The modest pace of change within the Irish criminal justice system and the relatively low level of crime here are illustrated by the fact that only now is a Minister for Justice planning to bring proposals to Cabinet to introduce electronic tagging for offenders.
Department of Justice officials are expected to complete, by Easter, the drafting of the necessary legislation which the Minister, Mr McDowell, hopes to bring before the Oireachtas by way of an amendment to the Criminal Justice Bill.
Electronic monitoring of offenders has been in use in other jurisdictions for about 20 years and, reputedly, has its roots in the work of a Harvard professor who in 1964 developed a one-kilogram radio telemetry device which could be worn by a person. It transmitted signals to a modified missile-tracking unit up to 400 metres away, which determined the wearer's location.
The modern equivalent of such technology is now used in locations as far apart as the UK, the US and Australia. In some instances tagging enforces home curfews, curtailing the liberty of offenders by means of a sanction deemed to be tougher than probation but less severe than jail. It is used also as a means of facilitating early release from jail. Some courts impose electronic tagging as a condition when granting bail prior to trial.
The most often cited advantage is the capacity of the system to reduce prison populations by offering an alternative to detention. But there is no consensus on this point: the key issue is whether tagging is used to enhance existing community based sentences or as an alternative to imprisonment.
Mr McDowell, in an address to the Prison Officers' Association last March, suggested that tagging might be more appropriate than jail in the case of first-time offenders convicted, for example, of being drunk and disorderly. In such cases, a custodial sentence could have life-changing implications, he said.
However, the Irish Penal Reform Trust says international experience shows that tagging offers is no alternative to prison because those most often placed on tagging schemes are low risk offenders who would not be sent to jail anyway.
There are questions too regarding the application of monitoring: for instance, if an offender is subject to a curfew, should his movements be monitored outside those hours? Should an offender have to foot the cost of tagging which the Department of Justice envisages would be operated by the private sector?
The fact that such issues are the subject of debate two decades after tagging technology was first used underlines the need for the Department to examine international experience closely. Tagging is no panacea and is unlikely to deliver all that the Minister or the Department might hope. But when used ethically with the consent of the offender, it is a legitimate tool in the full range of community based sanctions with which a modern criminal justice system should be equipped.