Prisons and Alternative Sentencing Options: Statements
Seanad Éireann — 2026-04-22
============================================================

Sharon Keogan (IND), Industrial and Commercial Panel

Much has been said already about the overcrowding in our prisons, pressure on capacity and how we are to solve it. Alternative sentencing is being put before us a potential solution. I would like to cite one programme we had that could serve as a template. This was the Mountjoy Prison work party, nicknamed the "Pope's prisoner programme". Between 1978 and its suspension in 2009, that work party contributed over 20 community projects, including the construction and renovation of some 30 scout dens and community centres across Dublin. One of the most notable projects was Aurora House in Glencree, renovated by the Mountjoy work party and formally opened in 1979. These were not symbolic gestures but tangible contributions. This initiative also had an employment rate of approximately 80% for participants following release. It was so successful that construction firms at the time would deliberately scout for prisoners to hire. Could you imagine if such a programme existed today and had success rates even close to that? The Government would be broadcasting it from the rooftops and we would never hear the end of it. Most importantly, it shows that where offenders are given structure, responsibility and a pathway back into society, the results can be transformative - not just for them, but for communities and for public safety. It reminds us that alternative sentencing, when properly designed and properly enforced, can work. It can reduce reoffending, restore dignity and turn former offenders into contributors rather than perpetual dependants.
As an extension of this, we also require a shift in how we as a society think about prisoners. Campaigners and researchers have pointed out that, in the late 1970s, prisoners were more commonly viewed as people with potential value to society - people capable of rehabilitation and redemption. That belief, they argue, has disappeared. Too often today, prisoners are only spoken about as problems to be managed rather than people who might one day return as neighbours, workers and parents. That shift in attitude matters because when we stop believing in rehabilitation, we design systems that all but guarantee failure.
There is also scope to think creatively. For non-violent offenders and those serving sentences for less serious crimes, there is a strong case for restoring structured work parties outside prison walls. Properly supervised, such arrangements could relieve pressure on prison capacity while providing skills, discipline and purpose. This is not a radical idea; it has existed before and worked.
However - and this is critical - reform cannot be a carrot and no stick. Alternative sentencing must come with very clear, very tough consequences for those who fail to honour its conditions. Anyone who abuses or manipulates such schemes must face swift and serious sanctions. Without that, public confidence collapses, and deservedly so.
Likewise, alternative sentencing must never be allowed to become a pressure release valve for a system in crisis. It cannot be used as a substitute for dealing with the underlying failures of our prison infrastructure. The only acceptable release valve for our prison system is the resolution of its crisis, and that means building Thornton Hall. For far too long, this project has been delayed, deferred and quietly sidelined. We cannot keep pretending that overcrowding will solve itself through goodwill and pilot programmes. There is an opportunity here to join principle with practicality. Properly managed prison work parties could be used to contribute to the construction of Thornton Hall itself, giving prisoners skills and purpose while directly addressing the capacity crisis. This is how reform should work - demanding, constructive and rooted in responsibility.
Prison reform and alternative sentencing should not amount to being soft on crime. It must be serious about outcomes. It is about reducing reoffending and protecting the public. While we should continue to work on ways to see that sentences are corrective and rehabilitative, let us never lose sight of the fact that, at the end of the day, there have to be tough consequences for breaking the law. At the moment, we are trapped in a vicious cycle. The prisons are overcrowded, the convicted are left off with light or suspended sentences and, hence, we have more crime, as the criminals feel that they can get away with a slap on the wrist, and it all just continues. If we can combine discipline with opportunity, consequences with rehabilitation and reform with firm boundaries, then we can build a justice system that is not only humane, but effective.

---

Source: Houses of the Oireachtas. Licensed under CC BY 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). The Official Report is revised after first publication; the fetch timestamp below identifies the version quoted.

Record URI: https://data.oireachtas.ie/akn/ie/debateRecord/seanad/2026-04-22/debate/main
Retrieved: 2026-08-14T04:54:50+00:00
Sitting date: 2026-04-22