Crime and Punishment in Twentieth Century Ireland: A Description of The Criminal Justice System, 1950-1980, Volume 2This book was written as part of a much wider criminological enterprise, designed at creating a real and critical basis for criminological enquiry in Ireland. Properly understood the Criminal Justice System (CJS) is every bit as important to society as the circular flow of money. No government would dream of conducting its business without the advice of an economist or, indeed, providing an econometric model of the economy. Yet when it comes to the CJS, governments take the opposite view and legislate in the dark, hardly reconnoitering for a moment to see what effect proposed legislation will have on the several institutions it invariably affects. Maybe this was okay when those effects could not be calculated. But such is no longer the case. In 1967 a President's Commission on Law Enforcement and the Administration of Justice featured a model of criminal justice entitled "The Challenge of Crime in a Free Society." Incredibly misunderstood and widely neglected, this model marked a breakthrough -- the first step, as it were -- in coming to terms with the multiple agencies that go to make up what has come to be called the Criminal Justice System (CJS). In Volumes 2 and 3 of the present series Seamus Breathnach traces the initial steps necessary to complete the revolution begun by the President's Commission. In doing this he reveals the systematized neglect of the CJS in the Republic of Ireland for years 1950-80. In eight lectures he delineates the Republic's inability to get its act together or to engage the terms or significance of the '67 landmark - an inability that is anchored both in a deep religious resistance to the secular social sciences as well as an exaggerated estimation of the criminal lawyer as social commentator. From this study it appears that the first step for criminologists is to see the CJS as a totality - to see it as a social process clamoring to be rescued from the spokesmen of the discrete agencies that comprise it. |
Contents
| 1 | |
| 25 | |
The Garda Siochana | 55 |
The Courts and the CJS Section A | 79 |
The Courts and the CJS Section B | 99 |
The Disposal System | 127 |
Towards a Political Economy of Irish Crime 1950 1980 | 159 |
Epilogue | 193 |
Bibliography | 205 |
Index | 211 |
Common terms and phrases
accounted accused arrest assaults bail charge Circuit Court citizen civil Commissioner Commissioner's Annual Report concerned constable constitutional conviction rate crimes tried criminal content Criminal Justice Criminal Law criminal process Criminology custodial sentence dealt decisions defendant deviance discretion District Court Dublin Dublin Metropolitan Area Emile Durkheim evidence G.p. O. Arcade Garda Siochana Government guilty rate higher courts HMSO Home Office Ibid imprisonment increase in crimes indictable crimes indictable offences institutions Ireland Irish jurisdiction jury juveniles labelling theory Larceny Lecture Licences Renewed litigation London lower courts Moreover Nolle Prosequis non-indictable offences notion number of crimes number of persons O'Briain offences tried Oireachtas organised penal period plea plea-bargaining plead guilty police powers political Prison Probation Procedure prosecution proved question reform remanded Republic Republic of Ireland respect right to silence social Society Special Criminal Court summary summary offences suspect Table theorists theory Total trial tried summarily warrant
Popular passages
Page 161 - I mean, rather, that social groups create deviance by making the rules whose infraction constitutes deviance, and by applying those rules to particular people and labeling them as outsiders. From this point of view, deviance is not a quality of the act the person commits, but rather a consequence of the application by others of rules and sanctions to an "offender.
Page 87 - ... (1) When a police officer is endeavouring to discover the author of a crime, there is no objection to his putting questions in respect thereof to any person or persons, whether suspected or not, from whom he thinks that useful information can be obtained.
Page 87 - Having heard the evidence, do you "wish to say anything in answer to the charge? You are not ''obliged to say anything unless you desire to do so, but what"ever you say will be taken down in writing, and may be given " in evidence against you upon your trial.
Page 87 - ... (8) When two or more persons are charged with the same offence and statements are taken separately from the persons charged, the police should not read these statements to the other persons charged, but each of such persons should be furnished by the police with a copy of such statements and nothing should be said or done by the police to invite a reply. If the person charged desires to make a statement in reply, the usual caution should be administered.
Page 87 - A prisoner making a voluntary statement must not be cross-examined, and no questions should be put to him about it except for the purpose of removing ambiguity in what he has actually said. For instance, if he has mentioned an hour without saying whether it was morning or evening, or has given a day of the week and day of the month which do not agree, or has not made it clear to what individual, or what place he intended to refer in some part of his statement, he may be questioned sufficiently to...
Page 87 - You are not obliged to say anything unless you wish to do so, but whatever you say will be taken down in writing and may be given in evidence.' Care should be taken to avoid any suggestion that his answers can only be used in evidence against him, as this may prevent an innocent person making a statement which might assist to clear him of the charge.
Page 87 - ... Whenever a police officer has made up his mind to charge a person with a crime, he should first caution such person before asking any questions or any further questions, as the case may be.
Page 87 - If the person charged desires to make a statement in reply, the usual caution should be administered. 9. Any statement made in accordance with the above rules should, whenever possible, be taken down in writing and signed by the person making it after it has been read to him, and he has been invited to make any corrections he may wish.
Page 87 - LT 389. [Vol. 9] 9 to him about it except for the purpose of removing ambiguity in what he has actually said. For instance if he has mentioned an hour without saying whether it was morning or...