David O’ Carroll
Staff Writer
In his election campaign, the president elect, Michael D Higgins singled out the continued detention of young people as one of the greatest human rights issues in our country. In this short article, I will discuss the law as it stands, the issues and consequences involved in sentencing young people to a period of detention and possible alternatives.
While the Children’s Act 2001, as amended by the Criminal Justice Act 2006 has brought children and young people under 18 under the jurisdiction of the Department of Justice and Equality, provision was made for children over 16 years of age to continue to be detained in St Patrick’s Institution or other places of detention on an interim basis until arrangements have been made for their transfer to designated Children Detention Schools (CDS).
St Patrick’s is for all intents and purposes a prison which houses persons between the ages of 16 and 21 years of age. The number of young people under 18 detained in the Institution is at any time slightly less than the total population. It is also unclear as to when the proper facilities will be provided for the transfers of these young offenders to appropriate CDSs, although there have been plans for the completion of phase one of a new facility by 2013/2014.
Article 40(1) of the UNCRC, which relates to the administration of juvenile justice, recognises the right of every child and young person to be treated by and within the justice system ‘in a manner consistent with the promotion of the child’s dignity and worth’. It is questionable whether the current set up at St Patrick’s ensures that young offenders present there have the same full protection and rights to care, education and rehabilitation as others. Such a violation is undoubtedly a great concern and must be addressed as soon as possible.
It is deeply regrettable that minors should be marred with the psychological and societal consequences which will occur in serving a stint there and as the Whitaker Committee said of the institution in its 1985 Report; it is “an environment that would contribute to further delinquency of the juvenile rather than any rehabilitative function”. St Patrick’s fails to provide the right ethos of rehabilitation that a centre focused specifically on preventing recidivism and promoting rehabilitation would have and consequently fails in its duty to the child.
In looking at the whole area of child detention from a policy perspective, Mendel, an American writer and researcher has outlined a number of key faults in the American Juvenile System which I believe is correlative to our situation. He points out that the current system is ineffective, that the outcomes are poor and the rates of recidivism are almost uniformly high. Incarceration in these facilities depresses youths’ future successes in education and employment.
He also argues that the current national plan is obsolete and that scholars have in fact identified a number of interventions and treatment strategies in recent years that consistently reduce recidivism among juvenile offenders. Such methods include programs that offer therapeutic counseling and treatment and tend to focus on helping juveniles address personal problems and developing new skills. It is in this way that delinquents who commit non-serious offences should have their behavioural deficiencies addressed rather than facing the prison system and the detrimental consequences that flow from a period of detention there.
In conclusion, it is inexcusable and against our international obligations that young persons under the age of 18 continue to be held in a place of detention alongside adults. A shift away from the State’s focus of incarcerating youths to more holistic, individualistic practices may be a more cost friendly and less damaging process in the long run.
This article was submitted in conjunction with FLAC, a TCD-run society that provides free legal aid to students.
