In the last two decades government sentencing policy has increasingly looked at ways of dealing with offenders within the community. As with many criminal justice strategies the government turned to America for inspiration in penal policy. One of the more controversial strategies to be adopted was the use of electronic tagging for young offenders at a time when Home Office statistics show this group has increased its reoffending rate. This article discusses the findings of research, undertaken in the Southampton area of the UK, which considered its effectiveness as an overall deterrent to crime and anti-social behaviour. Its conclusion questions the viability of tagging as a deterrence.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ArmstrongT. (1988) ‘National Survey of Juvenile Intensive Probation Supervision: Parts 1 and 2’ In HarlandA. T. (1996), Choosing Correctional Options that Work. London: Sage.
2.
BaumerT.MendelsohnR. (1991) ‘Comparing Methods of Monitoring Home Detention: The Results of a Field Experiment’. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Society of Criminology, San Francisco. Cited in HarlandA. T. (1996), Choosing Correctional Options that Work. London: Sage.
3.
BrownM.RoyS. (1995) ‘Manual and Electronic House Arrest: An Evaluation of Factors Related to Failure’. Cited in HarlandA. T. (1996) Choosing Correctional Options that Work. London: Sage.
4.
ByrneJ.PattavinaA. (1992) ‘The Effectiveness Issue: Assessing What Works in the Adult Community Corrections System. In ByrneJ.LurigioA.PetersiliaJ. (eds), Smart Sentencing: The Emergence of Intermediate Sanctions. New-bury Park, CA: Sage, 281–303.
EllisM. (2004) ‘The Tracking Controvery: The Roots of Monitoring and Electronic Tagging’Youth Justice4(2), Russel House Publishing.
7.
GendreauP. (1996) ‘The Principles of Effective Intervention with Offenders’. Cited in HarlandA. T., (1996), Choosing Correctional Options that Work. London: Sage.
8.
Home Office (2003) Juvenile Reconviction Results from the 2003 Cohort. Home Office Online Report, [Accessed August 2005].
9.
KrisbergB.RodriguezO.BaakeA.NeuenfeldtD.SteeleP. (1989) Demonstration of post-adjudication, non-residential intensive supervision programs: Assessment report. San Francisco: National Council on Crime and Delinquency. Cited in HarlandA. T. (1996), Choosing Correctional Options that Work. London: Sage.
PalmerT. (1996) ‘Programmatic and Non-programmatic Aspects of Successful Intervention’, in HarlandA. T. (ed.), Choosing Correctional Options that Work: Defining the Demand and Evaluating the Supply. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
12.
Southampton City Council (2002) Southampton Community Safety Strategy. Retrieved 15 November 2003, from CityWeb www.southampton.gov.uk.
13.
StaceyT. (2002) ‘Developments in Britain’ In WhitfieldD. (ed.), Tackling the Tag. Winchester: Waterside Press, 17–29.
