Criminal Tagging

As the jails become overcrowded the Blair Government looked for a cheap alternative. The cost of tagging criminals is only a fraction of that for providing a cell.

As a result, the UK has more than twice the number of tagged criminals than the rest of Europe put together. In 2006, we had over 60,000 criminals roaming the streets roaming our streets.

There is no evidence that tagging acts as a deterrent to crime (anyone who's seen Lindsay Lohan's most recent brush with the Californian authorities will know that she was arrested for drunk-driving and possession of cocaine despite having been tagged). Re-offenders are at a record high. The really tragic disasters are the 6 murders and 4,000 other offences carried by 'tagged criminals' -- criminals that should ahve been taken off of the streets and prevented from being able to carry out these crimes.

It wouldn't be a problem if the Government only tagged petty criminals (with jails as overcrowded as they are, I can see the reasoning behind keeping a vandal or a speeding motorist out of the cells) but pressure on judges by the Government mean that serious violent criminals and suspected terries are let out of custody... and then the Government is surprised when some disappear and most just ignore the 'tagging curfew' since there is no effective policing of the system. If there was a 'one strike and you're in' policy that put curfew breakers back in jail, maybe the tags would be effective. But, sadly, there isn't and most tagged criminals admit they are consistent curfew dodgers.

Worse, the system has no clue where the criminal is once they have left their house; it only knows that they have left the building. What sort of security is that? After a decade of increasing surveillance and diminishing privacy and civil liberties, you would have thought that keeping track on convicted criminals would be a key thing. Especially since tagging is supposed to be a crime deterrant -- how much more effective would it be if your tag could place you at the scene of a crime at the time that the crime took place?

But, no, that would be too easy. So, instead, we have a system which leaves at least 15,000 criminals (at any one time) to their own devices and free to commit crime. Is not the first responsibility of our Government and Courts to protect us from criminals?