It is just the type of legislation that a government in the middle of its mandate can look forward to. The ruling coalition parties in Ireland have a maximum of over two years to renew their social contract. Coupled with the latest police reports, which show decreasing levels of criminality, they do not have to woo the electorate for the moment. Then, out of the window, goes the ?tough on crime? electoral sound-bites and in comes the unorthodox legislation. After consultation with its British counterparts, the Irish government plans to introduce electronic tagging as an alternative to custody.

Last year, a litany of revelations in the media and some high profile incidents showed the systemic shortcoming of Mauritian prisons. Not only are they failing society, but sadly, the individuals placed there as well. Ireland, unfortunately, follows the same pattern. Drug-trafficking and poor conditions dog the jails on a level reminiscent of Mauritius. Overcrowding is also a big problem. This is why electronic tagging is being touted as a panacea.

Primarily, the Department of Justice in Ireland has earmarked electronic tagging for first-time offenders. The minister considers it a better substitute than custodial sentencing for those convicted on drunk and disorderly charges. The reasoning goes that prison can have life-changing consequences. It is deemed too drastic for unlikely re-offenders. Courts would then be given the power to bypass the prison system and send back these people into society.

Another reason which makes electronic tagging such an attractive option is the cost of prison. At a fraction of keeping an offender in jail, early estimations predict that the system will reduce the burden on taxpayers. Notwithstanding our attitudes to prisons, which dictate our reluctance to foot the bill for criminals, funds can then be redirected to other areas of government spending. Such is the attractiveness of this proposal to the electorate that not even the power-hungry Labour party thought of it for its first 100 days in office!

In this age of communications, it is quite baffling how such surveillance of criminals has not gained in popularity. Using satellite technology, the same, which allows positioning of mobile phone users, convicts can be placed under constant monitoring. The system can be used to reinforce curfews and spot any activity in prohibited areas. Following the recent drug-related agitations in some parts of Mauritius, electronic tagging could be effective in barring convicted people from congregating in the same spot.

Introduced almost two decades ago in the United States, only a few jurisdictions have adopted this method. Electronic monitoring is thought to have originated from the research of a Harvard professor in 1964. However, the current model is based on the invention of a judge from the same country. Since then, Sweden, Australia, Canada and the United Kingdom have all accommodated electronic tagging in their judicial systems. And now Ireland plans to follow suit.

As the Irish system suffers from chronic problems of drug addiction and shameful detention conditions, electronic tagging is intended to alleviate the problem of overcrowding. However, while it would allow funds to be diverted from potential penitentiary residents, no technology will resolve the inherent problems of jails anywhere. The same applies to Mauritius. If we do not address our attitudes to prisons and finally deliver a truly reforming institution, the same issues will come back to haunt us again and again.

Need to test viability

Furthermore, electronic tagging should not be seen as a magic formula. Countries that have courted this new technology have not seen drastic changes in criminality. Aimed at low-level crimes, where the individuals show no propensity to offend again, it can boost statistics without bringing any significant change. In Sweden, where 90% of those placed on the scheme abided by the law, considerable assistance from drug and alcohol rehabilitation programmes were provided. In many provinces in Canada, it was considered too radical for the petty criminals that it targeted.

If these examples somehow dismiss the case for electronic tagging, a few clarifications will be required to convince the cynics. In case of curfew, it remains to be seen if the tagged convicts will be allowed to shed their electronic signal outside of their restricted times. Also, before money is invested into such a system, its viability has to be considered. Ireland plans to introduce it through private sector funding, where companies and not the government will monitor the criminals. If the statistics do not vindicate electronic tagging, will it be shed? And at what cost?

If the practicalities can present a barrier to the implementation of such an idea, what about the other potential questions that it raises? Last week, the Press Association reported that a school in Swansea, South Wales, intends to pilot the tagging of pupils. Hence, it would allow the staff to know precisely when a child leaves the premises. Although the security of children is becoming an increasingly serious debate, we have to beware of over-reaction. In an age when Terrorist Acts and CCTV ubiquity are slowly eroding our privacy, we have to remain sceptical of projects involving surveillance. Also, last week, a fathers? group in the UK proposed that electronic tagging be introduced in cases where mothers prevent children from seeing their former partners.

There is a case for electronic tagging when it comes to crime, but we should be weary of proposals to implement it in every sphere of life. At a time when privacy is being trampled upon like no other time in the history of liberal democracies, an obsession with technological monitoring could, in the future, lead to a world not far from that imagined by George Orwell in 1984. Electronic tagging should at least be reserved for certain crimes, such as sexual offences, and it should be supported by the usual community-based services like rehabilitation and re-education.

Diren valayden

Outlook Correspondent in Dublin