St Patrick’s Institute - damning report by Inspector of Prisons

coolhull

jugger0 wrote: »

Who cares about prisoners, put them in a cell with some hay, feed them a bowl of porridge everyday, nothing else... no visits no recreational time, make prison hell so nobody wants to go there. If they re-offend hang them.

So do you reckon that's what should have happened to the Birmingham 6, Guildford 4, Annie Maguire, Nicky Kelly and countless others who served time in prison for crimes they did'nt commit? Are you related to King Herod?

Gee Bag

GalwayGuy2 wrote: »

Is that there's many cultural and social issues at play in Scandinavian countries. You can't just say, "Hey let's do what Sweden does, that'll work". Or the dreaded "Hey, we have oil. We're exactly like Norway".

Thats a fair point TBH. Not everything they do is perfect and there are indeed significant social and cultural differences between us and them.

That said, I do think we need to do a lot to reform our juvenile detention system. Had a quick read of that report and it is pretty dire.

Turkey is a fairly good example of a country with a justified reputation for having appalling prisons that has made serious efforts to reform its Juvenile justice system in the recent past with pretty impressive results.
http://www.unicef.org/ceecis/UNICEF_JJTurkey08.pdf

I'd reckon that Scotland is the country we are probably most similar to culturally and socially. They have an excellent juvenile system compared to England/Wales or Ireland.

billybudd

They wont invest in these mostly troubled youngsters because they have no hope for them and they know they will reoffend and be back in SPI or mountjoy or one of the other jails on a continuous basis.

Its a backward mentality and one that has been shown up countless times here, in the UK and the states.

But the government dont give a **** for one reason: no one else does.

Just another scum bag, no point looking under the surface :rolleyes:

davet82

Nodin wrote: »

I think it's a better bet to try something that has shown results, than to try something that hasn't.

I agree the irish system clearly isn't working so why not try something new

hatrickpatrick

Brutal Deluxe wrote: »

I don't see the problem honestly. If they manage to get themselves thrown in there for being little feckers, I don't care.
It's not like you'll go there for accidentally kicking a ball through a window.
Only person I knew to be in there was one lad for breaking into a few houses; judge told him if he saw him again (he was previously done for nice things like stealing cars and being out of it on coke/dealing it) he'd be going there. Fair enough the judge stuck to his word.
Came outta there he did and was still the same and said he had a great time in there.

To deny that there are absolutely retarded reasons youths get sent to prison, such as smoking a bit of dope for example, seems woefully ignorant to me.

hatrickpatrick

Greenmachine wrote: »

I don't see what the racket is with a 17 year old being in the same prision as a 21. What a pile of nonsense. Denied visits, so what. Actions have consequence, If a young child misbehaves you put them on a naughty step. A older child you might ground them for a week, not let them see their friend. Can't see anyone being appalled by that. Why the fuss over the little toe rag. Sure everything is someone else fault but theirs. "Guards are scum" etc. They just seem to perceive every slight, as an attack, on their precious rights.

Keep them in pat's, give them access to shrinks, and smash their deluded sense of victimization.

Jesus Christ are you actually serious, being totally isolated from family is no big deal?
Boards depresses the living sh!t out of me sometimes. You're making the entirely incorrect assumption that every minor who gets sent to detention has committed a violent crime, and without provocation. You talk as if miscarriages of justice don't happen in this country and as if we don't have a whole crapload of ridiculous laws which shouldn't even exist at all. Technically speaking a young person can be sent to prison for something as silly as having a can in public, possessing a few roman candles for a halloween party or having sex with his (also underage) girlfriend.

People like you are the same kind of people who would probably have advocated the death penalty for people like the Guilford Four and accepted the assertions of guilt from the establishment without question. It makes me sick. :mad:

greecy_joe

davet82 wrote: »

I agree the irish system clearly isn't working so why not try something new

the way the goverment looks at theese things is

if a lid can be kept on crime so that broadly speaking , its not intruding on the average citizen - voter , they wont bother spending any more on it , its irrelevant if a certain number of people ( who migh otherwise with a bit of help make solid citizens ) end up falling through the cracks , thats not to say you simply let people go when they commit serious crime but its naive to think the goverment are up at night wondering how to eradicate crime completley

its the same principal which applies to opressing people in various parts of the world in order to maintain a steady - cheap supply of fuel to the wealthy west , only a tiny number of tree hugging hippys give a crap about nigerians or iraqis being marginalised by shell or halliburton

marcsignal

davet82 wrote: »

I agree the irish system clearly isn't working so why not try something new

I agree too, there is a need for change. I have to say I have little time for them, but treating them like animals is not the way forward. So how about a system not unlike this ? The re-offending rate is only 3%.

Ok, the obvious considerations apply, these youngsters are not soldiers, for one, but I still don’t see why it’s not possible. There would of course be some changes to adapt the model for civil law. It’s not a concentration camp, there are services provided for those with drug issues and mental problems, but there are very strict rules regarding general behavior, responsibilities, visitors behavior, and prohibited articles.

If you break the rules you will be punished, end of story.

If many of these young offenders feel they are lacking direction ? then a prison system like this will be, imo, where they have a better chance of finding it.

Let’s not f*ck about here, these lads are 16+, they’re not children. If they’re capable of beating the shit out of a pensioner and stealing her money, they are not children, imo. So they don’t need hugs. In many cases, I’d guess, they just need a good boot up the hole and learn themselves some self respect. They have no hope of ever having it for anyone else until they do.

jugger0

Nodin wrote: »

Funny, the approach you outlined seemed rather technology free. You might explain what you mean there.



America is harder, yet even more violent.

As in the technology used in convicting people, rarely you'll get an innocent person in jail, also television and the internet could be used to show people what to expect should they commit crimes, 24 hours 7 days a week in the same small room with no contact from anyone...

Americas prisons are a joke, drugs and gangs are rife, executions are very rare.

Nodin

jugger0 wrote: »

As in the technology used in convicting people, rarely you'll get an innocent person in jail, also television and the internet could be used to show people what to expect should they commit crimes, 24 hours 7 days a week in the same small room with no contact from anyone... .

...don't see what that has to do with anything. The fact is that what you describe was the norm in the 19th century. It did no good, and caused a great deal of mental illness. It's been tried and it's failed.

Death and Taxes

Brutal Deluxe wrote: »

Nope, I don't. Considering what it takes (or from the people I know that have been hauled up in court many times for all sorts) to get in there, I don't see a problem.
I see a problem with the justice system. But like I said, my only knowledge is based on my own experiences. If you're being locked up for doing something most would consider a minor crime, it's a problem to me then.

You completley miss the point, imprisonment is the most serious sanction the state can impose, it is the withdrawal of a persons liberty, not a licence for the state to bruatise,intimidate, or torture any person.
For your information, we used to have an even harsher system, a system involving hanging, flogging,deprivation and guess what it didn't work!

jugger0

coolhull wrote: »

So do you reckon that's what should have happened to the Birmingham 6, Guildford 4, Annie Maguire, Nicky Kelly and countless others who served time in prison for crimes they did'nt commit? Are you related to King Herod?

Keeping them in a room until they are cleared of their crimes, is it really that bad? harden up.

jugger0

Nodin wrote: »

...don't see what that has to do with anything. The fact is that what you describe was the norm in the 19th century. It did no good, and caused a great deal of mental illness. It's been tried and it's failed.

Like i said, with today's technology capital punishment could work a lot better then the 19th century, i can see rehabilitation being used in some cases but rapists, child molesters and serial killers deserve death and agony.

conorhal

Nodin wrote: »

You didn't read the report then, I take it. Or note that this is the third over a 25 year period to recommend action be taken about the place.

The report seems long on complaints by prisoners but short on any kind of explanation for the treatment they received.
On the surface, a 17yr old given 23hrs of solitary confinement seems extreme, but the reason for it is wholly absent in the report. Was it for 'talking back? Was it for bringing drugs into the institution? Was it for stabbing a fellow prisoner?
The context is missing, and the context is kind of important. In this case the ombudsman simply assumes that solitary for a juvenile offender is never justified and that may not be the case.
I agree on one aspect of the report, rehabilitation is necessary and education is the key to unlocking many doors that these offenders find themselves behind . To that end I’d suggest more creative sentencing by judges. For example, if you don’t have a junior cert or a leaving cert you will remain in detention until you get a passing grade in either.

homerjay2005

good enough for them, judging by the amount of people who reoffend, the prison system is far too soft and lads who go in there, just dont get roughed up enough.

suicide_circus

Given how difficult it is for your average violent thieving scumbag to see the inside of a cell, hundreds of convictions, probation act, useless judges etc we can safely assume that these youngfellas are scrotes of the highest order. Now that dosnt excuse abuses but i imagine officers were driven to it by these lads, as someone else said where's the context?
I know someone who works in an institution for young offenders and the abuse staff receive is intolerable; assault, death threats, spitting etc
If the lads keep the head down and make an effort, none of this would happen to them.

Equality

Someone asked if there is a solution.

Free, quality pre-school, from about two years of age, was found to reduce the likelihood that a young man from a poor familiy would go to prison (in an American study).

The problem with this solution is that it is expensive, because you must offer it to all families. If you offer it only to the poor, then there is a stigma attached, and those who need it most are reluctant to accept it.

Regarding the prison, it is seen by many young offenders as their 'university'. It is where you make the connections and friendships that will be of benefit in your future career. (The same thing happened every time the Irish republican prisoners were imprisoned/interned - they came out of the prison camp more committed to 'the cause' and better educated.)

Nodin

homerjay2005 wrote: »

good enough for them, judging by the amount of people who reoffend, the prison system is far too soft and lads who go in there, just dont get roughed up enough.

A wonderful bit of well reasoned argument. We might as well close the thread now.

marcsignal

homerjay2005 wrote: »

good enough for them, judging by the amount of people who reoffend, the prison system is far too soft and lads who go in there, just dont get roughed up enough.

The re-offending rate is high, I agree, but beating the shit out of them for the hell of it won't work. You just end up with a brutalised and dehumanised scumbag coming out the other end.

With the system I suggested here (or a civilian adaption of), they are thought to be responsible for themselves and their own actions. They must be given a set of rules, and suffer the consequences if they break them.

For many it will be a crash course in adulthood, and they should begin by working to pay for their keep. That's the way it is in the real world, and we all know it. If they don't carry out their duties, they get no privileges, end of. ALL privileges must be earned.

Put them in an environment where they are rewarded for good behavior, but at the same time, nothing should be considered a 'given'.

When they understand this concept, they will be in a better position to take on real life, in the real world when they get out. There is nothing in this idea, as far as I can see, that will infringe on their human rights.

Remanada

Thing is, horrible as St Pat's is (and I was not at all surprised to hear this, institutions like that are built in such a way that it's very easy to get away with abuse of inmates) is could be worse. I know that sounds like a terrible thing to say, not to mention a piss-poor argument, but bear with me:

St Pat's is effectively a juvenile prison. However, it is to my knowledge (correct me if I'm wrong) the only one of it's type in the country. The population is about 35 at any one time, the inmates are 17+, and have racked up hundreds of convictions by the time they arrive at St Pat's. Generally.

Now, I'm not saying "They're scumbags, they deserve it.", what I'm saying is St Pat's is (or certainly should be) the last resort, not the first. There are certainly more than 35 kids in trouble with the law at any one time, but long, long before any of them see this "dreadful prison" to quote the Ombudsman, more humane, more rehabilitative, and more effective measures are taken. And generally, they work. That's why St Pat's has only 35 inmates.

The idea of being "soft" on crime is abhorrent to most people, particularly anyone who has been a victim of crime, but if I could compare the situation to that in the United States for a moment (yes, I know everyone likes to bash the US, but it's the example I know most about) where incarceration, while not the first resort for wayward teens, is much higher on the list. A teenager does not have to be nearly as bad to get locked up there as he does here. Juvenile facilities range in severity from state to state and by type of offence, but the most severe are effectively adult prisons with underage inmates. The most severe form of punishment is segregation, where inmates are kept alone in a small cell for 23 hours a day, shackled hand and foot for the brief time they're allowed out, observed constantly, and generally denied visits or contact with anyone but guards.

Many people who have already posted on this forum would advocate such harsh treatment, or harsher, not because it is in any way reformatory (it is provably not) but because it is gratifying. I would argue against it, not because it is cruel (though I personally think it is) but for the much more valid reason that it is a massive waste of time and resources.

People often claim that our justice system places more priority on the needs and rights of the offender than the offended. This is probably true. The question we must ask is: Do we want a justice system that punishes offenders appropriately, or which reduces crime? Can't we have both? It depneds what we think is appropriate. After all, we might argue that the punishments meted out by the Scandinavian justice system (which is known for it's efficacy) are not appropriate. But the Scandinavians might argue otherwise.

Do we want a country where crime is harshly punished or one where it doesn't happen? It's been said we care too much about the criminal and not enough about the victim. What if we don't care about either? What if we based our justice system not on what we think is "right" and "wrong", concepts that are arbitrary and changeable (it was once considered "right" to hang petty thieves. Who's to say it won't be "right" again one day?) but on what is empirically proven to work? Yes, criminals might "get off too lightly", but can that really be true, if it's also safe to walk the streets at night? Let God give every man his due, I just want a quiet life.

But I've already said I think our juvenile justice system is fairly good on this count, by the low number of inmates in St Pat's. Could it be better? Of course it could. If the HSE could, for example, learn to tie it's shoelaces, and if Garda outreach programs could be given more resources and qualified staff rather than being judiciously cut then St Pat's might be shut down. Not because it's an abusive hellhole, but because it's not needed.

marcsignal

Good post Remanada.

I wouldn't be against a Scandinavian type system, but our obvious cultural differences, as has already been pointed out, must be considered.

Education is a key factor here. I would argue that your average Scandinavian teenager, from the lower end of the socio economic scale, is better educated than his/her Irish equivalent, because of the school system, and social services there. Potential problem children are given the assistance they need at an early stage, in areas like truancy etc. Parents are expected to bare the responsibility where it is relevant. Too many kids here slip through the net, and some parents just don't care, sadly.

Remanada

marcsignal wrote: »

Good post Remanada.

I wouldn't be against a Scandinavian type system, but our obvious cultural differences, as has already been pointed out, must be considered.

Education is a key factor here. I would argue that your average Scandinavian teenager, from the lower end of the socio economic scale, is better educated than his/her Irish equivalent, because of the school system, and social services there. Potential problem children are given the assistance they need at an early stage, in areas like truancy etc. Parents are expected to bare the responsibility where it is relevant. Too many kids here slip through the net, and some parents just don't care, sadly.

An excellent point. Keeping people out of prison requires an entire social system to work. Putting them in jail requires only a jail.

steddyeddy

Guys many of the people in St.Pat's are under 18. Some of them are basically kids. If you read the full report it says many of them come from a background full of physical, emotional and/or sexual abuse. A lot of them dont know better and many didnt have the chances we take for granted.

A damning report by Inspector of Prisons, Judge Michael Reilly, found offenders at St Patrick’s, aged from 16-21, stripped naked as a punishment, bullied, denied visits, on 23-hour lock-up and restrained in head locks.

The above isnt good enough. We have a terrible history or not listening to our children. The state failed many of these children (Im not saying all of them) early in life. As the report said many lived in horrific conditions and went to disadvantaged schools. This is the time to catch them and give them the help they might need.

Greenmachine

Yes and plenty of them will use this excuse again in their 20's and 30's.... ad naseum.

steddyeddy wrote: »

Guys many of the people in St.Pat's are under 18. Some of them are basically kids. If you read the full report it says many of them come from a background full of physical, emotional and/or sexual abuse. A lot of them dont know better and many didnt have the chances we take for granted.



The above isnt good enough. We have a terrible history or not listening to our children. The state failed many of these children (Im not saying all of them) early in life. As the report said many lived in horrific conditions and went to disadvantaged schools. This is the time to catch them and give them the help they might need.

steddyeddy

Greenmachine wrote: »

Yes and plenty of them will use this excuse again in their 20's and 30's.... ad naseum.

Its not an excuse. You dont think childhood abuse is likely to affect a teenagers life?

Remanada

Greenmachine wrote: »

Yes and plenty of them will use this excuse again in their 20's and 30's.... ad naseum.

First, their youth, histories of abuse and neglect, poor life chances, and the state's incompetence in caring for them aren't excuses now. They're in jail. You might have heard.

Second, the state does have a terrible record of caring for children. People like to rant about how much the church abused the children in it's care? Well, guess who put them in the church's care? And never bothered to oversee them afterwards, in fact ignoring complaints from priests who were brave enough to speak out about the mistreatment in industrial schools? And then loudly denounced the church while never acknowledging any blame themselves?

In fact, the state has barely gotten any better. Kids are still going missing from HSE care, or turning up dead, and there are more than a few 20 and 30-somethings wandering the streets of Dublin today because they were unlucky enough to turn 18 without being taken in by a foster family.

Third, no one's born bad. I've only done one year of undergrad psychology, and even I can tell you which side of the nature/nurture argument wins. Even complete psychopaths (incidentally, that's something you're born with, you don't become one) can be decent, productive citizens if they're raised properly.

There are only 35 kids in St Pat's and you can be sure they're the most mistreated, neglected, and unlucky kids in Ireland. Are they also bad kids? Yes, of course they are, that's why they're in there, but why are they bad?

I've never been arrested. I've never committed a crime. Why? Well, I had had parents who loved me, and who could afford to look after me. Who were educated themselves and made sure I got the best education possible. They were able to afford grinds for me in my Juniour and Leaving Cert years, and then they could afford to send my to college. There's a word for all this, it's luck. I didn't deserve any of this, I was just lucky.

I'm not "better" than any of the kids in St Pat's. All I am is luckier. To suggest I had the same chances as any of them of ending up in there, and I didn't because they're bad and I'm not, is drivel. And anyone who simply dismisses them as "little scumbags" who deserve their mistreatment in there is a fool.

marcsignal

You see, I'm kind of torn on this issue. The problems are multi factorial imo. It's clear education is key, but how do you get a child to attend school when in some cases his/her parents couldn't give a toss.

At a young age, you will look up to your parents. If your parents are involved in crime/drugs/abuse alcohol, or have mental issues themselves, then it's a downward spiral for the child if there is no intervention.

I lived with a divorcee in Germany for a year, who had 2 kids (12 and 9) yrs. One day, they (and their mates) shot up a lamp outside a neighbour's house with airsoft guns. The neighbour complained to the police.

The next day, social services arrived at our door. They had full power of access to the house, and even demanded to see my details (passport etc) to check out who I was, what I was doing living in the country, and in the house. They also discreetly sussed out the condition of the house for evidence of drug or alcohol abuse.

My gf had to produce all of the kids school reports and was interviewed about their general welfare.

It came to nothing, and they were let off with a warning, but these people had full powers to take the children away, had they deemed it necessary. Having said that, in Germany that rarely happens unless there is strong evidence of neglect, and if that evidence is there, it's nipped in the bud in other ways.

On the other side of the coin, last Saturday evening, at about 17:30hr, I witnessed a group of about 15 young teenagers go on a rampage through Terenure, throwing wheelie bins into the middle of a main road, and kicking car wing mirrors off, for the craic. They were eventually intercepted by police, but only after causing hundreds of Euro worth of damage to property.

Where tf are their parents ?? and will they ever get to hear about what their little darlings are up to ? or worse still, will they even give a shit???


It's a tough call. Finding the right balance is not easy. I'm not going to try to pretend for a minute that it is, but finding some way to instill a sense of respect, and self respect into these kids is a must.

J_E

It's so upsetting to see the attitudes of some of the posters here. Honestly, is there a shred of humanity to be found in some of you?