The total unacceptability of the discredited Royal Ulster Constabulary to the Nationalist working class community in the six-counties has left a vacuum in which the breakdown of community life is occurring at a worryingly high rate in what were once self-supporting communities.

Whilst there has undoubtedly been an increasing external awareness of the social problems faced in Nationalist working class areas, it is our view that this external awareness is due to heightened debate surrounding the overall political climate rather than a comprehensive strategy to combat poverty, crime, and social problems.

It is a fact that more words have been spoken, more glossy reports have been produced, more conferences have been held, and more people are in paid employment in the community sector than ever before.

Why then is the spirit and resilience shown by our people, the one single factor that kept the fabric of our communities together over the past 30 years of oppression and conflict, on the decline?

This paper does not intend to examine the history and continuing behaviour of the RUC. The IRSP have given our views on the unacceptability of the RUC and the view that it should be dissolved in a submission to the "Independent Commission on Policing" (The Patten Commission).

It is the intention of this paper to explore the possibilities of an alternative Community Policing and Justice System (CPJS).

It is the view of the IRSP that serious crime such as murder, rape, child abuse, serious assault, drug trafficking, and serious crimes against both person s and property will be the remit of whatever policing service emerges from the current review of policing in the six-counties.

We say this with the proviso that the rule of law has to be applied equally without prejudice to a person's religion, political affiliation or lack of affiliation, or perceived social class.

Communities do not have the expertise to deal with this typed of serious crime, nor is there any indication that the community wishes to be involved in adjudicating on crimes of this seriousness.

The IRSP remain opposed to any form of punishment that involves inflicting punishment shootings or beatings. Our opposition to punishment beatings by paramilitaries is based on three premises:

1. It is an abuse of an individual's human rights. (It is not possible to restore an abuse of one person's human rights by inflicting an abuse on another's human rights.)
2. The rise in anti-community behaviour is proof that punishment beatings do not work.
3. Punishment beatings have more to do with revenge than justice.

The IRSP are calling for the establishment of a Community Policing Justice Service (CPJS) to deal with anti-community behaviour. CPJS would fulfill a dual role, providing restorative justice and support and assistance to both the victims and perpetrators of anti-community behaviour.

Most behaviour in the community that has been classed as anti-social behaviour in the past is of a nuisance nature rather than of a malign criminal nature. Underage drinking, drug abuse, minor theft, vandalism, and group or gang-associated behaviour can be classed as "nuisance" rather than criminal. Most perpetrators of community crime are young working class teenagers. They have suffered the same as other age groupings from the 30 years of conflict.

Much community crime is learned behaviour.

Classifying such behaviour as "nuisance" rather than criminal is not to minimise the effects of such behaviour on the wider community, nor does it minimalise the anger and frustration justifiably felt by the victims.

In communities where alcohol and more recently drugs play a major role in the social life of the community, we should not be surprised when young people carry on with such learned behaviour.

The sectarian nature of the RUC, which has led to the rejection of that body by the Nationalist working class, has also been a major contributory factor in the breakdown of general law and order in the community. This failure coupled with paramilitary justice has led to young people being marginalised within their own communities.

To improve the quality of life in working class communities by addressing nuisance behaviour has to be to the fore of any system of community justice. We believe that restorative justice, making the penalty fit the crime, is by far the best way forward for both the victims and the perpetrators of community crime. For example, if somebody breaks someone's window, they should have to pay for its replacement, and if someone cannot pay for the window, they then should have to pay in kind to the victim by doing some work for that household commensurate with the discomfort they have caused.

Limited curfews could be imposed on those guilty of noisy nuisance behaviour.

Who decides on the penalties?

Whilst we do not have a problem in principle with former members of armed groups playing a supportive role within a Community Policing and Justice Service, we would object strongly to any singular grouping en bloc being allocated a policing or adjudication role.

For far too long our communities have suffered from policing and justice by a singular political ideology, it would create a system that would be wide open to abuse and favouritism. No better examples of this type of abuse exist than the present RUC and paramilitary favouritism when it comes to dishing out punishments.

It is our view that individual applications to join or play a supportive role in a CPJS should be judged on merit regardless of paramilitary connections or political affiliations.

The IRSP recommend the setting up of a Community Adjudication Panel (CAP). This panel would consist of three or five adjudicators nominated from the community sector, the legal sector, and possibly the political and religious sectors. For example, a panel could consist of a community worker, local solicitor, local councillor, parish priest, etc.

Those individuals called in for adjudication would be entitled to be represented by a person of their choosing. They would also have the option of bringing their case to the magistrate's court.

The panel would only have the power to impose restorative penalties, it would not have the power to imprison or impose any physical injury sentence. It would have the power to refer "cases" to a higher court (i.e. the magistrate's court).

The object of the Community Adjudication Panel will not only be to decide a fair restorative penalty, but more importantly to look at the reasons for community misdemeanours and to try and assist the individual involved in reintegrating the individual into the community.

The CAP would keep a confidential record of an individual penalised, it would not consistitute a criminal record, and it would not be available to either the courts or potential employers.

As we have already said, working class teenagers perpetrate most community crime, most of this supposed crime is of a nuisance nature rather than malign intent.

We believe that a high percentage of teenagers will grow out of this anti-community behaviour and become positive contributors to their own community life. To stigmatise a young person as either anti-social or criminal at a young age will make the positive reintegration of that person into the local community all the more difficult.

If the CAP fulfills its dual role of administrating restorative justice and indentifying the causes of individuals anti-community behaviour and giving that individual the support necessary to change his/her behaviour, the percentage of teenagers playing a positive role within the community would be high.

The decline in the quality of life in working class communities is happening now and needs to be tackled immediately. It needs to be tackled as part of an overall comprehensive strategy aimed at tackling poverty and deprivation.

A Community Policing and Justice Service should be put in place now, regardless of the ongoing review of the RUC.

Working class communities cannot afford to wait what is obviously going to be many years whilst we see if the "Good Friday Agreement" is going to deliver a fair and accountable policing service.

A Community Policing and Justice Service based along the guidelines we have suggested above could be put in place immediately without prejudice to the existing review of policing in the six-counties.

A Community Policing and Justice Service could be financed by both the British and Irish governments out of the already massive security budget.

Since 1994, significant savings have been made by both governments in their policing and security bill. Tthese savings have been made without any noticeable improvement to the quality of life in working class communities. Many would say that the quality of life in these areas is in steep decline.

Money invested in a CPJS would be money directly invested in the local communities, instead of going directly to the governments exchequer, it would be money well spent and could lead to significant long-term savings in the policing and judicial budget.

The CPJS is not the definitive answer to anti-community behaviour.

The IRSP intend to circulate this paper among the community sector for consultation and fine tuning. It is however, we believe, a positive and constructive attempt by our party to begin to address the breakdown in the quality of community life being experienced in working class communities at present.

We believe that a Community Policing and Justice Service will be necessary for the well being of working class communities, regardless of the outcome of the current review of policing.

What is patently clear from the steady decline within working class communities is that we have to begin to address the problems now, any delay for whatever reasons can only contribute to that decline.