Dr. Margaret Fitzgerald-O'Reilly:

The Deputy is absolutely correct. There is some limited research available both in Europe and the United States on the electronic tagging of high-risk sex offenders. There is research done on the tagging of high-risk offenders but it is specifically in the context of high-risk sex offenders that we are considering this prospect. That involves a very different type of research and very different empirical data.

Most of the research has tended to come from the United States. It has a very different context and is a very different jurisdiction but the basic principle is the same insofar as it permits electronic tagging of those who are considered to be a risk. The categorisation of risk can vary considerably in accordance with jurisdiction. The objective is to monitor, control and deter from sexual recidivism. All the research, whether it is in favour of keeping tabs on high-risk sex offenders or not, acknowledges categorically that there is no difference or a limited difference in recidivism rates between those who are electronically tagged and those who are not. There is no impact in terms of deterrence or reducing recidivism. Two points may be of value in this regard. One is in the context of a very carefully strategised post-release risk-assessment strategy on helping the offender to reintegrate into the community. It specifically relates to offenders who are subject to supervision. There is some evidence to suggest that electronic tagging can be helpful as one part of a more holistic, coherent re-entry strategy. It is in the short term, and there is some evidence to suggest it might be more useful for first-time offenders than repeat offenders.

The other issue concerns where monitoring revealed a new crime. Even if there is a suggestion that this was good, it tended to reveal crime in respect of breaches of registration orders. That, in itself, may hold value but in terms of the broader long-term goal of preventing sexual recidivism, there was no appreciable impact. While there is some limited impact and usefulness in terms of ensuring compliance or identifying non-compliance with registration requirements, which can be very positive and good, there is no appreciable value in terms of deterrence and preventing recidivism.

The last thing the research tells us is that electronic monitoring is very costly. There is consensus that it is not cost-effective if compared with the objectives. If the objective is preventing recidivism, or preventing somebody from having to be sent back to prison, there is no cost-neutralisation value to monitoring the person via GPS or some other method. The research concludes that it has to be questioned as to whether we want to provide this type of monitoring considering its lack of effectiveness, as is empirically proven, and the fact that it is so costly to implement. That is the consensus on the research. We need to be mindful of that.