THE MURDER on Wednesday of Veronica Guerin was a tragedy for her family and the cause of shock and grief to those of us who considered ourselves her friend. But it does not represent "an attack struck at the very heart of our democracy", or "a blatant and terrifying attack on a free press
Nor does her killing justify the litany of repressive measures spilled out on RTE programmes throughout yesterday: a constitutional change on bail; the ending of the right to silence; the extension of the writ of the Special Criminal Court; even the denial of legal representation to criminal suspects. Still less does it "prove" that the State is in the grip of a crime wave or, alternatively, in the grip of the crime bosses.
Yes, it does highlight the necessity for changes in the Garda Siochana and the debate has highlighted the need for changes in the operation of the courts.
Veronica Guerin was murdered very probably for reasons that had nothing to do with anything she wrote or anything she was planning to write. It is not possible to be any more specific about the likely reasons for her killing because of restrictions on press freedom - the same restrictions on press freedom retained by those (John Bruton, Dick Spring, Proinsias De Rossa, Mary Harney et al) who have expressed such concern about press freedom in the light of her murder.
First, about being "in the grip of a crime wave".
By international standards, the crime rate in Ireland is low. A recent study has shown that the crime rate in Ireland is about a quarter of that in Britain and about 65 per cent of the rate in Northern Ireland. A comparative study of crime levels in Europe some time ago showed that Ireland had the lowest crime rate (see Crime in Ireland by Ciaran McCullagh).
Even by our own standards the crime rate is not especially worrying. For instance, in 1983 there were 102,387 recorded offences in Ireland. In 1994 (the last year for which there are figures), there were 101,036.
In so far as the government of the day has any effect on the levels of crime (probably none), Fianna Fail should note that the crime levels have shown by far the most marked increases when it has been in power: the number of recorded crimes rose from 62,946 in 1977 to 97,626 in 1982 and again from 85,358 in 1987 to 95,391 in 1992, the years in which Fianna Fail has been in power and in which there has been a Fianna Fail Minister for Justice.
In that category of crime which is the subject of most concern - offences against the person - the crime levels have decreased from 2,331 in 1984 to 1,327 in 1994.
The least serious category of crime, larcenies, has been the area which has shown the largest growth - over 10 per cent since 1989 (all of these figures are taken from the annual reports of the Garda Siochana for the relevant years).
The murder rate has been running for several years now at an average of three murders per month. In some years it is higher, in other years lower. This year so far it is running higher than usual, entirely because of what is known as "gangland killings" (i.e. the killing by criminals of criminals). Indeed, if this category is excluded from the figures, there has been a decrease in the murder rate so far this year.
As for the State being in the grip of the crime bosses, the category of crime most associated with them - armed robbery still represents a tiny portion of the total crime phenomenon: in 1994, there were 179 armed robberies out of a total of 101,036 recorded crimes, which is less than 0.2 per cent. This crime category has shown huge fluctuations since 1984, but as the figure is so low it is hardly sensible to draw any conclusions from that.
So it is simply not true either that the State is in the grip of a crime wave or in the grip of crime bosses.
Now for the "solutions".
Yesterday's radio frenzy focused yet again on the issue of bail, the insinuation being that somehow our "liberal" bail regime is a significant contributory factor to the "crime wave".
Of the 101,036 offences recorded in 1994, 4,416 were detected as having been committed by persons on bail - just over 4 per cent. Even if the removal of the constitutional right to bail succeeded in halving this figure it would represent a tiny proportion of the number of offences committed generally.
John O'Donoghue, of Fianna Fail, has taken me to task in the letters columns of this newspaper recently for "failing" to perceive that the relevant comparison is between the number of detected crimes committed by persons on bail with the total number of detected crimes, not the overall number of recorded crimes. His contention was that, if the bail laws were changed, then the total number of crimes overall would fall by a far higher proportion that I had suggested.
But how could this be so? Nobody, not even himself, has suggested that the bail laws be changed other than to give courts discretion to refuse bail to those who previously had been convicted of crimes while on bail (i.e. had committed detected crimes). Thus, the effect of the change he and others have proposed would related only to the number of detected crimes' committed by persons on bail.
Finally, even if it is the case that Veronica Guerin was murdered because of something she had written or was about to write, it still would not represent the assault on democracy and on press freedom which it has been represented to be.
Yes, press freedom is essential to democracy, but this is so to enable the institutions of power in society to be held accountable for the exercise of their power. The killing of Veronica Guerin, outrageous, abominable and tragic though it may be in personal terms, in no way compromises the freedom of the press in holding institutions of power accountable.
Indeed, it is arguable that the investigation of crime is ancillary to the essential role of the press. We have the institutions of the police, the courts and the prison system to look after the abuse of power on the part of crime bosses. Journalism is essentially about holding these institutions accountable for how they cope with the crime bosses and the crime phenomenon; but, in themselves, they are ancillary to the journalistic function.
I argued this point recently with Veronica Guerin. Unfortunately, she did not agree.
