Somebody put a gun to the head of Patrick Sheridan. The muzzle was placed next to the 27-year old's left ear. Then he was shot three times, violently propelled out of this world.

The suspected motive for Sheridan's murder in October 2003 was that he had witnessed a shooting six weeks previously, and the perpetrators may have thought he reported it to the gardaí.

Sheridan was a petty criminal and drug addict. Three men were suspected of being involved in his murder, an inquest heard last week.

One of the suspects was himself subsequently murdered. Another died from a drugs overdose. The third man committed suicide in prison. It is unlikely that beyond their immediate families, there was any great regret at their respective passings.

In adulthood, the four had impacted negatively on society. Sheridan's crimes, while described as petty, no doubt affected individuals, whether through loss of property or the fear of physical harm. The other three were suspected murderers, and, most likely, involved in gangland crime, which carries its own terror and tragedy.

Their activities had financial implications for society. Sheridan was on a methadone maintenance programme. One of the suspects was also an addict, who would have required treatment. The suspect who died in prison was a financial burden on the state. Expensive garda resources had to be deployed to investigate the murder of Sheridan and the suspect who was subsequently murdered himself.

Overall, the impact the four had on their families, their victims, wider society and state resources was considerable, and quite possibly devastating, depending on the exact instances of their crimes.

Once upon a time all four were babies, and then toddlers, innocent to the world. Somewhere along the line, things turned sour.

Ask teachers or support workers in disadvantaged areas and they will tell you they can spot the 10-year-old who will become involved in crime, end up in prison, and quite possibly, die a young and violent death.

By the age of 10, the future is already written for many criminals. By then, it is often too late to do anything about that child's prospects. Everybody is subject to personal responsibility, but in many cases the range of choices and options are squeezed from a very early age.

The man on the moon might observe the foregoing and conclude that one possible solution is to intervene early in childhood to divert the child from the path on which he might be bound.

If such a strategy were applied to the four deceased men it is unlikely that all four could have been diverted from the fate that eventually befell them and their victims. It is eminently possible that one, or maybe two, or, at an outside chance, three of them could have ventured down another path.

This might be common sense, and make economic sense, particularly in a country that tells itself the crime problem is getting out of hand. The man on the moon might be imbued with such common sense, but successive governments have quite obviously not been.

Last week, the OECD reported that Ireland was near the bottom of the league table of early childhood education. The implications of that scandal for vulnerable children are obvious.

Last week, the Irish Times reported that thousands of children at risk of abuse or neglect have not been allocated a social worker. One wonders on the likelihood that a child in that bracket might one day pick up a gun.

Last week, Barnardos launched its Written Out, Written Off campaign, highlighting educational disadvantage. One of the facts referenced in the campaign is that the majority of inmates in Irish prisons never sat a state exam. Is a trend apparent here?

While successive governments have been blind to the nurturing of tomorrow's criminals, they sure love looking tough in dealing with today's, swinging a big stick after the horse has bolted.

Last week, justice minister Dermot Ahern launched the latest "package" of measures designed to crack down on gangland crime. Brian Cowen said the legislation "sends out a clear message to those involved in gangland crimes that we are taking you head on". We have heard these sentiments before, and little has changed.

There are some civil-liberty concerns about new measures that could effectively exclude lay people from the process of criminal trials, through bypassing the need for juries or witnesses. However, most people will be more concerned with the effectiveness of the measures.

Form suggests the measures will have a marginal impact. All research shows that criminals' principal fear is detection, rather than the criminal-justice process, or the penalties which follow conviction. Properly resourcing the gardaí is far and away the best approach to tackling organised crime. But resources are scarce and expensive, legislation is cheap and provides an opportunity for politicians to throw tough-guy shapes.

Resourcing communities to intervene and divert tomorrow's potential criminals is patently the soundest approach of all, from a human and financial perspective. But that tomorrow is beyond the next election, and therefore beyond the ken of most politicians.

The causes of crime will continue to go unchecked. There will be more Patrick Sheridans, drawn into a dark world through addiction. There will be more young men willing to place a gun to the head of another and pull the trigger. There will be more outrage expressed at every level in society, and some people will revel in asking a stupid question with an obvious answer. How has it come to this?

mclifford@tribune.ie