Chapter 15 — Daingean

Physical abuse

Contemporary complaints about excessive use of corporal punishment revealed how complaints were dealt with by both the Department of Education and the management of Daingean, and the kinds of investigation carried out once a complaint was made.

The standard procedure followed was that, once the Department of Education received a complaint, the Resident Manager was contacted for his comments and observations on the substance of the complaint. If the allegation was of physical abuse or neglect, the Department would often send in its Medical Inspector, who would then report back on the matter.

In 1953, a father wrote a letter of complaint to the Department of Education, in which he complained that his son was flogged several times in the School.

The Resident Manager responded to the query raised by the Department. The issue of ’flogging’ was dealt with by describing the procedure. He said that ‘flogging’ meant that a boy was ‘put on his knees receiving a few (5 or 6) light strokes of a light strap on the back’. This was not done ‘except for serious offences such as (a) insubordination (b) deliberate destruction of property (c) public immoral conduct (d) inciting others to riotous conduct (e) absconding’.

The Medical Inspector, Dr McCabe, was sent in to investigate. She described the ‘flogging’ process as stated earlier in this chapter: “Flogging” ... consists in taking the offender into a small room, removing his pants and administering 5 or 6 strokes on the bare posterior with a leather strap which is quite flexible, about 1” wide and 1 yard long (It resembles a strap used to put around a suitcase) The punishment is administered by the disciplinarian who is a very understanding patient man and always offers an excuse in defence of the boy if at all possible.

She then described her examination of the boys. ‘At the Medical Examination’, she wrote: I failed to find a single mark on any boy’s body that indicated he had been punished. When I questioned the boys about the so-called “flogging” each and every one admitted that if they had been punished they had deserved it. I cannot see how discipline can be kept in this Reformatory unless the Manager has some deterrent.

She went on to state: the type of boy now being sent in is much tougher than in former years – housebreakers, stealers of large sums of money, car stealing and crashing.

She then asserted: It is the opinion of all that these boys are sent in far too late for the Manager and his Staff to make much impression on them.

With regard to one boy she examined, he ‘... admitted running away several times and on the last occasion arrived home. He is an unpleasant type of boy and very prone to lying’.

Having received her report, Mr Ó Síochfhradha, the Department Inspector, submitted his own memorandum on the complaints. He wrote: Dr. McCabe is satisfied, and I agree with her, that the punishment inflicted in these extreme cases is not excessive and is resorted to only when absolutely necessary. This form of punishment was administered when necessary during [Fr. Neron’s] period of office as Resident Manager (1940s). As a matter of interest the salutary effect of the leather strap when applied on the proper place is referred to in an Article (Page 80) in the June 1953 issue of the “Approved Schools Gazette” – copy attached to file cover.

This is in marked contrast to the circular prepared by Mr Ó Síochfhradha in 1946, in which he gave more detailed guidelines as to the permissible administration of corporal punishment in residential schools. In this circular he impressed on the Resident Managers that corporal punishment should only be used as a last resort and ‘only for grave transgressions’.

Given the tone of the 1946 circular, the response by him and Dr McCabe is puzzling. It is even more absurd that Mr Ó Síochfhradha should then write to the Minister recommending ‘... the salutary effect of the leather strap when applied on the proper place’, when he himself had ruled the only proper place was on the hand.

The Department of Education referred to this matter in its Submission to the Investigation Committee: While the punishment of boys in this instance appeared to contravene Department regulations, the Inspector is not recorded as having challenged the Resident Manager and it is possible that Dr. McCabe considered reformatories requiring a different approach in regard to discipline and the use of corporal punishment. There is no evidence that she offered advice on how the troublesome boys could have been treated differently; the 1946 circular stated that principals could draw on the advice of the Department’s Medical Inspector “regarding any children who are specially troublesome of difficult to control”.

This statement itself revealed the problem. The Inspectors were the only persons who could, through their regular visits, ensure that the rules for corporal punishment were being followed. If Dr McCabe believed that the rules and regulations relating to corporal punishment did not apply to reformatories, this was a fact that should have been recorded in the Department records. It is a measure of the inadequacy of the Department’s supervision that it did not know what standards its own Inspector applied. In this case, the Inspector reported back and received Departmental approval for her approach.

Dr McCabe’s acceptance of the blatant breach of the rules and regulations governing corporal punishment is significant. No attempt was made to disguise the regime in operation. The Department of Education knew its rules were being breached in a fundamental way and condoned it. As a result, management in Daingean could and did operate a system of punishment in breach of the rules laid down by the Department, in the knowledge that the Department would not interfere.