Electronic Curfew Orders and Juvenile Offenders
| DOI | 10.1350/pojo.2006.79.1.29 |
| Date | 01 March 2006 |
| Published date | 01 March 2006 |
| Author | Janine Sanger |
| Subject Matter | Article |
JANINE SANGER
ELECTRONIC CURFEW ORDERS
AND JUVENILE OFFENDERS
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 con-
sidered its effectiveness as an overall deterrent to crime and
anti-social behaviour. Its conclusion questions the viability of
tagging as a deterrence.
Introduction
Juvenile crime has increased dramatically in the UK during the
last four decades, with 75% of young offenders reoffending. The
rate of recidivism suggests deterrent programmes are failing
(Home Office, 1999).
In 2003 legislation was introduced (The Criminal Justice Act
2003) which gave authorities power to electronically tag young
people as young as 12. Additionally, provided it does not interfere
with religious beliefs or educational responsibilities, the offender
can be required to reside at a certain place, normally his or her
home, for a specified period of time or subject to curfew.
This article discusses the use of electronic ‘tagging’ as a
means of deterrent, using data recorded by Hampshire Constabu-
lary between 1 January and 31 December 2000. This option of
sentencing is important as research has established that almost a
third of offences are committed by those aged 17 years or less
and that the peak rate of offending among juvenile males is 17
years and for females, 15 years. It has been established that a
third of all crimes committed by young people during this period
related to theft or handling stolen goods, 12% to violent inci-
dents, 11% to road-related incidents and 9% to criminal damage
(Southampton City Council, 2002).
These statistics demonstrate the size of crime committed by
juvenile offenders. It is therefore important to identify a pro-
gramme that will deter juveniles from reoffending in the future.
The Police Journal, Volume 79 (2006) 29
To continue reading
Request your trial