Don’t worry, everyone, sobriety bracelets are here

We’re in desperate times if the most progressive move our politicians can manage is an alternative to jail for minor crimes

'Sobriety bracelets are an attractive idea to politicians, as prison overcrowding has long been a problem.' Photograph: Johnny Green/PA

Sobriety bracelets have been on the political agenda for some time now, as an alternative to a custodial sentence for less serious crimes involving excessive drinking. Already in use in the US, most famously around the ankle of the actor Lindsay Lohan, they’re electronic devices that detect alcohol consumption in the wearer by monitoring perspiration. Some states in America claim that their use has cut crime by up to 14%.

As a believer in the idea that society would be served better by a criminal justice system that strives to find the solution that fits the problem rather than the punishment that fits the crime, I don’t find their use so very controversial. The police are keen on the idea too (which isn’t necessarily a recommendation.)

Sobriety bracelets are already being trialled in Britain at the moment, in London, Cheshire and Northamptonshire. But this weekend David Cameron decided that there was no need to wait and see how these pilot schemes had fared. He announced while attending the G20 in Australia not only that the global economy is likely to crash again, but also that the Conservatives would be promising sobriety bracelets as a manifesto commitment.

It isn’t surprising that the idea is attractive to politicians. Prison overcrowding has long been a problem and cuts in public spending have only made this problem worse. While sobriety bracelets aren’t cheap, they are cheaper than putting a person in custody, and would prevent the long-term damage that often occurs when a person spends time in jail.

What is surprising is that Cameron sees the adoption of this sentencing option as a manifesto issue. Why? Which parties does he think are going to be passionately against this move?

It certainly doesn’t seem to be part of a wider philosophy aimed at supporting offenders in addressing their problems, rather than punishing them for their problems. Instead, within the context of Cameron’s global and national economy warnings, it simply seems to be saying: “We’re desperate to look like we’re doing something, anything, other that announcing more cuts to public spending.”

In other words, it’s just one more small reason to feel despair at a political system that has little positive to offer, and can’t resist making a fuss when the tiniest progressive development hoves into view.