Prisoner Tagging - Should we just tag everyone with a criminal record

JimmySmith

Theres a lot of talk going on at the moment about bringing in prisoner tagging for those with early release.
But since they are harping on about the prisons being full etc, should we not just tag everyone with a criminal record anyway, regardless of whether or not they have been released. You good limit the movements of those still serving time and just use the tag on someone who is not lited anymore to see if they were in the vicinity of a crime.
If you commit a crime you give up you're right to be treated like upstanding citizens. Anyway a tag will do them no harm, just let them know that they are being watched 24 hours a day. Garauntee they wont get into a stolen car, rob a bank or assault people etc. All the cops have to do is see if there was a criminal in that area and put their mugshot in the bunch they give to the witnesses.

I agree but why stop there. We should tattoo a list of crimes on their foreheads. Force them to wear orange overalls at all times. Mandatory head shaving wouldn't be a bad idea. I mean once you commit a crime you have given up your rights to be treated as an upstanding citizen forever

The Gnome

I would agree with tagging but I would like to see some form of "three strikes" policy implemented for less serious crimes.

All serious crimes should be tagged though regardless. Maybe something like green for less serious, orange for moderate, red for serious or repeat offenders.

JimmySmith

The thing about tagging is that its not obvious to someone looking at the person, so no issues with discrimination. Also nobody has to watch these guys on a radar. If there is a crime reported in an area that these people are in then it will light up.

Victor

What if I take my tag off?

Will I leave my hat on?

pete

JimmySmith wrote:

The thing about tagging is that its not obvious to someone looking at the person, so no issues with discrimination.

It seems UK courts might disagree:
From http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hereford/worcs/4425198.stm:

A teenager has successfully challenged a court bid forcing her to wear an electronic ankle tag as she said it would not look right with a skirt.

which as it happens was followed 5 days later by http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hereford/worcs/4439186.stm

A teenager who challenged a court bid forcing her to wear an electronic ankle tag as she said it looked stupid with a skirt has now agreed to wear one.
Natasha Hughes, 18, from Arboretum, Worcester, won her battle not to wear it after the city's magistrates heard she liked to dress in a feminine way.

She was ordered to wear a tag for breaching the curfew terms of her bail.

But after a further appearance accused of a breach, she has agreed to have the tag fitted.

pretty*monster

Are you kidding me? Electronic tagging for everyone with a criminal record? As in the Rossport 5? As in the Bin Tax Protestors? As in Social Welfare Frauds? As motorists who run red lights. As in drug possesion? As in drunk and disorderly? As in any number of petty criminals who paid their debt?

The police/government/whoever are watching these tagged citizens are not incorruptable. Private citzens should not have their movement monitored. Am I the only one who's creeped out my the suggestion?

I mean, if you want to take things to extremes, we'd probably have a 'safer' society if everyone was tagged. But I for one would rather give up a measure of personal safety in exchange for freedom.

JimmySmith

pretty*monster wrote:

Are you kidding me? Electronic tagging for everyone with a criminal record? As in the Rossport 5? As in the Bin Tax Protestors? As in Social Welfare Frauds? As motorists who run red lights. As in drug possesion? As in drunk and disorderly? As in any number of petty criminals who paid their debt?

The police/government/whoever are watching these tagged citizens are not incorruptable. Private citzens should not have their movement monitored. Am I the only one who's creeped out my the suggestion?

I mean, if you want to take things to extremes, we'd probably have a 'safer' society if everyone was tagged. But I for one would rather give up a measure of personal safety in exchange for freedom.

Believe it or not You and everyone else are tagged already but you can remove your tag.

What i'm talking about is a tag that cant be removed.

If you cant take the tag then dont do the crime

Captain Trips

The Gnome wrote:

I would agree with tagging but I would like to see some form of "three strikes" policy implemented for less serious crimes.

All serious crimes should be tagged though regardless. Maybe something like green for less serious, orange for moderate, red for serious or repeat offenders.

Why three? WHy not four? WHy not two?

Exactly where should the totally arbritary line be drawn? DO you have some forensic background knowledge that miraculously says that if you imprison someone who commits 3 petty crimes they should be jailed and are less likely to reoffend simply because it's the third time.

Pavlov you are not, mate.

Zombrex

JimmySmith wrote:

Theres a lot of talk going on at the moment about bringing in prisoner tagging for those with early release.
But since they are harping on about the prisons being full etc, should we not just tag everyone with a criminal record anyway, regardless of whether or not they have been released. You good limit the movements of those still serving time and just use the tag on someone who is not lited anymore to see if they were in the vicinity of a crime.
If you commit a crime you give up you're right to be treated like upstanding citizens. Anyway a tag will do them no harm, just let them know that they are being watched 24 hours a day. Garauntee they wont get into a stolen car, rob a bank or assault people etc. All the cops have to do is see if there was a criminal in that area and put their mugshot in the bunch they give to the witnesses.

No objections to tagging someone for a period of time after being released (say 6 months), but it would be ridiculous to tag everyone who has served time for the rest of their lives ... for a start the cost would be huge

Victor

Wicknight wrote:

for a start the cost would be huge

I wonder if JimmySmith works for a mobile phone company!

Hagar

The Gnome wrote:

I would agree with tagging but I would like to see some form of "three strikes" policy implemented for less serious crimes.

Given the fantastic detection rate of reported crime in Ireland and the numbers of unreported crimes, I wonder what the chances are that someone who has been convicted three times has only committed three crimes?

bonkey

Captain Trips wrote:

Why three? WHy not four? WHy not two?

Three strikes and your out.
Third time is the charm.
Three is the magic number.
Going once, going twice, gone...
She's once, twice, three times a lady.
Ready, steady, go.

Three is a common enough pattern. Why not three.

Gurgle

Captain Trips wrote:

Exactly where should the totally arbritary line be drawn? DO you have some forensic background knowledge that miraculously says that if you imprison someone who commits 3 petty crimes they should be jailed and are less likely to reoffend simply because it's the third time.

That question can only be answered correctly by a psychologist.
Or maybe a criminal statistician.
Or a judge.

HEY!
Lets form a committee, hire some consultants, commission a study, investigate the legal, psychological and constitutional implications.

Theres no point in checking the results of the same bloody thing everywhere else in the world its already been done, much more fun to predict what will happen here.:rolleyes:

(Good thing theres nothing better to do with all this money.)

The Gnome

Captain Trips wrote:

Why three? WHy not four? WHy not two?

Exactly where should the totally arbritary line be drawn? DO you have some forensic background knowledge that miraculously says that if you imprison someone who commits 3 petty crimes they should be jailed and are less likely to reoffend simply because it's the third time.

Pavlov you are not, mate.

Indeed I do, several long years of studies culminating in a MA. I was not drawing a "totally arbitary line" I was making a suggestion. If a person cannot learn they get burn by fire after touching the flame the first time then a little help might be needed. If criminals could be conditioned as readily as Pavlovs dogs or (dare I mention his pidgeons) then we wouldn't need a tagging system, just arrest anyone who salivates at the ringing of a bell.

Hagar wrote:

Given the fantastic detection rate of reported crime in Ireland and the numbers of unreported crimes, I wonder what the chances are that someone who has been convicted three times has only committed three crimes?

I have to agree with you there Hagar, yet another problem to be solved.