Two decades back we initiated something – but the process was stalled by the powers that were in 2012 when electronic monitoring was left out from the introduction of parole in Malta.
An article I penned in May 2012, calling for tagging as part of the solution argued that “stating that such a system is not financially feasible in such a small country... should the ministry manage to look beyond a blinkered approach that could be dictated by erroneous advice”. Oh those days!
Fast forward 13 years and we are on the cusp of a courageous change, still fraught with pitfalls and bumps, but targeting a socio-secure outcome.
These past five years were dedicated to re-envisioning conceptual, legal and operational implementation aspects that electronic monitoring will work within: a Malta Police transformation strategy, the setting up of a Victims Support Agency, reforming the probation and parole services, the setting up of a spatial infrastructure, the electronic monitoring tender and a plethora of integrated initiatives. It takes one’s breath away when looking back over the past few years.
We treaded carefully being cognisant of the fact that supply potentially creates massive demand, a demand fuelled by the insatiable drive of offenders and defence advocates to push for release no matter what. It does, however, matter if one is the victim and needs protection.
There are too many victims on the islands: 250,000 in the past 17 years: so many shattered lives. Some shocker statistics: 38% females, 62% males, 15% elderly 60+, 74% Maltese, 26% non-Maltese. The Bill will ensure that offenders are monitored but, more importantly, that victims are protected.
The little weight on the ankle carries a heavier burden on the mind
Wearing a tag (monitor) is one hell of a burden. That feeling of being free from incarceration quickly evaporates as one realises that each step is monitored, each spatial boundary at risk of being trespassed. The little weight on the ankle carries a heavier burden on the mind. The mere fact that one’s location is monitored by the authorities are but a call away from one’s exact location.
Believe me, I have carried one for the past weeks as part of the testing phase. It tests your utter being. The Maltese system is unique, pivoting on three main elements and technologies.
Those sentenced by the courts, given an order by the Correctional Services Agency or the Parole Board will be tagged with an ankle technology. Additional technologies will ensue for house-incarceration and the most vital category related to the dynamic system where the aggressor’s and victim’s gadgets (the latter an unobtrusive device carried voluntarily) would be spatially monitored for proximity and alerting.
The latter trigger will result in communication with both and the emergence of rapid forces. While seemingly intrusive for the victim, the price to pay for safety assurance is one mean beast. The dynamic system needs both to achieve such aims.
In over 350 international programmes comprising 350,000 installations annually, one death resulted from the victim’s intentional omission to carry the tag and met the aggressor. To carry or not to carry is one unenviable decision to take.
Malta’s drive resulted in a system governed by a global structure with robust protocols and a proven track record of 140,000 tagged persons. Success ultimately depends on the hard work rendered by the professional domains and agencies. This is no longer the 2012 squeaking wheel scenario. This is action incoming.
The spatial-social constructs have been built. It is ripe time for policy-makers and decision-takers to take up the baton. The change must be introduced gradually and unrushed and even more vitally in a staggered mode.
Prof. Saviour Formosa is a criminologist.