Letter: Negligible benefits of tagging

Sir: Tom Stacey's claims for the success of tagging (Letters, 5 June) will not surprise those who have received material from the Offender's Tag Association. They should, however, be treated with caution, especially as the most authoritative researchers in the US, from the National Institute of Corrections, paint the opposite picture. There, tagging is described, after 10 years' experience, as "equipment in search of a programme" and it is increasingly being marginalised.

When I visited earlier this year, Washington DC had more than 22,000 of its citizens on probation and parole supervision. The number tagged had fallen from 300, in 1991, to only 58. Florida claims 15,000 people on intensive crime control supervision programmes; only 950 are electronically monitored, but the majority are drink-driving offenders and others for whom we would consider tagging inappropriate. Since more than half the tagging schemes in the US are for six weeks or less, it seems fanciful to claim that changed behaviour patterns and reduced recidivism are the result.

The claim that equipment failure is "negligible" is also worth examining. Mr Stacey cites Sweden as an example, but the latest report on the scheme there acknowledges that technical faults have been much higher than expected. Tagging may be good for politicians - it does at least produce the illusion of "doing something" about crime - but it is a bad bargain for the taxpayer.

Yours faithfully,

R. G. WHITFIELD

Chief Probation Officer

Kent Probation Service

Maidstone, Kent