A burglar who volunteered to wear a tag but “carried on offending” was unaware of how precisely his movements could be followed, police say.
After my blog yesterday about GPS bracelets being considered for a forensic hospital yesterday http://bit.ly/1CgN1eE it was great to read this story about a burglar who volunteered to wear a GPS tag and then continued to commit crimes, which he tried to deny, resulting in a 2 year prison sentence.
This introduces a new gap, which is that he appears not to have understood the implications of the technology. I’m not sure that it would have made any difference in this case or not. I would suggest that part of the process, assuming that the criminal has a mental age of a teenager at least, that part of the process should be showing them examples of cases like this and exactly how they can track people an what happens when they tamper with the device. That’s assuming the goal is to reduce crime by encouraging criminals to accept the quid pro quo of not committing crimes in return for not having to go to jail. If the criminal does not understand the simple concept that they can’t get away with it and it is a privilege for them to get a second chance, then they should simply save us the grief of the additional crimes and consequences and use other methods to reduce the likelihood of them committing more crimes. IMHO