Electronic Tagging: Big Brother Is Here

The next time you’re tempted to get lairy while out on the town, stop and think again. New proposals currently being finalised by the Department of Justice could mean that first-time offenders, convicted on Public Order charges, will find themselves being monitored by the Gardai, courtesy of an electronic tag.

Almost certainly, the introduction of electronic monitoring of offenders in Ireland is on the way. And if that sounds suspiciously like the arrival of Big Brother, well, it is.
Tagging of offenders is already in operation in the UK. The scheme allows prisoners serving between eighteen months and four years to apply for electronic tagging, also known as home detention curfew – in theory, in an effort to clear jails of offenders who are not considered dangerous or violent. Those who take part in the scheme wear a device that sets off an automatic alarm if they fail to observe a curfew, usually at their home from 7pm to 7am.
In recent weeks, it has emerged that the Minister for Justice, Michael McDowell [pictured], is strongly in favour of implementing the system here and is reportedly planning to bring proposals to this effect before the Cabinet before Easter. However, the application of the procedure is likely to be completely different, with the Minister threatening that it will be used on those found guilty of Public Order offences.

VERY DANGEROUS
Not everyone accepts that the principle of electronic tagging is a good one. The question becomes even more acute depending on the profile of those who would be targeted for tagging.
While the system in the UK puts the emphasis on the early release of prisoners, Minister McDowell has suggested that, here, the system could be used instead of a custodial sentence. For example, a first time offender found guilty of being drunk and disorderly in the district court would be vulnerable under the proposed legislation.
The Irish Penal Reform Trust has reacted strongly against the plan. One of its members, Joe Costello, the Labour spokesman on Justice, and himself a long time campaigner for prisoner’s rights, believes that the proposals are “nothing more than a PR exercise.” Though he accepts that there is some merit in the system, if used to monitor sex offenders and those on early release, he believes the current proposals by the Minister would lead to a situation where people convicted of relatively minor offences, many of whom would never re-offend anyway, would be tagged.
“It could be very dangerous and gives rise to issues dealing with people’s movement, privacy and civil liberties, when in fact first time offenders nearly always get a second chance anyway – so it is not really an alternative to prison at all.”
The Green Party has criticized the proposals in even more trenchant terms, pointing out that the resources should instead be spent on improving the existing probation services, which would allow them to be more effective in overseeing those who are serving community service orders.

MORE SENTENCES
If introduced it is understood the tagging systems would be provided and operated here by a private company, as is the case in Britain where the system has been in operation since 1999. However, State agencies, such as the probation services, would then respond if criminals broke the conditions of their tagging.
Imprisoning a person in Britain, which currently has the highest proportion of prisoners per capita in western Europe, costs a minimum of £24,000 a year, compared to £2,000 a year for tagging. Some 27,000 people have been tagged. But only about 200 people have been tagged as an actual alternative to prison. However, Rick Lines of the Irish Penal Reform Trust (IPRT) insists that the success of the British system has also been overstated.
“Speaking to the British Prison Reform Trust it is clear that what they are seeing is an increase in the number of people getting sentenced, so that judges can avail of the electronic tagging system.”
Indeed, instead of reducing costs and freeing prison spaces, if the tagging is focused on low-risk first-time offenders then it will in fact merely add to taxpayers costs by monitoring people who would not have been sent to prison anyway.
“If the Department of Justice truly believes that electronic tagging will reduce prison numbers and free up prison places, why do we need a 25 per cent increase in prison beds?” asks Costello. “The policies don’t match up. This is ultimately a PR friendly approach to Criminal Justice policy.”

HOT PRESS COMMENT
By Olaf Tyaransen

Where electronic tagging is concerned, there is a principle at stake. Is it right to use tagging – a process which has something in common with the branding of offenders – at all? Or is it right to use tagging for anything other than the most serious criminal offences of a kind that demand the monitoring of offenders – as in the case of those found guilty of sex offences against children?
What seems clear from Minister McDowell’s first pronouncements on the issue is this. The likely effect of the introduction of tagging here would be a reduction of the use of the Probation Act, through which defendants of previous good character are effectively given the benefit of the doubt by the courts. The use of tagging would become an alternative, with a consequent rise in the number of convictions. Good for the Gardai and the Department of Justice when it comes to reporting the figures at the end of the year – but bad for people.
And remember, if you’re involved in a street protest, or are caught with the makings of a few joints, it could be you, who has to explain the tag to a new lover, as you prepare to remove your jeans some night.