The response of the prison authorities to the drugs problem at Mountjoy prison in Dublin has been called into question by a report in the prison service magazine. According to the latest issue of Prison Officer, Mountjoy has no drug-free areas, apart from its health-care unit, because of lack of finance and overcrowding.
The report expresses disquiet about the non-existence of a special drug-free area in the main prison. Prisoners complete an eight-week drug detox programme in the Training Unit, which is part of the Mountjoy complex but separate from the main prison. But there is no special drug-free area in Mountjoy prison itself. Prison Officer also raises concerns about the lack of counselling services for recovering drug abusers at the Training Unit.
The establishment of a drug-free wing was recommended by the prison medical officer in his review of drug treatment facilities over a year ago. Given the scale of drug use at Mountjoy prison, the case for such a unit might seem obvious. It is to be hoped that it is the pressure of accommodation at Mountjoy that is preventing the authorities from proceeding with the establishment of this unit - and not some kind of official penny-pinching. The prison system has obligations beyond the containment of prisoners. It has an obligation to rehabilitate. And a duty to assist in every practical way those attempting to break the drugs habit. The creation of a special drugs-free environment in the main prison is an obvious first step.
The very real difficulties facing the authorities at Mountjoy in providing the right kind of prison environment should not be underestimated. The Governor, Mr John Lonergan, is widely acknowledged as a humane and thoughtful figure as is his staff and officials in the Department of Justice. The problem is Mountjoy itself, a 19th-century city prison, forever struggling to cope with the huge demands bearing down upon it. It is a grim, forbidding institution which compares most unfavourably with modern prisons in other EU states.
Plans are now underway to refurbish the prison wing by wing, as part of an ambitious five-year programme. But, given the age and condition of Mountjoy, some might wonder if this is not a case of throwing good money after bad. The case for the establishment of a separate drugs-free centre without further delay is very strong but some kind of long-term vision for the jail is also required. In all the circumstances, it might be better to delay the refurbishment programme and allow the new Prisons Authority (due to be established shortly) to consider if refurbishing Mountjoy serves the longer-term needs of the prison service. The alternative, the closure and rebuilding of the prison, may have much to recommend it.