What is the precise nature of the charge on which Tony Killeen stands accused? The concept of a political offence, which places the modern politician under pressure, sometimes to the point of requiring a resignation, and the further questions as to how, on what basis and by whom this is to be judged together amount to a most interesting aspect of modern politics, writes John Waters.
Occasionally, a politician commits an act or makes a mistake which self-evidently unrolls a context for resignation or some lesser gesture of reparation or contrition. The matter is rarely clear-cut. Very often, in the tumult of accusation and counter-accusation, the "sting" of a particular accusation can be hard to discern. On the one hand, Tony Killeen stands accused of using his position as a public representative to apply pressure to have a convicted paedophile and, in a separate case, a convicted murderer, released early from prison.
The main "sting" of this charge centres on the moral frame in which the offences committed by these two men are viewed. But is this not precisely the tendency the late Mr Justice Seán O'Leary alluded to when he wrote for posthumous publication of "a harsh, populist approach to those persons who stand accused of socially unacceptable crimes". He had in mind a more precisely legal context, but his point can be extended to embrace the wider frame in which certain crimes are now viewed.
Is it reasonable and wholesome that certain wrongdoers are now regarded as beyond compassion, clemency or mercy? Put another way, what would be wrong with a public representative doing something that both falls within his Christian obligation and, arguably, his job description? Is there anything morally or procedurally wrong with a TD making representations on behalf of an imprisoned constituent, or is there an added frisson of unacceptability in some way related to the nature of the crime for which the individual in question was convicted? If it is wrong for a TD to petition on behalf of convicted persons, the nature of their crime(s) is surely irrelevant.
If it is not wrong, then shouldn't it be an acceptable element of democracy?
The only conceivable context in which such representations might become problematic would occur if, as a result, a public official had done something illegal or was in breach of proper procedure. But it has not been established that anything untoward happened on foot of any letter emanating from Mr Killeen's office. The epicentre of Mr Killeen's alleged offence appears to gravitate around the feelings of the victims of the two men on whose behalf the intercessions were made. It is understandable that they or their families would have little sympathy for the man who did them such wrong, but is this really a reason for everyone to jump all over Tony Killeen?
Since the representations had no effect, why should anyone regard them any differently than the submissions of the defence at the man's trial? In his defence, Tony Killeen stated that he was unaware that representation had issued from his office. Apologising, he went further: "I don't stand over the letter and I do not advocate early release. Early release was sought and should not have been sought and did not have my approval."
This was described in various quarters as not credible, but it also served to add a secondary, if lesser, dimension to the charge, indicting Mr Killeen also for negligence in respect of his constituency operation. By claiming he was unaware that his constituency staff had requested the early release of the two convicted criminals, Mr Killeen rendered his position pretty close to indefensible. While it is possible to forgive, even applaud, a TD issuing a compassionate request on behalf of a jailed constituent, Mr Killeen's denial takes away most of the potentially redeeming elements of what occurred.
A far more serious offence now rears its head: that Mr Killeen pursues the clientelist model of politics so indiscriminatingly that he is not merely negligent concerning the moral context of his demands on behalf of constituents, and reckless as to the consequences, but also is so contemptuous of these requests that he doesn't even bother to inform himself as to their nature. It has been suggested that Tony Killeen has tried to lay the blame with his constituency staff and that his "defence" is not credible. But the truth is that many Irish politicians run clientelist operations which are undiscerning as to the content of representations made in their names. If a constituent asks for a letter, a letter is sent, and often politicians have no idea what petitions are submitted.
Officials in State institutions are wont to treat all such petitions with the contempt they deserve. The result is what? That prisoners are daily released early from jail? No, the real offence of these episodes is more serious: voters are being conned by a system that implies that it can and will intercede on their behalf when in reality it regards them as gullible tally-fodder whose lives are of no particular account.