NCJ Number
181466
Date Published
1999
Length
4 pages
Annotation
Curfew orders with electronic monitoring ("tagging") were introduced on a trial basis in three areas of England from July 1995; these findings summarize research from the first 2 years of the trials in relation to differences in completion rates, the types of offenders most suited to tagging, and the use of "joint" and "stand-alone" curfew orders.
Abstract
The research shows that completion rates of curfew orders varied between trial areas, most significantly Greater Manchester (79 percent) and Norfolk (91 percent). This was partly explained by the type of court in which orders were given. Crown Court orders, which had a high completion rate (97 percent), were mostly made in Norfolk. Youth Court orders, which had lower levels of completion (68 percent overall), were mostly made in Greater Manchester. Completion rates also varied by main offense; however, differences in completion rates between areas persisted even when offense types were taken into account. Probation officers and magistrates viewed curfew orders as a high tariff sentence for serious offenders when custody is a possibility. Both probation officers and magistrates felt curfews might help address offending that occurs at particular times and places. They also had concerns about public safety and family welfare issues raised by the order. There were conflicting views on suitable cases for tagging, especially with respect to young offenders, violent offenders, and serious drug abusers. "Stand-alone" orders had higher completion rates than those made jointly with another community sanction, partly because they were more often used for less serious offenses. Both probation staff and sentencers had positive attitudes about the use of curfew orders alongside other community orders. They felt that the discipline curfews impose can support additional work to counter the problems associated with offending behavior. 4 tables, 1 figure, and 4 references