Hundreds of children made to wear GPS tags by UK’s Ministry of Justice

Hundreds of youngsters who’ve dedicated critical crimes are being given GPS ankle tags annually, permitting the UK’s Ministry of Justice (MoJ) to trace their location 24 hours a day, New Scientist can reveal. Children as younger as 12 are being monitored as a part of the scheme, which started in 2021. Campaigners and researchers say the tags’ use is pointless and their effectiveness unproven.

“We know from existing research by medical and human rights organisations that GPS tagging is often experienced as an open-door prison and is highly stigmatising,” says Lucie Audibert at Privacy International, a UK charity. “I would also question the necessity and proportionality of tracking these children’s GPS location every minute of the day.”

GPS ankle tags have been first launched in England and Wales in 2018 to observe adults convicted of offences reminiscent of housebreaking or knife crime who had been launched from jail on probation. The tags can document a person’s motion 24 hours a day and can be utilized to make sure that the offender stays away from sure areas, reminiscent of a sufferer’s residence, and that they attend court-mandated appointments.

Use of the tags was prolonged in March 2021 to under-18s who had dedicated critical violent or sexual crimes. Now, a freedom of knowledge request by New Scientist has revealed that, in 2021, 388 kids underneath the age of 18 have been made to put on a GPS tag. The youngest was 13 years outdated. The figures for 2022 present that 550 kids have been monitored utilizing a GPS tag, together with a 12-year-old.

Northern Ireland doesn’t use GPS tags and Scotland doesn’t use them for little one offenders. A Ministry of Justice spokesperson says the tags are utilized in England and Wales to safeguard kids and assist steer them away from crime or exploitation by criminals.

“They might also be used to ensure they attend school or stay away from areas with known gang activity or associates,” stated the spokesperson. “Their welfare is always our top priority and clear safeguards ensure it is only used when absolutely necessary.”

But Elizabeth Paddock on the University of Nottingham, UK, who has carried out a scientific overview of digital monitoring for offenders, says it’s unclear whether or not the tags obtain these objectives. “Very few good-quality studies exist and very few published studies show lower recidivism rates for those on electronic monitoring,” she says.

“It is crucial to assess how and why electronic monitoring deters criminal behaviour in the short-term and whether the method can achieve longer-term offender change,” says Paddock.

“Just like any other intervention used in criminal justice, it can be used effectively for the appropriate purposes and, likewise, can be ineffectively used where it should have not been applied in the first place,” she says.