Tagging, curfews? I'm a bit confused. Explain. Curfew orders that are backed by electronic monitoring, or tagging, mean an individual can be obliged to remain at their home or place of curfew for up to 12 hours a day over a period of up to six months. The tag involves the fitting of a small electronic device on to the ankle or wrist of the offender.
This then transmits signals to a monitoring unit installed at the place of curfew. This is connected through a normal telephone line to a monitoring centre, which is run by a private company.
Why does the Government like them? The theory is that short custodial sentences are no use to man nor beast because they disrupt the work and family life of offenders, and do nothing to rehabilitate people. Ministers believe that by keeping individuals at home you disrupt offending patterns and bring stability.
And are ministers right? The report from the probation officers' union Napo points out that the Home Office has this month admitted it has no evidence that electronic monitoring can stop crime, even though advice to magistrates acknowledged this as long ago as 1994. The reconviction rate for young offenders within 12 months of an order is 75 per cent, worse than for those sent to a young offender institution at 69 per cent. "Humiliation of young people doesn't work," says Harry Fletcher, assistant general secretary of Napo.
"They either get angry and resentful or they boast and see the tag as a badge of honour."
What else is wrong with the scheme? One thing, says Napo, is the expense.
It costs the Home Office 1,700 for each tag issued, yet the cost to the private companies that administer the scheme is about 600. The cost for an individual on a curfew order is about twice that of someone on a community order. All in all, over the past four years the union reckons there have been extra costs of 110m - money it claims could have been better invested in providing intensive support through youth offending teams.
Is it run efficiently? Napo says there have been delays in getting tags fitted, technical failures and that violations are not being followed up. It quotes one case where it took 34 violations of the order before the case was brought back to court.
Another involved 17 violations, including two absences for the full 12-hour period. Often it seems that by the time a violation is brought to court, the order is over and the magistrate takes no action.
What next? In April, the Criminal Justice Act came into force, replacing various community orders with a single order for those aged over 18 to which conditions can be attached. This and other changes to sentencing policy will, says Napo, lead to an large increase in curfew orders. It wants the National Audit Office to look at the private sector contracts and an independent assessment made of the whole concept.
FACT BOX
- Curfew orders were first trialled in July 1995, and rolled out nationally for over-16s in 1999. In 2001, they were extended to 10- to 15-year-olds
- In 2003, 13,430 over-16s were placed on orders and a further 2,240 orders were issued to 10- to 15-year-olds
- Some 83 per cent of offenders complete their curfews without problems
- Electronically Monitored Curfew Orders: Time for a Review is available from the web site www.napo.org.uk.
