could not be questioned, and that that was an opportunity that should not be lost. I discussed the matter with the late Michael Collins. In connection with the Constitution, I saw him once or twice every week. I believe that, if he had lived and were in power, a commission would have been set up years ago. The Civil War, and other difficulties which I do not want to discuss now, prevented anything being done around that period, but I think the time has now come when action might be taken. A commission appointed now could get to work in the autumn. There is still a large number of persons alive whose evidence would be of value. If it is put off indefinitely, the value of their experience may possibly be lost.
It may be said that this is not the time. It may may be argued that the criticism of the Government in connection with Seán McCaughey has been so bitter that to act now would be a sign of weakness. I respectfully disagree—I think it would be a sign of strength and wisdom, and might direct the mind of the public from the purely political issues involved to the real problem which is that of the wisest and best treatment that should in the interests of the community at large be given to prisoners whether their crimes be regarded as political or not. This is not a party political issue and should not be allowed to become one. The Taoiseach stated in the Dáil that, if there was an impartial examination and a comparison with the systems in other countries, it would be found that the prison system here compared favourably with that in any other civilised country. Possibly he is right—I am not going to dispute his statement, but there are very many people in the country who do not believe it might apply in certain States of America or New Zealand.
The kind of commission that I would like to see set up should certainly be open-minded and impartial, but it would not be for the purpose of reporting on whether our prisons were or were not as good as in any other country, but rather to examine the whole problem of the treatment of persons who had been deprived of their liberty because they had broken the law. The public generally knows very little about prisons and there are people who believe prisons to be places where terrible tortures are inflicted on the unfortunate inmates by callous officers. I have also met people who believe or say they believe that prisons are more or less luxurious establishments in which worthless offenders are petted and pampered at the public expense and the undoubted fact that a number of persons go back to prison, time after time, is quoted as proof. Neither of these points of view is true but they do illustrate the general ignorance of the prison system.
I am not sure if the term "prison system" is not really a misnomer. There is, of course, a system in the sense that there are elaborate rules and regulations applying to all prisons. With certain modifications, these are what we took over from the British Government. The Acts of Parliament which govern our prisons are British Acts, most of them passed many years ago. This does not mean that they are necessarily bad or necessarily unsuitable, but I imagine it does add to the suspicion which is more or less widespread.
The fact is that the prisons here are manned by our own officials. My own experience of prisons is rather limited, but I would have a very large degree of confidence in our present prison governors and I expect that the commission would be guided very largely by officials who have had experience of prison administration for 20 years, as well of course, as by persons who have been in prison.
If we ask ourselves how our prisons came into being, what they are supposed to accomplish, how far they attain their objectives, very few of us could give rational or satisfactory answers. The fact is that prisons here and in England have been the growth of centuries and that very little attempt has been made to work out any consistent theory as to the objects for which prisons are maintained or the purposes they are intended to serve.
In his speech in the Dáil the Taoiseach referred to soft-hearted persons who easily forgot the crimes that have been committed. He may possibly include me in this category, because I do believe that once the State deprives a man of his liberty and takes him out of society, it must accept some responsibility for his moral and physical welfare. But, although I hold this view, I, nevertheless, believe that the interests of society are paramount. The protection of society is more important than the welfare of an individual, and it is largely because I believe that our present methods of prison treatment do not protect society as it could and should be done, that I advocate the setting up of a commission and the consideration of possible changes and reforms. Every year in Britain and Ireland persons of dangerous anti-social tendencies are released, not because they have been cured or even improved, but because the sentence pronounced by the court has come to an end.
It is not easy to define in a sentence or two what should be the object of imprisonment. In a general way, I would say that prisons exist primarily for the protection of society and for the maintenance of order. The secondary object is the punishment of persons who cannot or who will not obey the laws of the State which are in effect the rules of the society in which they live.
In a memorandum submitted by the British Home Office in 1930 to a Select Committee of the House of Commons it was stated:—
"It is an accepted principle of modern prison administration that imprisonment is itself the penalty, and that it is not the function of the prison authorities to add further penalties day by day by punitive conditions of discipline, labour, diet and general treatment."
I think this is true, and I believe that the real deterrent lies in the fact that even under the most favourable conditions, the convict is deprived of everything that a free man calls and regards as life.
The old idea sung by Gilbert of making the punishment fit the crime has disappeared — the object nowadays should be to make the punishment fit the criminal so that that use may be made of the period of imprisonment to change his anti-social outlook and to bring him into a more healthy frame of mind towards his fellow citizens, so that when he leaves prison he will not become, after a few weeks or months, a danger or at least a nuisance to the public.
To my mind the main function of a commission should be the consideration of how best our prisons may become a better and more effective protection to the community. In so doing they will have to consider how far it is possible to train prisoners in citizenship and to help them in the task of self-rehabilitation.
It is not necessary, or perhaps even appropriate, in moving a motion for the setting up of a commission to discuss in detail the subjects likely to come up for consideration, and if I were to do so I would take up more of the time of the House than would be fair having regard to the limited time available. I propose, therefore, to indicate only a few of the subjects which I think might be considered. Perhaps the strongest case against the general prison system to-day is that it is not constructive. It takes criminals of every type and treats them in very much the same way. It matters not whether a man is a thief, a drunkard, a child assaulter, a political offender, a debtor, a forger, a bigamist or is guilty of manslaughter. In essentials they are dealt with alike. A prisoner is in jail because he has broken the law. Many crimes are clearly immoral —others are simply a breach of the rules which, rightly or wrongly, society regards as being essential to its stability and its welfare. It seems to me absurd to treat all offenders alike, with little or no regard to the extent to which their offences are breaches of the moral law. And, if reform is to be one of the objects of prison treatment, it is clear that different types of treatment will be essential for different types of prisoners. I could speak at length on this subject but I have indicated what is in my mind.
Closely allied to this is the question of prisoners with short sentences. The English Prison Commissioners have reported that the short sentence is an outstanding defect in our penal system and creates difficulty in prison administration. In 1930, over 21,000 persons were sent to prison in Great Britain for a month or less. This figure included over 12,000 for a fortnight or less. I have not any figures for this country nor have I any more recent figures for Great Britain, but I think that the number has been considerably reduced following an Act passed in 1936 in Great Britain which deals with the payment of fines and other sums. It is called The Money Payments (Justices Procedure) Act. It is not difficult to see that the presence of a number of persons who have only come in for a few days is an impediment to the development of a sound system of prison training. It has been suggested that no sentence should be less than three months, as this is the shortest period which is likely to benefit a prisoner. Whether this is practicable or not, I do not know but I would like to see it examined. I would like to abolish imprisonment as an alternative to the payment of a fine. It has a tendency to favour the well-to-do and it also adds considerably to the cost of our prison system. I would like to see the establishment of a work centre where a person unable or unwilling to pay a fine could be sent and kept until a sufficient sum had been earned to pay the fine. It might be possible to use such a work centre for persons who, under present conditions, would be committed to prison for non-payment of debts or non-payment of maintenance or bastardy orders and the like. In 1930, 13,000 persons were sent to prison in England under civil process as debtors and over 2,000 were imprisoned by courts of summary jurisdiction for non-payment of rates or taxes. I have no figures for this country.
Habitual beggars might, possibly, also be sent to a work centre for compulsory labour for a period. I fully recognise that the creation of such a work centre or centres presents many difficulties but it is surely a matter which might be usefully examined by a commission. Another difficult problem is that of the treatment of persons who have been sent to prison again and again. Clearly, the present system has failed in such cases. Prison authorities say that, when a man is in prison for a second term, the prospect of his returning for another term is increased and that the tendency increases with every subsequent imprisonment. One possible remedy might be an indeterminate sentence. I believe that this is possible under the law in New Zealand and I understand that, in some states in the U.S.A., courts are permitted to impose the maximum sentence for the particular crime and that release then depends on the opinion formed by the prison authorities as to the prisoner's likelihood of good social behaviour in the future. That might be open to abuse in certain cases.
I am rather inclined to think that the indeterminate sentence may be the best remedy for persons who simply will not conform to the demands of society, as expressed by law. This is at present the method adopted in the case of mental defectives and it may be that it would be the best way to deal with certain other cases whose presence in society may be a danger, such, for instance, as persons convicted of assaults on children or other sex offences. The question of release might, perhaps, be dealt with, on the evidence of the governors of prisons, by a permanent committee, consisting mainly of judges, which would meet every three months. That is, however, a detail.
But, if the indeterminate sentence is to be adopted, it would require many safeguards and it could only be a success if our prisons were equipped for the effective correction and cure of such persons and if different classes could be wisely segregated and given suitable treatment according to-their needs.
The problem of solitary confinement which, I think, was over-emphasised by Senator Duffy also requires examination. I was under the impression that the period of solitary confinement was restricted to a very short period under prison regulations, but it appears from statements made in the Dáil that I was wrong. The effect of solitary confinement varies greatly with different persons. The Taoiseach stated in the Dáil that he had been in solitary confinement and I can well believe that, with a person of his education, it might not do permanent harm. But with persons of a certain type, I can well believe that long periods of solitary confinement might seriously upset their mental balance and render them not fully responsible for their actions.
Before we talk too wildly about solitary confinement, it should be borne in mind that a great prison reformer, Elizabeth Fry, advocated solitary confinement as a method of getting away from the abuse whereby prisoners of the same sex were huddled together in a room under appalling conditions. The single cell system was the result of her efforts and those of John Howard. Of course, a thing which is desirable at one period may become an abuse. There are many other matters to which I could refer but I shall not take up the time of the Seanad. I think that I have said enough to show that a commission should be set up to inquire into our prison system. That might be done now when there is general interest in the matter, including interest on the part of many people who have no sympathy with the particular case. It could turn what is an unfortunate occurrence into what might be extremely useful. I honestly believe that the Government would be wise in doing as I suggest. The commission could not get to work until the autumn. I think I have said sufficient to show that, if a commission were set up, it would not lack useful subject matter for consideration.
