2.2.2 Crime and Criminality

Many children who end up in prison as young adults grow up in families that experience poverty, isolation and marginalisation.  Such families often perceive themselves to have been very poorly served by the State, or arms of the State, and sometimes voluntary agencies too.

I have no doubt that the principal reasons why people perceive this (through many generations) are to do with unfairness, inequality and injustice and (from their perspective) the impenetrability of institutions that constitute the system.

Very often, the child protection/criminal justice systems are entities through which they get to know the State.

Many families find such systems either punitive or coercive or both.  While they might work well for some families, the system contains many design elements that hamper progress in respect of families on the margins.

Some of these are obvious and some are far more subtle and hard to spot.

It is not by and large my intention to criticise what works well for many families who avail of existing services (i.e. mainstream-type provision).

Rather, my intention is to promote new thinking, and thus different ways of tackling age old problems that have always beset our communities and society at large.

Of course there may be examples of what I would consider to be disrespectful or wasteful practices that I may mention to act as a contrast, or emphasise, or give weight to the opposite, i.e. respectful and/or economical, cost-effective models that I believe are much better.

And I believe that any proposed new ways or methods should be grafted onto and complement, rather than replace, existing efforts that do work well.

The first proposition that I would like to make (in the context of families who perceive themselves to be neglected), and a clear motivation for writing this website, is that crime is a solvable problem in society.

This ‘core belief’ is an important jumping off point! If you believe this also, the website will make a lot of sense.  (If you do not believe it yet, you are invited to continue reading anyway and see if any of the content interests you).

When I say crime I am referring to the kind of crime that is linked to addiction, and that arises from the mixture of trauma and alienation that families who have the characteristics that are described in the next Chapter (in the Sub-Chapter on the Focus Group) experience.

And when I say solvable I mean that it is reduced to the level that would be typical in a mainstream middle-class kind of family or community.

I often think that our attitude to crime is very like our attitude to poverty.  Both are so universal in our human experience, (in space and time), that they appear impossible to solve, never ending, or infinite.  This infinite quality that crime possesses leads us to believe that we can only contain it, try and alleviate suffering caused by it, etc. and not ever solve it, as no agency or organisation would ever be able to access the extent of the resources needed to solve it fully.

And – also important – as I say at the bottom of this post, saying that crime is solvable does not mean that I am the one that will solve it – now ……..

But crucially – and this is the starting point, really – we all know that both crime and poverty (which are closely linked anyway) are caused by the behaviour of human beings.

I mentioned in the previous post that crime (like poverty) has an infinite quality to it and that it appears insolvable. There are, and have been in history, problems that appeared to be insolvable, but humans have managed to reduce them to the point of insignificance.

For example, many diseases which once struck fear into entire populations have been almost eradicated.  And owning slaves, which, up to the 19th century in the Western World, was thought to be totally acceptable, even to people who were upright and honourable, and also deemed necessary for our economy, is now outlawed.

And, how is it that we can carry out amazing feats involving mind-boggling technology costing billions such as putting a man in space and we still cannot come up with a comprehensive plan to stop young teenagers getting into trouble?

It seems, as I said already, to be beyond us.  Though the main thrust of the website will be to explore what works, from time to time – and to raise awareness – I will mention some of the reasons why it appears beyond us.

I will briefly describe three just to kick-start your thinking!

Firstly: Everyone is an ‘Expert’

The caller to the radio, the person on the street, journalists in print, radio, and TV, social media commentators, and people from all walks of life, offer their opinions freely (and usually with great authority) on what should be done about crime and criminality.

They are all experts!

And, indeed, because the word expert is rooted in the word experience, and because we have all been children, grown up in families, often had difficult challenges to overcome, in a way we are experts and have opinions to offer.

But I will argue that, almost always, our opinions are filtered through personal emotional experiences (e.g. of power, fear, anger, control, and thereby carry a multitude of assumptions, values and norms) that bias us in favour of particular courses of action to solve these and other problems that beset society.

And, actually, that’s the problem!

Continual reflection on and awareness of our prejudices and biases before we rush headlong into solution mode, and getting the balance right between closeness and distance (see ‘Secondly‘ below) is crucial to effective work in this field.  We usually find reflection and self-awareness very challenging and that’s one of the reasons why the work is a lot more complex than most people realise.  (I discuss complexity – and its implications for our work – in this Sub-Chapter). Added to this is the fact that paradox is part and parcel of humanity.

The effects of everyone being an expert might be:

1. The opinions of influential people such as funders and politicians who feel under pressure to do something are influenced by popular, sometimes knee-jerk opinion, and often what is undertaken is hastily done and only partially or shallowly thought through.

2. Continual reinforcement of the belief among the general public that the solutions to crime are simple and/or one-dimensional.

3. The belief that crime prevention work is largely done by naïve well-meaning people who are fooled up to the eyeballs by people involved in crime.

And, like I said above

4. There is nothing we can do about crime except contain it.

Secondly:  The Practitioner is Part of the Process

I mentioned getting the balance right between closeness and distance above.  Distancing oneself from the work is not possible (and is actually not desirable) when intensively supporting troubled and distressed children and very vulnerable adults.  This is because we practitioners, for a variety of reasons:

1. Are part of the growth and development that is ongoing.

2. Will have, or will develop an emotional attachment to the work.

And

3. Are affected by the work sometimes at a very deep and profound level ourselves [1].

The above three points have always been true and I believe that lack of awareness of them can lead to organisations (often unconsciously) trying to minimise them by erecting psychological barriers to keep the work at a psychological distance [2]. 

It’s well known that we’re attracted to whatever work or occupation we choose because of some process ongoing in ourselves – this is probably as true for engineers, bankers, carpenters etc. as it is for helpers of people.

Now I invite you to compare the closeness-distance factor with trying to develop a vaccine for the coronavirus, or figuring out how to leave the Earth’s orbit, where workers, while obviously having an emotional attachment to the work, (perhaps even be quite passionate about it), will work in an objective manner, (in fact, would have to) and will quite readily distance themselves from the day-to-day work should they so wish.

But the difference is that they are not, generally, part of a process of human growth, and being so brings substantial challenges as will be clear as you read the website but in particular the Sub-Chapter entitled Complex Variables (mentioned above) which is in Section Three.

Thirdly:  Mainstream Thinking

Mahatma Ghandi urged all those of us who feel that we have something to offer, or feel that we can bring some change to society, to recall the face of the poorest and the weakest person whom you may have seen, and ask yourself, if the step you contemplate is going to be of any use to them.  Will they gain anything by it?  Will it restore them to a control over their own life and destiny?  In other words, will it lead to freedom for the hungry and spiritually starving?

It is widely assumed that the same responses that work with mainstream families will work with families that are the subject of this website.  Perhaps it is acknowledged that more intensity of effort is needed and/or a higher staff ratio (for example, smaller class sizes in schools that are located in disadvantaged areas, or more social workers per head of population) but, generally, the paradigm that prevails is much the same.

It is governed by the same ethos, follows the same workplace procedures, and perpetuates the educational, medical and social systems that have not worked that well in addressing the problems in times past, and that certainly have not seen the faces of the poorest and the weakest, (as Ghandi put it, referring to his native India in the 1930’s-40’s), or the most hurt or distressed (as this website might say).

Much of the website will be, in particular, focused on encouraging us to take seriously the restoring control over life and destiny part of Ghandi’s exhortation.

[1]. The phenomenon of being affected by the work is related to transference in counselling.

[2]. This may explain why agencies will often persist with pursuing courses of action that do not work.  (See also the Sub-Chapter on Myth and Reality in the Chapter on Energy in Section Three).

I now invite you to think of the headline ‘Man Murdered in…..’ and the subsequent media attention that follows.

Let us say that the murder happens in an estate in one of our big towns or cities where there has always been a high level of anti-social behaviour and crime, where, even during so-called boom times, there is high unemployment, dependency, exclusion, [1] and where a higher than average number of families have someone belonging to them in the prison system.

Now imagine the effect on the victim’s family, (including when the man who is murdered is known to Gardaí), the perpetrators family; children involved in both the perpetrator’s and victim’s families and their extended families.

Now try and calculate the cost to the state of the investigation, the (usually long) court case and the subsequent imprisonment.  Then think of the downstream cost of other aspects of the violent act, such as:

1. The victim’s family including (possibly) children who are indescribably distressed by the loss of their loved one – such loss being evident for a very long time – or for ever.

2. Victim’s family members living with (often unresolvable) anger, fear and anxiety.

3. Children of the perpetrator, who are traumatised by the crime, emotionally distressed and acting out, referred to child protection services, perhaps being medicated, and ultimately falling into addiction themselves, and the cycle repeating itself.

4. Fear, anger and anxiety of parents and other concerned adults in the perpetrator’s family.

5. The cost to the Health Service of the physical illnesses that are so prevalent in families affected by imprisonment, linked to stress experienced over many years or decades.

6. The sadness, loss and trauma of early, untimely deaths of adults in the families which may happen due to ongoing ill health.

7. The level of dependency usually experienced within the family and the cost to the State of that.  

And many more……..

Now when I think about a person committing a serious crime, I always think of a child who was misunderstood, who became isolated, or whose normal growth and development was, for whatever reason, inhibited or delayed in some way.  This is because virtually every person that I know who is doing a long stretch in prison for a so-called headline crime was in deep distress as a child and teenager.

That is not to say that their parents were neglectful, or irresponsible or to blame.  The vast majority of young people who get involved in crime and addiction have a parent or parents – and often grandparents – who have been crying out for help for years if not decades.

However, the parents frequently experience the help offered to be inaccessible, short term, culturally unsympathetic to their situation or even punitive, or all of the above.

Now I am fairly sure that every practitioner working in this area would agree that parents of children who are struggling, and who are motivated and responsible should be invited to be involved in the solution to their children’s problems, rather than coerced.  In the case of children affected by imprisonment, one parent, (often Dad) may be in prison.

This website will spend a good bit of time describing, exploring and considering the context of our invitation to parents to be involved!

In my experience, because it usually requires great courage on behalf of the parents to be part of the solution, the invitation needs to be offered by people with whom they have a trusting relationship.

And one of the biggest challenges here for the prospective helper, (unlike the expert in the previous post who is certain that he knows what should be done) is having the courage (and confidence) to be uncertain.

[1] As an aside – I have always thought it funny that the word exclusion is used in the context of the very poor and the word exclusive is used in the context of the very wealthy.