Whether this is realistic or not “will largely depend on the
plans of G4S, the new preferred bidder for the tags”. It’s hard to understand
how the controversial private security company is still involved in this field
at all. For one thing, they are under investigation for fraud following the 2014
overbilling scandal- one of the factors identified by the NAO as contributing
to the delays in the new system. Should criminal wrongdoing be proved, could
they really continue with the contract? And
while G4S’s future role seems to be limited to providing the tags themselves,
only last year faults were found with these. As a result enforcement action may
have been taken against offenders or suspects in response to false tamper
reports.
What the NAO report doesn’t do is make a broader and longer term
assessment of the contribution that EM has and could make to criminal justice.
If they had, they’d find the delay in getting location tracking off the ground is
closer to fifteen years than five. In 2004, with the prison population at 74,000,
then Home Secretary David Blunkett promised that satellite tracking technology
could provide the basis for a 'prison without bars', potentially cutting prison
overcrowding, and expensive accommodation. Plans were announced for the 5,000
most prolific offenders in England and Wales to be tagged and tracked using the
global positioning system (GPS). Pilot schemes were duly arranged and evaluated
with magistrates and District Judges finding tracking “a helpful sentencing
option”.
Since then, while the prison population has increased by 11,000,
the NAO found that the average number of subjects having their movements
tracked using GPS in 2016-17 was …20. It’s true that more than 10,000 people are
subject to curfews of one sort or another and some – particularly those on Home
Detention Curfew- would otherwise be in prison.
But for whatever reason- political, technological, administrative- the
promise of tracking as a way of emptying prisons has simply not been delivered.
When I put this point to a provider of EM recently, I was told something to the
effect that only 2% of households had fridges in 1950. Success, it seems is
just around the corner.
An excellent recent study of EM concluded that it has
universal appeal, with its chief purpose being “its perceived ability to bring
about cost savings by operating as an alternative to prison”. But as the NAO finds “there is still limited
evidence"about its effectiveness. While their
report documents a shocking history of failure to organise EM properly, it avoids the bigger
question about the role it is expected
to play in the criminal justice system in England and Wales.
No comments:
Post a Comment