Chapter 15 — Daingean

Physical abuse

This Brother was named by a number of complainants as being excessively harsh and violent. He denied some of the specific allegations, such as giving an uppercut that led to a boy’s nose pumping blood, or that he had boxed and kicked a boy in the handball alley, but he nonetheless confirmed the policy of ad hoc punishments giving slaps or punches, believing that boys preferred to be dealt with in this way rather than being put on report.

The Oblates referred to this practice of ‘on-the-spot’ punishments and asserted that it was no more than that which occurred in schools around the country. Complainants, however, made a clear distinction between what could be described as ‘normal’ corporal punishment and the ill-tempered and violent outbursts described above.

The Oblates went further. They stated: In the context of a reformatory where fights and altercations did break out, it was sometimes the only efficient means of keeping control on unruly boys.

In each of the incidents described above, none of which would come within the description of a fight or altercation, the violence was an inappropriate and unnecessary response.

Corporal punishment was a first response by many of the staff in Daingean for even minor transgressions. It was often violent and black eyes, split lips and bruising were reported by complainants. Violence was not the ‘only efficient means of keeping control on unruly boys’ but, because management was inept and staffing inadequate, it was undoubtedly convenient.

Several complainants, in the evidence they gave to the Committee, were careful to make it clear that not all of the staff were brutal or excessively violent.

Witnesses drew the distinction between a Brother who punished fairly and another who did not: He was more humane about it ... He didn’t beat you until you submitted ... you got six of the best on the hand or backside ... And that was it. He didn’t lose it and start kicking you from one end of the office to the other.

Some witnesses singled out particular men as ‘nice’, but stressed that there were also a few people who did terrible things: ‘There was a ring of them, there was a handful of them and they done what they liked’. The consistent complaint was that these ‘nice’ men on the staff did nothing to curb the activities of the men who were harsh and excessive. These men could not protect them from the others.

As one witness said: There was no recourse. There was no safe haven. There was no hole you could climb into. There was nobody you could talk to. You were on your own.

The Brothers who were more violent created the pervasive atmosphere of threat: ‘Inside the institution I had to keep my head down because I didn’t want to be beaten,’ said one witness.

In his report of July 1945, Mr Ó Siochfhradha, the Department of Education Inspector, wrote: I looked at the corporal punishment book. There was no entry from the beginning of this year because for the past half-year the stick has been dispensed with as a means of punishment and in its place is a system of allocating marks for good behaviour and marks for bad behaviour and the bestowing or withdrawing of little priviledges as a result. The Resident Manager is very happy that this method is much more efficient in getting across to the boys that they should practice the good and avoid the evil.

This paragraph confirms there was a punishment book that has since been lost. It asserts that corporal punishment was no longer in use, when it is now known it was still in use over 20 years later. It also shows an awareness of techniques to control behaviour that did not become widespread until decades later. In fact, corporal punishment remained in use as the main system of discipline until 1970, when the Resident Manager was told to stop using it.

Fr Hughes said in the Phase I hearing that he was sure a punishment book would have been used but that, when he asked ex-staff members, there were ‘always very vague responses’.

In a regime that was admittedly heavily dependent on corporal punishment, the need for a proper system of administering it was fundamental, and keeping the record was part of a proper regime, as well as being required by law. The information given to the Department Inspector in 1945 about the punishment regime in Daingean was entirely misleading.

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.