emerging human rights problem in prisons

GarlicBread

http://humanrightsinireland.wordpress.com/2010/04/26/governor-of-dochas-centre-resigns/

Yesterday the govenor of mountjoy womans prison Kathleen McMahon, resigned due to deteriorating conditions at the facility.

She made the following points -

-overcrowding, leading to unstability and tention
-prison guards ignoring management and not accountable
-prison guards coming and going when off shift and somtimes being alone with prisoners(very worrying sign of potential abuse)
-disturbingly high numbers of women being imprisoned for non violent offences such as drugs or debt.

"The prison service was “afraid” that media coverage of the Dóchas Centre suggested the regime was too relaxed. She believed a decision had been made to introduce a more punitive regime involving holding as many women as possible in an already overcrowded centre." (quote taken from irishleftreview.org)

This policy will create more overcrowding and will lead to dramatically increased gang culture, bullying, suicide, drug abuse, staff corruption and other awful things.

Worst of all is the majority of women locked up are only in there because our laws are slow on reform. One woman is in prison for failure to pay a credit union loan. You also hear of people in jail for TV licences and other trivial things. That could be anyones mother/sister/daughter hurled into the environment mentioned above, which is shocking when you think about and especially when you consider our current economic disaster. The war on drugs is another contributing factor which is clogging the system with people who dont deserve to be locked up in such conditions.

The mens prisons are in a worse shape. A committee member for a visiting group to mountjoy men's facility said that the conditions are horrific with up to 2-3 or more locked in one cell. The overcrowding has resulted in gangland culture being established.

The core issue here is prisoners, no matter what the offence, are in vurnerable situations open to all kinds of abuse and have very limited means of having their voices heard or getting help. Imagine sleeping, eating, tolieting and living on the floor in a small cell packed full of 4 people with no privacy and infested with cockroaches and other bugs. Sounds like somthing out of a Thai prison? Nope, thats life in Ireland 2010 for many people.

I would not wish that existence even on somone i hated. The punishment is being locked up and having your life taken away and its not supposed to involve any other form abuse.

If there isnt urgent action and reform, then in the coming decades we will be reading 'ryan' style reports about how we left vunerable people fester in what many cases would be third world conditions. Sure, there are many people who do deserve to be behind bars, but do we really need to inflict misery on them?

There are indications that there is idealogical reasoning behind the grim situation and it may not be all down to underfunding, stuctural or reform issues. If the dept of justice is using the overcrowding to intentionally cause worse and worsening conditions and act as a deterrent to crime it is an outragous strategy of institutional abuse.

Please leave a comment if you are against the continuation of such negligent policies.

http://humanrightsinireland.wordpress.com/2010/04/26/governor-of-dochas-centre-resigns/

dsmythy

The prison chief rejects her claims.

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/prison-chief-hits-back-after-governor-quits-womens-jail-2153625.html

The Corinthian

GarlicBread wrote: »

Yesterday the govenor of mountjoy womans prison Kathleen McMahon, resigned due to deteriorating conditions at the facility.

This would be the prison that a former inmate described, yesterday on RTE, as being just like a hotel.

-disturbingly high numbers of women being imprisoned for non violent offences such as drugs or debt.

Custodial sentences are not solely for violent crime, last time I checked. Indeed, what sentience would you suggest for dealing heroin? Maybe a fine may be sufficient for non-payment of, err, fines?

sparkling sea

Went to see both both prisons a couple of years ago and Mountjoy mens prison was like a throw back to the mid 1800's - I was really shocked.
The cells are tiny, there were no toilets in the cells just pots, in the mornings men who had been locked up all night lined up to empty their pots in to a toilet that had no door on it. There were 2 doorless toilets serving 53 inmates - I just couldn't believe it.

The female prison looked brillant when compared to the male prison, although that isn't saying much, Amnesty have for number of years pointed out that of system violates Human Rights.

Although the cost of sending someone to prison is very high and recidivism is a massive problem here, figures show 3,366 people were jailed in the first 10 months of last year because they refused to, or were unable to, pay fines eg parking fine, road traffic offence and non payment of television licence fines.

Ultimately, despite the general public scepticism about the benefit of imprisonment as a response to most criminal activities, there appears to be an absence of sufficient political and judicial will to maximise the use of alternatives to imprisonment.

sparkling sea

The Corinthian wrote: »

This would be the prison that a former inmate described, yesterday on RTE, as being just like a hotel.

She must have stayed at some terrible hotels if her expectations are that low.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Custodial sentences are not solely for violent crime, last time I checked. Indeed, what sentience would you suggest for dealing heroin? Maybe a fine may be sufficient for non-payment of, err, fines?

No but there purpose was meant to be for serious offences, the severity of the offence should be reflected in the severity of the punishment and all that reasoning that made sense and actually worked. Prison was never intended to be a norm for people it was meant to be the ultimate punitive sanction open to a society.

Fines imposed in the criminal court cannot be paid off on a weekly basis and have to be paid in a lump sum usually within a week. If a person can't pay it all they go to prison. This is a failure in the legislation and procedure which cost the tax payer hundreds of thousands each year - a fine which could be automatically stopped on a weekly basis would be more than sufficent but for some unknown reason this method has not been implemented in Ireland yet.

Again it has to be recognised figures show 3,366 people were jailed in the first 10 months of last year because they refused to, or were unable to, pay fines, all these people becoming a little desensitized to criminal justice system - and people wonder why recidivism rates are so high here. Also many surveys have found that the majority of Irish people do not think that prisons should be used for minor offences and would like to see non custodial sanctions applied.

As for heroin dealers - mandatory sentences exist here so no suggestions
are really needed.

GarlicBread

The prison chief was clearly on the spin. Pat kenny should have tried to roast him more. When questioned about off duty officer activity he didnt give an appropriate answer and i dont think he was even asked about why male guards were actively trying to get female guards out the facility to get more male guards in. Why would this be? Are they putting more male guards in to make the place harder or is there somthing more sinister going on? Either way i think it is highly suspect. Its well known that women in institutions are at a significantly higher risk of mistreatment than the rest of society. We have our own awful history of it in this country and we should be on guard against it from happening again. Suspect practices must be seriously scrutinized.

It has 'hotel' ascribed to it only because its not a ****hole and people can have a half decent standard of living there. Before it was built the conditions in womens prisons were such that people were commiting suicide and its going to return to that kind of environment because of overcrowding.

With regard to heroin, i think it is dangerous and can cause serious damage to society so yeah they should be strict about it with dealers, but putting addicts in prison for being addicts is very bad practice.

I dont know statistics about fines. People who just dont want to pay get what they get, but i would assume the bulk of the defaults is due to poverty.

Is it right that some poor person should have to sleep with insects next to their own crap so Pat Kenny can finance a second yacht?

The Corinthian

sparkling sea wrote: »

She must have stayed at some terrible hotels if her expectations are that low.

How do you know, have you spent time in the prison in question?

Prison was never intended to be a norm for people it was meant to be the ultimate punitive sanction open to a society.

Prison is not actually the norm, the vast majority of sentences are non-custodial.

Fines imposed in the criminal court cannot be paid off on a weekly basis and have to be paid in a lump sum usually within a week. If a person can't pay it all they go to prison.

Actually a court can direct that debts or fines be paid off in installments - I've seen it done in a number of cases. Problem arises when even as installments they are not paid. What then?

GarlicBread wrote: »

Its well known that women in institutions are at a significantly higher risk of mistreatment than the rest of society.

Do you have evidence of this 'well known' fact? My understanding is that were one to compare the men's and women's prisons at Mountjoy, the latter would be considered a virtual paradise.

It has 'hotel' ascribed to it only because its not a ****hole and people can have a half decent standard of living there.

I heard the interview and that is certainly not what she meant when she described it as such.

With regard to heroin, i think it is dangerous and can cause serious damage to society so yeah they should be strict about it with dealers, but putting addicts in prison for being addicts is very bad practice.

What do you suggest then? Stern language?

I dont know statistics about fines. People who just dont want to pay get what they get, but i would assume the bulk of the defaults is due to poverty.

Why do you assume that?

Is it right that some poor person should have to sleep with insects next to their own crap so Pat Kenny can finance a second yacht?

The women's prison was infested by insects? Where was this reported?

sparkling sea

The Corinthian wrote: »

How do you know, have you spent time in the prison in question??

Fortuntately, I have never spent time in either prison but I have as I previously stated been to both prisons - the first time was a few years ago when studying incarceration law. It was not like any hotel I have stayed in, Mountjoy mens prison being only what I would describe as hell.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Prison is not actually the norm, the vast majority of sentences are non-custodial.

Yes almost 90% of all cases are heard at District Court level - however incarceration was only ever intended for indictable offences and even at that serious indictable offence. It is the more overused then all other types of sanctions. It was never meant to the normative punishment which it is.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Actually a court can direct that debts or fines be paid off in installments - I've seen it done in a number of cases. Problem arises when even as installments they are not paid. What then??

It appears that you know little about this area - a court in Ireland cannot take installments for fines imposed in criminal cases. A new bill the Fines Bill 2009 has not become legislation yet so you have not seen it done accept in your dreams or the civil courts ( which cannot use imprisonment as a sanction) Below is the Bill just in case you need to clarify this

Bill Number 18 of 2009 - Sponsored by Minister for Justice Equality and Law
Status: New Bill
Bill entitled an Act to make provision in relation to the maximum fines that a court may impose in respect of offences tried summarily and certain offences tried on indictment; to provide that a court in imposing a fine upon conviction of a person of an offence shall take account of a person's financial circumstances; to provide for the payment of such fines by instalment in certain circumstances; to make provision in relation to the powers of the court where there has been a failure on the part of a convicted person to pay a fine; for those purposes to amend the Criminal Justice (Community Service) Act 1983 and the Courts (No. 2) Act 1986; and to provide for matters connected therewith

If fines could be paid in installements it would keep alot of people, over 3000 out of prisons, this in turn would benefit society in many ways including finanically

The Corinthian

sparkling sea wrote: »

Fortuntately, I have never spent time in either prison but I have as I previously stated been to both prisons - the first time was a few years ago when studying incarceration law. It was not like any hotel I have stayed in, Mountjoy mens prison being only what I would describe as hell.

I never said anything about Mountjoy men's prison, I was only repeating the description given by a former inmate of Mountjoy women's prison. Do not compare them.

I would note that there has not been much of a murmur with regards to Mountjoy men's prison, even though it is widely accepted that conditions there are several times worse than the women's prison.

Yes almost 90% of all cases are heard at District Court level - however incarceration was only ever intended for indictable offences and even at that serious indictable offence. It is the more overused then all other types of sanctions. It was never meant to the normative punishment which it is.

Are you suggesting that the courts are not following the law in their sentences?

It appears that you know little about this area - a court in Ireland cannot take installments for fines imposed in criminal cases. A new bill the Fines Bill 2009 has not become legislation yet so you have not seen it done accept in your dreams or the civil courts ( which cannot use imprisonment as a sanction) Below is the Bill just in case you need to clarify this

Fair enough, I was thinking of debts.

sparkling sea

The Corinthian wrote: »

I never said anything about Mountjoy men's prison, I was only repeating the description given by a former inmate of Mountjoy women's prison. Do not compare them.

I would note that there has not been much of a murmur with regards to Mountjoy men's prison, even though it is widely accepted that conditions there are several times worse than the women's prison.

Are you suggesting that the courts are not following the law in their sentences?

Fair enough, I was thinking of debts.

No I stated that I had been to both, and I will compare them if I like.

There is and has been for many years several representations on behalf of and by the prisoners of Mountjoy. The ECHR have found the conditions do not meet the standard and the Irish governemnt have been sanctioned. The Penal Trust and Amnesty have also laid severe warnings regarding conditions at the governemtns door.
The Irish Times had an article written by a member of the visiting committee outline the problems faced in Mountjoy on Monday.

The LRC and anyone with any knowledge in this area is suggesting that the courts have way to much discretion in this area, have drifted away from the purpose of imprisonment and are not using alternation methods. Methods which overwhelming evidence suggests work.

The Corinthian

sparkling sea wrote: »

No I stated that I had been to both, and I will compare them if I like.

Given the vast difference between them, I think it rather laughable that you do.

There is and has been for many years several representations on behalf of and by the prisoners of Mountjoy.

Yet, as I noted it has only become an issue to the wider public once the women's prison was cited.

The LRC and anyone with any knowledge in this area is suggesting that the courts have way to much discretion in this area, have drifted away from the purpose of imprisonment and are not using alternation methods. Methods which overwhelming evidence suggests work.

Sorry, but are you suggesting that the courts are not following the law in their sentences?

sparkling sea

The Corinthian wrote: »

Given the vast difference between them, I think it rather laughable that you do.

Yet, as I noted it has only become an issue to the wider public once the women's prison was cited.

Sorry, but are you suggesting that the courts are not following the law in their sentences?

Don't be sorry its OK if you don't understand.

Again as I said you appear to know very little about this area, so you are simplifying very complex issues and coming to inaccurate conclusions.

Even if the courts are not interpreting legislation with regard to sentencing,in reality there would be very little that could be done, given that they are an independent organ of the state.

The Corinthian

sparkling sea wrote: »

Don't be sorry its OK if you don't understand.

I understand that it looks suspiciously like it only became an issue for you when it involved a women's prison.

sparkling sea

The Corinthian wrote: »

I understand that it looks suspiciously like it only became an issue for you when it involved a women's prison.

As I have said Mountjoy is a hellhole, further if you reread the posts you will see I have been interested in prisons conditions for years. Jumping to inaccurate conclusions again - it only became an issue for me when women were involved - pathic.

This is a very serious issue involving peoples human rights - please dont threat it in such a trival way.

Sleepy

Wonder how long it'll be before a criminal successfully sues Ireland Inc over the sexual discrimination inherant in having a women's prison that's of a far higher standard than the mens?

I know it's the first tactic I'd use to ensure my family were provided for while I was incarcerated.

sparkling sea

Sleepy wrote: »

Wonder how long it'll be before a criminal successfully sues Ireland Inc over the sexual discrimination inherant in having a women's prison that's of a far higher standard than the mens?

I know it's the first tactic I'd use to ensure my family were provided for while I was incarcerated.

Although Mountjoy does not met European or International standards, there are several mens prisons that met a higher standard then the womens prison so there wouldn't be grounds for discrimination really.

Male prisoners in Mountjoy have taken cases to Europe (they would have gone through all the domestic courts first) on the grounds that the prison is not fit for purpose and the remedy they have requested is their freedom however although the ECHR agrees with the arguement, it does not agree with the suggested remedy.

The government have put forward the building of Thornton Hall as the remedy and this for all intent and purposes has been accepted.

The_Minister

sparkling sea wrote: »

No but there purpose was meant to be for serious offences, the severity of the offence should be reflected in the severity of the punishment and all that reasoning that made sense and actually worked. Prison was never intended to be a norm for people it was meant to be the ultimate punitive sanction open to a society.

What are you on about?

The penalty for a simple crime such as stealing was for centuries hanging.
Then transportation.
Then prison.

There has been a continual reduction of the seriousness with which crimes are treated. Prison was not meant to be the ultimate criminal sanction, it was a softening of our approach to criminals.
Prison was always meant to include people who refused to pay (although we abolished debtor's prisons), if the courts felt that they could but refused to.

Ideally people shouldn't go to prison for not being able to pay, but if someone has borrowed money, is able to pay but won't, should they just be allowed walk away?

sparkling sea

The_Minister wrote: »

What are you on about?

The penalty for a simple crime such as stealing was for centuries hanging.
Then transportation.
Then prison.

There has been a continual reduction of the seriousness with which crimes are treated. Prison was not meant to be the ultimate criminal sanction, it was a softening of our approach to criminals.
Prison was always meant to include people who refused to pay (although we abolished debtor's prisons), if the courts felt that they could but refused to.

Ideally people shouldn't go to prison for not being able to pay, but if someone has borrowed money, is able to pay but won't, should they just be allowed walk away?

I know this is so cliche - but the Minister you don't know your facts.
There was nothing simple about stealing, if a person stole a loaf of bread then they stole the sowing of the seed, the harvesting of the seed, the turning the seed to flour, the baking of the bread - all this was extremely hard work proformed by families who were dependent on the bread to stay alive. It was used to feed families and as a tool for bartering. that is why the sanction was so high. And this was pre modernity - no machines, evrthing was hard labour. You were also living in a fuedal, rural system, there is no comparision

Prison is meant to the ultimate criminal sanction open to a society, that why it should be applied carefully and for serious crimes only. There are many other sanctions which can be applied and are applied much more successfully then imprisonment - we should learn a lesson from other countries and no doubt we will, it will just take us much longer and cost us much more

The whole ethos of imprisonment changed in the early 1800's - the prison system was entirely reformed in the switch from a fuedal to social contract societies.

Further more people are imprisoned every year and for much more minor crimes - figures bear out this fact - your buying into the culture of fear.

Borrowing money has nothing to do with the fine that aren't paid, these are for road traffic offenses, not having a television licence.
It is not uncommon for people in Ireland to be imprisioned for not payment of a TV licence, and the fines imposed for not complying with a criminal court order still apply even if the defendant has been imprisoned.
There was a guy on Joe Duffy a month or so ago - it could have been 3 months or so ago - but he was imprisoned because he did not possess a dog licence and ignored 2 warnings to get one and did not pay the fine imposed by the court within the specified time which is usually within 7 days or so. He didn't have the money and wanted to pay in installements but the system does not allow for this so he went to prison for 3 days, this cost the country about €1000 - I think this is madness

3,366 people were jailed in the first 10 months of last year because they refused to, or were unable to, pay fines. This compares to 2,520 in 2008 and 1,335 in 2007. In the majority of those cases, people were jailed for non-payment of road traffic fines. As you can see we are sending more people to prison for more minor crimes - and this is very costly for the tax payer.

The Minister – what are you on about - Since 1995 the prison population rate has grown from 57 per 100,000 of national population to 78 per 100,000 of national population

Bottle_of_Smoke

sparkling sea wrote: »

He didn't have the money and wanted to pay in installements but the system does not allow for this so he went to prison for 3 days, this cost the country about €1000 - I think this is madness

How did it cost the state €1000?

sparkling sea

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

How did it cost the state €1000?

Irish Penal Reform Trust figures state that it costs just over €2000 to keep someone in prison for 1 week.

The yearly cost in 2005 was €90900 and it is suggested that there has been a 10% rise in cost in the past 5 years.

If a system was set up were criminal court fines could be paid this would create imployment and element the cost of incarceration in these cases. Over 3000 cases last year.

Kiwi_knock

@ sparkling sea: I agree that far too many people go to prison for minor offences such as non payment of fines. However is there any real alternatives in place to deal with them. If they do not pay the fines, what else can be done with them. I can not think outright of a practical alternative to prison for those who do not pay the fines.

GarlicBread

Kiwi_knock wrote: »

@ sparkling sea: I agree that far too many people go to prison for minor offences such as non payment of fines. However is there any real alternatives in place to deal with them. If they do not pay the fines, what else can be done with them. I can not think outright of a practical alternative to prison for those who do not pay the fines.

Its important to remember that fine defaulters, for whatever reason they default, do not under any circumstances deserve to be dropped into an abusive gangbanging environment, which is increasingly the scenario. Theres prob many other non violent offenders that dont deserve that either.

I heard they were releasing 12 low risk people and tagging them as a test run. Its not ideal but its a step in a more humane direction.

Bottle_of_Smoke

sparkling sea wrote: »

Irish Penal Reform Trust figures state that it costs just over €2000 to keep someone in prison for 1 week.

The yearly cost in 2005 was €90900 and it is suggested that there has been a 10% rise in cost in the past 5 years.

If a system was set up were criminal court fines could be paid this would create imployment and element the cost of incarceration in these cases. Over 3000 cases last year.

That would just be the total cost of of the prisons and divided by the number of prisoners/how long they stay.

That doesn't mean putting that guy in prison for three days cost the state €1000.

Putting this guy in prison probably cost the state nothing. They wouldn't have to have any extra officers called in to lock him up. The same amount of food would probably have been made in the canteen anyway. The amount of bedsheets washed every day probably averages out.

The average cost of a prisoner is a meaningless figure because the costs would be far higher at the likes of say portlaoise gaol where they have republicans and crimebosses housed making the average cost disproportionately high.

sparkling sea

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

That would just be the total cost of of the prisons and divided by the number of prisoners/how long they stay.

That doesn't mean putting that guy in prison for three days cost the state €1000.

Putting this guy in prison probably cost the state nothing. They wouldn't have to have any extra officers called in to lock him up. The same amount of food would probably have been made in the canteen anyway. The amount of bedsheets washed every day probably averages out.

The average cost of a prisoner is a meaningless figure because the costs would be far higher at the likes of say portlaoise gaol where they have republicans and crimebosses housed making the average cost disproportionately high.

No this is the cost of keeping a prisoner in a medium security prision and its based on the stock of prisoners as oppossed to the flow.

Bottle_of_Smoke

sparkling sea wrote: »

No this is the cost of keeping a prisoner in a medium security prision and its based on the stock of prisoners as oppossed to the flow.

So how would it cost an extra 1000 for one prisoner for 3days? Where does that charge come from?

Are you actually suggesting that if a prison had 250 inmates and then for three days had 251 the running of the prison would be an extra 1000 for those three days?

That's what's you're implying saying it cost the state an extra 1000/ If there's some reason this is the case i'll gladly eat my hat but I can't imagine what it would be.

sparkling sea

Kiwi_knock wrote: »

@ sparkling sea: I agree that far too many people go to prison for minor offences such as non payment of fines. However is there any real alternatives in place to deal with them. If they do not pay the fines, what else can be done with them. I can not think outright of a practical alternative to prison for those who do not pay the fines.

Fines once imposed could be broken down into installements and automatically stopped out of wages, dole, etc. The 2009 Fines Bill is likely to be signed into legislation this year.

In Sweden the mass media has not focused on the prisons, but on the police and other sectors of the criminal justice system. The numbers of police officers are higher - the number of prison officers lower.

In contrast with a number of other European countries, the prison population in Sweden, has remained rather stable during last 30 years. This was accomplished by the introduction of alternatives to imprisonment like civil commitment (1988), community service (1990) and electronic monitoring (1994). Drunk drivers, are granted alternative sanctions and BUT prisoners sentenced for serious crimes, are receiving longer sentences.

An example of an alternative is people who are charged with intoxication and public disorder are untagged to be allowed go to work or take part in community service, they are given a specfic amount time to come and go to work etc, but are tagged and are underhouse arrest for the rest of the time, they must also contribute towards the cost of tagging. In Holland these people must also attend civic responsiblity classes twice a week for one year.

In the case of non violent crimes - for example burglary - offenders must repay the cost of any damage caused and most also pay compensation for harm caused. Again the the victim through the state has an automatic right to this money and the state collects it - like PAYE - on behalf of the victim.

A huge problem in Ireland is the the closing of hospitals that threated mental illness coincided with an increase in the prison population. Prisons cannot serve as a substitute for hospitals and this issue also needs to be addressed.

People who commit serious crimes such as rape or murder are given long prison sentences, unlike in Ireland, they do not automatically get a 25% reduction if there is any mitigating circumstances, such as ill health, age, etc.
If you commit a serious crime you will receive a serious punishment.

sparkling sea

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

So how would it cost an extra 1000 for one prisoner for 3days? Where does that charge come from?

Are you actually suggesting that if a prison had 250 inmates and then for three days had 251 the running of the prison would be an extra 1000 for those three days?

That's what's you're implying saying it cost the state an extra 1000/ If there's some reason this is the case i'll gladly eat my hat but I can't imagine what it would be.

It is estimated that the extra costs are made up mainly of overtime pay and then insurance costs, however food, light, heat and maintenance
are also budgeted for.

Portlaoise tops the financial league for prisoners in custody because of its unique security features. At €240,700 per prisoner, the costs are way ahead of Mountjoy, which are €100,400, and St Patrick's Institution for young offenders at €90,700. Probation and Welfare Officers are also attached to the cost of each prisoner.

Bottle_of_Smoke

sparkling sea wrote: »

It is estimated that the extra costs are made up mainly of overtime pay and then insurance costs, however food, light, heat and maintenance
are also budgeted for.

Portlaoise tops the financial league for prisoners in custody because of its unique security features. At €240,700 per prisoner, the costs are way ahead of Mountjoy, which are €100,400, and St Patrick's Institution for young offenders at €90,700. Probation and Welfare Officers are also attached to the cost of each prisoner.

All of the above is factual and true. But what it has to do with my post I have no idea.

There is no way overtime costs(would be none required for that kind of prisoner), insurance, food, light and heat would come to 1K for a 3 day prison stay for a debt related conviction. Also there would be no rehabilitation/welfare costs for that type of prisoner. It simply does not cost the state 1K for that prisoner.

I'm just trying to get the root of why you'd make such a humiliating remark. Will you please just admit it was incorrect.

sparkling sea

QUOTE=Bottle_of_Smoke;65651989]All of the above is factual and true. But what it has to do with my post I have no idea.

There is no way overtime costs(would be none required for that kind of prisoner), insurance, food, light and heat would come to 1K for a 3 day prison stay for a debt related conviction. Also there would be no rehabilitation/welfare costs for that type of prisoner. It simply does not cost the state 1K for that prisoner.

I'm just trying to get the root of why you'd make such a humiliating remark. Will you please just admit it was incorrect.[/QUOTE]

If its all factual and true how is it incorrect?

These are not my figures they are figures that are open to any member of the public to investigate - however given that they come from reputtable sources I wouldn't have any reason to dispute them. Just goggle the cost of imprisonment in Ireland - IPRT, CSO, etc can verify figures - if you dont beleive me and thats your perogative.
If you look at the ratio of prisoners to prison officers in Ireland it is 1:1 - you can check these figures, this ratio does not change because of overcrowding - you just have more overtime costs. The figures do add up and its not that difficult to work them out, its fairly basic.
Every person costs money whether in prison or not - they just cost more when they are in prison.

On you last point I have no idea what it pertains too, but it does cost the state this much and its fairly easy for anyone to clarify it.
You are being a bit weird, again there are several sites - CSO for instance where you can check out these figures.

Bottle_of_Smoke

sparkling sea wrote: »

If its all factual and true how is it incorrect?

These are not my figures they are figures that are open to any member of the public to investigate - however given that they come from reputtable sources I wouldn't have any reason to dispute them. Just goggle the cost of imprisonment in Ireland - IPRT, CSO, etc can verify figures - if you dont beleive me and thats your perogative.
If you look at the ratio of prisoners to prison officers in Ireland it is 1:1 - you can check these figures, this ratio does not change because of overcrowding - you just have more overtime costs. The figures do add up and its not that difficult to work them out, its fairly basic.
Every person costs money whether in prison or not - they just cost more when they are in prison.

On you last point I have no idea what it pertains too, but it does cost the state this much and its fairly easy for anyone to clarify it.
You are being a bit weird, again there are several sites - CSO for instance where you can check out these figures.

Not incorrect - You're just not interpreting the statistics properly. Whilst the average cost of a prisoner could well be €1000 for three days that does not mean one prisoner going in for three days costs the state an additional €1000, as you suggested.

Its like this. That prisoner's imprisonment would not have required any prison officer to do overtime. So staff costs are the same. The officers working that day would be there anyway. The prisons have a blanket insurance policy already in place so no extra cost there. The additional food/light/electricity costs would amount to less than €10

sparkling sea

The IPRT states that three fifths of all those sentenced to imprisonment in Ireland are sent to prison for periods of under six months. The vast majority of those are sentenced to custody for non-violent offences against property or road traffic offences. Also significant proportion of committals relate to fine default.

Again almost 4000 people were incarcerated for non payment of fines in 2009.
This not not money they borrowed and could not pay back, etc, it was for non payment of road traffic fine eg speeding, parking tickets, outdated motor tax and so on. To say that this does not come at a cost per person is a nosense and this cost has been calculated at €2000 for the average prisoner.

When calculating the cost of imprionment account is taken for the fact the highest proportion of prisoners serve 3 and 3/4 months. The cost of keeping a person in prison for 1 week is €2000. Prison officers rightly expected to get paid for there job.

On a different note I was amazed to see the cost involved in this case reported on news on RTE tonight:

Geoffrey Evans a convicted murderer and rapist Geoffrey Evans, is serving a life sentence for raping and killing two young women in Wicklow and Galway in 1975.
Evans has been in a coma in the Mater Hospital since December 2008.
Mr Purcell said tagging him would allow the Irish Prison Service to assess the effects on high-tech medical equipment in a hospital environment.
It costs €900,000 a year to keep six prisoner officers guarding him 24 hours every day.
Minister Ahern said he did not think there were moral or ethical issues involved in tagging Evans and that Evans would benefit from not being subjected to the indignity of having prison officers with him all the time.

I am sorry I have diverted from the actual thread - the Human Rights issue are extremely worrying, particularly in relation to Mountjoy and all other prisons that fall way below or do not meet the required standard. A similiar situation is happening is some mental health institutions, with the Central Mental Hospital and St Itas being examples.
It has to be said that the most vunrable also appear to be those who are most at risk - it doesn't reflect very well on us as a society.

irishh_bob

sparkling sea wrote: »

The IPRT states that three fifths of all those sentenced to imprisonment in Ireland are sent to prison for periods of under six months. The vast majority of those are sentenced to custody for non-violent offences against property or road traffic offences. Also significant proportion of committals relate to fine default.

Again almost 4000 people were incarcerated for non payment of fines in 2009.
This not not money they borrowed and could not pay back, etc, it was for non payment of road traffic fine eg speeding, parking tickets, outdated motor tax and so on. To say that this does not come at a cost per person is a nosense and this cost has been calculated at €2000 for the average prisoner.

When calculating the cost of imprionment account is taken for the fact the highest proportion of prisoners serve 3 and 3/4 months. The cost of keeping a person in prison for 1 week is €2000. Prison officers rightly expected to get paid for there job.

On a different note I was amazed to see the cost involved in this case reported on news on RTE tonight:

Geoffrey Evans a convicted murderer and rapist Geoffrey Evans, is serving a life sentence for raping and killing two young women in Wicklow and Galway in 1975.
Evans has been in a coma in the Mater Hospital since December 2008.
Mr Purcell said tagging him would allow the Irish Prison Service to assess the effects on high-tech medical equipment in a hospital environment.
It costs €900,000 a year to keep six prisoner officers guarding him 24 hours every day.
Minister Ahern said he did not think there were moral or ethical issues involved in tagging Evans and that Evans would benefit from not being subjected to the indignity of having prison officers with him all the time.

I am sorry I have diverted from the actual thread - the Human Rights issue are extremely worrying, particularly in relation to Mountjoy and all other prisons that fall way below or do not meet the required standard. A similiar situation is happening is some mental health institutions, with the Central Mental Hospital and St Itas being examples.
It has to be said that the most vunrable also appear to be those who are most at risk - it doesn't reflect very well on us as a society.

you will be glad to know that hardly any mental patients are incarcerated for life anymore , those that are happen to have been put there a long time ago , the legislation introduced in 2004 ( i think it was ) is extremley liberal and its now more or less impossible to be detained indefinatley in a mental hospital ( against your will ) unless you more or less kill someone , i myself have family who suffer terribley as a result of this wooly liberal law ( a cousin of mine is not the full schilling )
but im sure the PC do - gooders out there are over the moon about what they see as a tollerant and progressive system

Bottle_of_Smoke

sparkling sea wrote: »

The IPRT states that three fifths of all those sentenced to imprisonment in Ireland are sent to prison for periods of under six months. The vast majority of those are sentenced to custody for non-violent offences against property or road traffic offences. Also significant proportion of committals relate to fine default.

Again almost 4000 people were incarcerated for non payment of fines in 2009.
This not not money they borrowed and could not pay back, etc, it was for non payment of road traffic fine eg speeding, parking tickets, outdated motor tax and so on. To say that this does not come at a cost per person is a nosense and this cost has been calculated at €2000 for the average prisoner.

When calculating the cost of imprionment account is taken for the fact the highest proportion of prisoners serve 3 and 3/4 months. The cost of keeping a person in prison for 1 week is €2000. Prison officers rightly expected to get paid for there job.

You're (perhaps intentionally?)missing the point. I only took issue with the fact you asserted that 1 prisoner cost the state an additional €1000. He didn't. I've made it clear how he didn't and you're refusing to accept that and posting irrelevent figures.

Dades

I'm amazed that at this point in the thread nobody has suggested that people can avoid prisons by not breaking the law.

I can't help but think that having prison as something best avoided serves the purpose of incarceration as a deterrent.

On the human rights issue ....you would have to look at what is the function of prison...i listened to the interview she gave to Pat Kenny...she seemed to imply that the women prison should have some sort of therapeutic function, as a lot of the women came form dysfunctional and chaotic backgrounds...if that is what the prison is for...

It is a lot different from prison as place when people serve their sentence as form of retribution to society for committing a crime.

The issue of people being in jail for non payment of fine is ridicules and need to be sorted out.

GarlicBread

letter to the irish times yesterday -

"Madam, – If we ever needed an example of a double standard in the application of criminal law in our Irish society it is how a mother of five is sentenced to 30 days in jail for failing to ensure her child went to school (Home News, May 7th) and how other highly irresponsible individuals who through their criminal wheeling and dealing have created havoc in our society but will never see the inside of Mountjoy Jail. – Yours, etc,"

Isnt it amazing, that even with the current debate about the shocking conditions inside prisons, that a judge sentenced a woman to 30 days cause a child was going on the hop.

Throwing poor people into institutions that are unfit for human habitation? Makes you wonder how many of these judges had their names blanked out of the ryan report.

Old habits die hard.

I suggest some sort of social welfare training course for would be judges, or maybe they could sleep on the ground next to their own **** for a few days? They wouldnt be so hammer happy to incarcerate people then would they?

The Muppet

Dades wrote: »

I'm amazed that at this point in the thread nobody has suggested that people can avoid prisons by not breaking the law.

I'm amazed that in 2010 Ireland some people that are genuinely unable to pay a small debt such as a tv licence are seen and treated as criminal's.

Would it not be more cost effective and productive to get these people to work off their debt by having them do community service?

GarlicBread

Or even gerry ryan, who owed the tax man 300,000 euro. A criminal? naw bai, hes jesus christ. But the fella who dosent pay up 200 euro to keep the rte aristocracy going is a scumbag, no question .

This is a human rights thread, but i cant help but crack a joke about RTE. They should make a new hard hitting TV license add showing some heroin addict slopping out .

"We've heard all the excuses, do you want to be him?"

There would be a hundred thousand people calling in Joe Duffy begging for amnesty.

I think we could leave rte go to the wall and free up some prison space in the process.

Fuinseog

GarlicBread wrote: »

http://humanrightsinireland.wordpress.com/2010/04/26/governor-of-dochas-centre-resigns/

Yesterday the govenor of mountjoy womans prison Kathleen McMahon, resigned due to deteriorating conditions at the facility.

She made the following points -

-overcrowding, leading to unstability and tention
-prison guards ignoring management and not accountable
-prison guards coming and going when off shift and somtimes being alone with prisoners(very worrying sign of potential abuse)
-disturbingly high numbers of women being imprisoned for non violent offences such as drugs or debt.

"The prison service was “afraid” that media coverage of the Dóchas Centre suggested the regime was too relaxed. She believed a decision had been made to introduce a more punitive regime involving holding as many women as possible in an already overcrowded centre." (quote taken from irishleftreview.org)

This policy will create more overcrowding and will lead to dramatically increased gang culture, bullying, suicide, drug abuse, staff corruption and other awful things.

Worst of all is the majority of women locked up are only in there because our laws are slow on reform. One woman is in prison for failure to pay a credit union loan. You also hear of people in jail for TV licences and other trivial things. That could be anyones mother/sister/daughter hurled into the environment mentioned above, which is shocking when you think about and especially when you consider our current economic disaster. The war on drugs is another contributing factor which is clogging the system with people who dont deserve to be locked up in such conditions.

The mens prisons are in a worse shape. A committee member for a visiting group to mountjoy men's facility said that the conditions are horrific with up to 2-3 or more locked in one cell. The overcrowding has resulted in gangland culture being established.

The core issue here is prisoners, no matter what the offence, are in vurnerable situations open to all kinds of abuse and have very limited means of having their voices heard or getting help. Imagine sleeping, eating, tolieting and living on the floor in a small cell packed full of 4 people with no privacy and infested with cockroaches and other bugs. Sounds like somthing out of a Thai prison? Nope, thats life in Ireland 2010 for many people.

I would not wish that existence even on somone i hated. The punishment is being locked up and having your life taken away and its not supposed to involve any other form abuse.

If there isnt urgent action and reform, then in the coming decades we will be reading 'ryan' style reports about how we left vunerable people fester in what many cases would be third world conditions. Sure, there are many people who do deserve to be behind bars, but do we really need to inflict misery on them?

There are indications that there is idealogical reasoning behind the grim situation and it may not be all down to underfunding, stuctural or reform issues. If the dept of justice is using the overcrowding to intentionally cause worse and worsening conditions and act as a deterrent to crime it is an outragous strategy of institutional abuse.

Please leave a comment if you are against the continuation of such negligent policies.

http://humanrightsinireland.wordpress.com/2010/04/26/governor-of-dochas-centre-resigns/

should we care?