This series is published in collaboration with the CORD Partnership.

Transforming justice for women – Dr Sharon Duignan

In 2024, just over a third of women sentenced to custody received terms under three months. This confirms that very short prison sentences continue to play a significant role in Ireland. Emerging research shows that these sentences’ consequences extend well beyond the offences involved, particularly when imposed on women. My research draws attention to the limited availability of appropriate community sanctions for women, raising important questions about equality, policy design and Ireland’s commitment to implementing the UN Bangkok Rules which call for gender-sensitive approaches to the treatment of women in conflict with the law.

The scale of short custodial terms for women is not new. The 2013 interim report on the Dóchas Centre recorded that 83 per cent of women committed to prison received sentences of less than three months, typically imposed for low-level offences linked to addiction, poverty and instability. The year before, the law governing Community Service Orders was amended with the intention of diverting people from custody. This reform presented a valuable opportunity to examine whether women and men benefitted equally from the change.

Previously, it was not possible to track gendered patterns accurately because the Irish Prison Service published all short custodial sentences in one combined figure. Once gender-separated data became available, a clear trend emerged. The overall use of short sentences fell between 2011 and 2015, yet the proportion of these sentences imposed on women rose. Over the same period, the number of Community Service Orders imposed on women declined. It was only after the fines legislation took effect that community service began to replace short custodial terms more consistently.

To understand why women continued to receive short prison sentences after the amendment, I carried out qualitative interviews with women sentenced between 2011-2015. Women rarely remain in custody long enough for interviews to take place in prison, so I conducted fieldwork in community organisations that work with women under probation supervision or post-release. These organisations noted that most of their programmes catered primarily for men, and just one offered a dedicated women-only service.

A consistent picture of male-dominated community services emerged. Women described these settings as ‘stupid’ and ‘hopeless’, language that reflects a profound sense of isolation and uncertainty. In several work sites there was no assistance with childcare. Others were required to undertake long or costly journeys by public transport to reach their placement. These conditions often made compliance with supervision extremely difficult. Consequently, women frequently received short custodial sentences, not because their offending intensified, but because they were unable to meet the demands of sanctions that did not take account of their circumstances.

One participant, ‘Cara’, spent her childhood in State care and experienced abuse during that time. As an adult, she accumulated minor offences and received a fine she could not pay. She was assigned community service, but the placement felt unsafe and she could not continue. She later received a brief custodial sentence. Her experience typifies the wider pattern that I saw. Women spoke of losing temporary accommodation, childcare arrangements or access to social welfare due to a short prison sentence. Others missed addiction treatment or medical appointments that had supported their progress. Some said that the only immediate benefits of custody were warmth and food, underscoring the deprivation they faced in the community.

These accounts mirror a substantial body of research showing that women’s routes into offending are shaped by trauma, care histories, addiction, poor health and housing insecurity. When community sanctions do not respond to these realities, custody becomes the default. Yet, short prison sentences offer no rehabilitative value. They interrupt progress in family life, treatment, education and employment, and often leave women in a more precarious position after release.

Scotland offers a useful point of comparison. Like Ireland, it has long relied on short periods of custody. In 2010, it introduced a presumption against short sentences, which requires courts to consider alternatives before imposing a custodial term under a year. Community Payback Orders sit at the centre of this approach. Supervised by criminal justice social workers, they are designed to provide structured alternatives that address the underlying causes of offending. People who complete these orders are less likely to reoffend than those who serve a short custodial sentence. Scotland continues to face challenges with reducing its use of custody, however, with some evidence that women may even be experiencing more punitive outcomes in this jurisdiction.

The lessons for Ireland are straightforward. Sentencing cannot operate fairly unless the sanctions available to courts meet the needs of those who are most likely to receive them. This requires attention to the design of community sanctions, grounded in an understanding of women’s experiences and supported by coordinated action across housing, health, social protection and justice. This would give effect to Ireland’s commitments under the Bangkok Rules, which call for non-custodial measures that take account of women’s backgrounds and responsibilities.

Replacing short prison terms with Community Service Orders may appear appropriate for low-level offending, but the orders in their current form remain limited in their capacity to provide a genuine alternative. Unless sentencing options account for the varied pathways into offending and the lived realities of those who come before the courts, the revolving door will continue and the same women will return to custody for short periods within a system that was never designed with their needs in mind.

From punishment to possibility: what women tell us, and what we can change – Paula Kearney

Dr Sharon Duignan’s research evidences what the SAOL Project has always known: short prison sentences do nothing but create further barriers for women who are involved in criminal justice. They do not reduce recidivism and certainly do not create the conditions for rehabilitation. Prison should always be a very last option for women. When we explore the links between substance use, criminal justice involvement and trauma, short prison sentences can result in a breakdown of the family. For women who have begun to engage with services to improve their quality of life, this can destroy the stability they fought for. They can lose accommodation, lose access to their children, and fall off their treatment plans. On release, a woman often has so many more issues to deal with than before. Moreover, short prison sentences serve no value as there is not enough time for her to engage in anything that leads to positive outcomes. Dr Duignan’s findings reinforce SAOL’s core message that women’s offending is rooted in trauma, poverty and instability.

From a frontline perspective, three themes stand out.

1. Alternatives are required and must be accessible to all women

There is no point discussing alternatives to prison without a gendered lens and an understanding that women’s needs are complex and intersectional. We need to understand the context of her life and create a care plan that is realistic for that woman and meets her needs holistically. This is why when we discuss alternatives to prison or community sanctions, we must be willing to work with each woman where she is at, not try to fit her into a universal mould. This is not about creating inequality but recognising when equity is required. Services are not always designed for women and in many cases, they are an ‘add on’ to a mixed-gender service. To create alternatives to prison which are female specific and gender responsive, we must factor in intersecting issues such as domestic violence supports, advocacy for mothers with child protection issues, and case management to ensure her needs are being met. SAOL works from a gender responsive, trauma informed lens. We use a ‘power with’ approach to our work and create the conditions for women to step into the power that has been stripped from them by partners, communities and structures that further oppress them.

2. Stability is the route to desistence

Many women who serve short prison are released into homelessness; the absence of tenure security can have so many consequences that leave a woman feeling overwhelmed. This is also why many women miss appointments, such as probation or signing on, if they are on temporary release, putting them at risk of returning to prison. If we use a gendered lens and understand the complexities of the lives of women who use drugs, we can begin to look at the practical steps that can make women feel safe and supported. We cannot expect the lives of women with criminal justice involvement to improve without putting the basic supports around them to give them a sense of stability.

3. Ireland is not fully implementing the UN Bangkok Rules

The Bangkok Rules are strong in calling for gender-sensitive alternatives to custody. Community sanctions for women are strongly advised; incarceration should be avoided at all costs. Ireland has a history of signing treaties and rules without implementing them. The €12bn surplus in the 2025 budget was a great chance for the Government to resource gender-specific alternatives to prison. Instead, they opted to build more prison spaces. The Bangkok Rules also advise us to put emphasis on keeping mothers with their children, but we are continuously breaking down family units by incarcerating women. We must push for gender-sensitive, non-custodial measures.

Overall, Ireland’s commitments to gender‑responsive justice remain largely aspirational. We will continue creating conveyor belts of working-class women entering prisons and traumatised adult children of those women in the future. It is widely understood that many people with substance use dependency as adults have ACEs (Adverse Childhood Experiences) in their story, such having as a parent in prison, poverty, or exposure to substance use. if we do not address these issues, we just reinforce intergenerational trauma and exacerbate problems, while building more prison spaces. They say the definition of stupidity is to keep doing the same thing and expecting different outcomes, but here we are. Unless there is a push to challenge and change, this will always be the case. 

Dr Sharon Duignan is Lecturer at Atlantic Technological University, School of Business. Her book, Transforming Justice for Women, can be found here. Paula Kearney is the BRIO Coordinator at the SAOL Project, more information about which can be found here.