It has come to the attention of New Scientist that the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) in the UK has the capacity to track the location of numerous juveniles who have engaged in serious offenses through the utilization of GPS ankle bracelets. Commencing in 2021, this initiative monitors minors as young as twelve years old. Some scholars and advocates are of the opinion that such tags are unnecessary, and their effectiveness has yet to be demonstrated.
Lucie Audibert from the United Kingdom-based charitable organization known as Privacy International has stated that current research conducted by both medical and human rights organizations indicates that GPS tagging is frequently perceived as a form of open-door prison that carries with it a high degree of stigmatization. The author, furthermore, suggested that there may be reasons to question both the necessity and appropriateness of continuously monitoring the GPS location of such children.
In order to track people who have been released from prison on probation for crimes including burglary or knife crime, GPS ankle bands were first implemented in England and Wales in 2018. The tags may track a person's movements around the clock and be used to make sure that the offender stays away from particular places, such as the victim's house, and that they show up for court-ordered appointments.
In March 2021, the utilization of tags was broadened to encompass minors under the age of 18 who have been involved in violent or sexual offenses. Following the submission of freedom of information inquiry, New Scientist has obtained knowledge that 388 minors below the age of 18 were compelled to wear GPS tags during the year 2021, with the youngest being 13 years old. According to records for 2022, 550 minors, including one who was 12 years of age, were monitored through the use of GPS trackers.
Neither Scotland nor Northern Ireland utilize GPS tagging for juvenile offenders. As per a spokesperson for the Ministry of Justice, in England and Wales, the tags are employed as a means of safeguarding children as well as aiding in steering them away from illicit activities or the exploitation they may face from criminals.
The spokesperson expressed that minors may be employed for the purpose of ensuring their attendance at educational institutions or to avoid exposure to areas where gang involvement or activity is abundant. It was conveyed that effective measures have been established to ensure that the welfare of minors is the topmost priority and that the utilization of this approach is only considered in dire circumstances.
Elizabeth Paddock, an expert from the University of Nottingham in the UK who has undertaken a comprehensive study of electronic monitoring for criminals, has indicated that there is uncertainty about whether the tags achieve their intended objectives. She has further highlighted that there is a dearth of published studies, especially high-quality research, that demonstrate a reduction in recidivism rates for those placed on electronic monitoring.
As per Paddock's assertion, it holds utmost significance to ascertain the precise methodology and rationale behind electronic monitoring's deterrent effect on criminal activities in the immediate timeframe, as well as the potential persistence of the resulting behavioral modifications over the extended term.
According to her statement, akin to other forms of intervention in the realm of criminal justice, its efficacy can be efficiently employed for appropriate purposes, although it may prove insufficient when executed under unsuitable circumstances.