Editing Electronic tagging (section)

== Jurisdictions ==

=== United Kingdom ===
Those subject to electronic monitoring may be given curfews as part of [[bail]] conditions, sentenced under the [[Criminal Justice Act 2003]] in England and Wales (with separate legislation applying in Scotland). Alternatively offenders may be released from a prison on a [[Home Detention Curfew]]. Released prisoners under home detention are allowed out during curfew hours only for:
* A wedding or funeral (service only) of a close relative
* A job interview
* Acting as a witness in court
* Emergencies.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.prisonersfamilies.org/hdc/|title=Home Detention Curfew (HDC)|date=2010-12-10|website=Prisoners' Families Helpline|language=en-GB|access-date=2019-10-22|archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20190913222117/https://www.prisonersfamilies.org/hdc/|archive-date=September 13, 2019}}</ref>

Additionally, electronic monitoring may be used for those subject to a curfew given under the [[Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011]] (previously known as a [[control order]] under the [[Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005]]<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-24803069|title=Q&A: TPims explained|date=2013-11-04|access-date=2019-10-22|language=en-GB}}</ref>)

Since electronically monitored curfews were rolled out throughout England and Wales their use has increased sharply, from 9,000 cases in 1999–2000 to 53,000 in 2004–05. In 2004–05, the Home Office spent £102.3 million on the electronic monitoring of curfews and electronically monitored curfews are considered cheaper than custody.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.nao.org.uk/report/the-electronic-monitoring-of-adult-offenders/|title=The Electronic Monitoring of Adult Offenders - National Audit Office (NAO) Report|website=National Audit Office|date=February 2006 |language=en-US|access-date=2019-10-22}}</ref>

Typically, offenders are fitted with an electronic tag around their ankle which sends a regular signal to a receiver unit installed in their home. Some systems are connected to a [[landline]] in the case where [[GSM]] is not available, whilst most arrangements utilize the mobile phone system to communicate with the monitoring company. If the tag is not functioning or within range of the base station during curfew hours, or if the base is disconnected from the power supply, or the base station is moved then the monitoring company are alerted, who in turn, notify the appropriate authority such as the police, the [[National Probation Service]] or the prison the person was released from.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.le.ac.uk/oerresources/criminology/msc/unit8/page_21.htm|title=8.6.2 Electronic Monitoring of Offenders|website=le.ac.uk|access-date=2019-10-22}}</ref>

In 2012, the Policy Exchange think tank examined the use of electronic monitoring in England and Wales and made comparisons with technologies and models seen in other jurisdictions, particularly the United States. The report was critical of the Ministry of Justice's model of a fully privatized service - which gave little scope for police or probation services to make use of electronic monitoring. The report, Future of Corrections, also criticized the cost of the service, highlighting an apparent differential between what the UK taxpayer was charged and what could be found in the United States.<ref>{{Cite book|title=Future of Corrections: Exploring the Use of Electronic Monitoring|author1=Roy Geoghegan |author2=Chris Miller |date=2012-10-01|publisher= Policy Exchange|isbn=9781907689277}}</ref>

Subsequently, there were a number of scandals in relation to electronic monitoring in England and Wales, with a criminal investigation opened by the Serious Fraud Office into the activities of Serco and G4S.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.sfo.gov.uk/2013/11/04/g4s-serco-investigation-2/ |title= G4S and Serco investigation|date=4 November 2013 | publisher=Serious Fraud Office}}</ref> As a result of the investigation, Serco agreed to repay £68.5 million to the taxpayer and G4S agreed to repay £109 million.<ref>{{Cite news|url=http://www.politics.co.uk/news/2015/06/25/moj-paid-g4s-serco-millions-for-electronic-tagging-during-fr|title= MoJ paid G4S & Serco millions for electronic tagging during fraud investigation|author= Ian Dunt|newspaper= politics.co.uk| date=2017-02-15}}</ref> The duopoly were subsequently stripped of their contract, with Capita taking over the contract. In 2017, another criminal investigation saw police make a number of arrests in relation to allegations that at least 32 criminals on tag had paid up to £400 to Capita employees in order to have 'loose' tags fitted, allowing them to remove their tags.<ref>{{Cite news |url=https://news.sky.com/story/arrests-after-criminals-paid-163400-to-get-loose-electronic-tags-10755416|title=Criminals 'paid £400' for loose electronic tags|publisher=Sky News| date=2017-02-15 }}</ref>

The monitoring of sex offenders via electronic tagging is currently in debate due to certain rights offenders have in England and Wales.<ref>[https://www.theguardian.com/law/2010/aug/12/larry-murphy-electronic-tagging Electronic tagging of offenders raises rights concerns], ''[[The Guardian]]'', 12 August 2010</ref>

Electronic tagging has begun being used on psychiatric and dementia patients, prompting concern from mental health advocates who state that the practice is demeaning.<ref>[http://www.blackmentalhealth.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=789&Itemid=117 GPS tracking mental health patients - human rights concerns], BMH UK, 22 June 2010</ref>

In June 2022, the [[British Home Office]] announced a one-year pilot to track migrants who arrived on small boats on "dangerous and unnecessary routes" with GPS devices that will help "maintain regular contact" and more "effectively process their claims".<ref>{{cite news |last=Francis |first=Ellen |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/06/18/britain-electronic-tagging-migrants-asylum-seekers/ |title=Britain will electronically tag some asylum seekers with GPS devices |newspaper=[[The Washington Post]] |date=2022-06-18 |accessdate=2022-06-18 }}</ref>

=== Australia and New Zealand ===
In [[Australia]] and [[New Zealand]] existing law permits the use of electronic monitoring as condition for bail, probation or parole. But, according to the 2004 ''Standard Guidelines for Corrections in Australia'' the surveillance must be proportionate to the risk of re-offense. It is also required that, the surveillance of the offender is minimally intrusive for other people who live at the premises. Electronic tagging of a person is part of different electronic monitoring systems in Australia. Correctional agency statistics are collected in Australia for so called "restricted movement orders". In South Australia, a drive-by facility allows the monitorer to drive past a building in which the tagged person is supposed to be.<ref>{{cite book | author = Mike Nellis, Kristel Beyens & Dan Kaminski |title=Electronically Monitored Punishment: International and Critical Perspectives |year= 2013 |publisher= Routledge |isbn=9781136242786 |pages= 84}}</ref> 

In New Zealand, the electronic tagging of offenders began 1999, when home detention could be imposed instead of imprisonment.<ref>{{cite book | author = Mike Nellis, Kristel Beyens & Dan Kaminski |title=Electronically Monitored Punishment: International and Critical Perspectives |year= 2013 |publisher= Routledge |isbn=9781136242786 |pages= 82}}</ref> By late July 2023, [[Stuff (website)|Stuff]] reported that 2,230 teenagers had been subject to electronic monitoring since 2019, citing figures released by the [[Department of Corrections (New Zealand)|Department of Corrections]]. The number of 13 year olds wearing ankle bracelets rose from one in 2019/2020 to nine in 2022/2023. The vast majority teenagers subject to electronic monitoring were males, with 2,011 reported in July 2023.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Wilson |first1=Libby |title=Is 13 too young for an ankle bracelet? |url=https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/waikato/300938118/is-13-too-young-for-an-ankle-bracelet |access-date=15 April 2024 |work=[[Stuff (website)|Stuff]] |date=29 July 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230731045726/https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/waikato/300938118/is-13-too-young-for-an-ankle-bracelet |archive-date=31 July 2023}}</ref>

=== Brazil ===
In August 2010, Brazil awarded a GPS Offender Monitoring contract to kick start its monitoring of offenders and management of the Brazilian governments early release programme.<ref>[http://latinamerica.tmcnet.com/topics/brazil/articles/96256-securealert-signs-first-ever-gps-offender-monitoring-contract.htm SecureAlert Signs First-Ever GPS Offender Monitoring Contract in Brazil], TMCnet, 23 August 2010</ref>

=== South Africa ===
Electronic monitoring as a pilot project was started in March 2012, involving 150 offenders, mostly prisoners serving life terms. The project was rolled out to reduce the South Africa's prison population. It consequently would also reduce the taxpayer's burden on correctional facilities.<ref name="DCS">Dept. of Correctional services: Rep of South Africa, South Africa's first ever Electronic of a Remand Detainee, 15 April 2014.</ref> South Africa locks up more people than any other country on the continent.<ref name="DCS"/>