Electronic monitoring: The experience in Australia

Abstract

Electronic monitoring (EM) has been introduced in over 30 countries around the world. In most English-speaking countries, it has moved well beyond experimental status and become a regularly applied penal measure. Australia has been lagging behind this world trend, as EM has yet not become dominant in our correctional landscape. This is even though sanctions that utilise radio-frequency and/or global positioning systems (GPS) monitoring have existed in Australia for decades. This article critically examines overseas evaluative findings of EM in relation to recidivism, cost-effectiveness and net-widening, as well as some of the issues and concerns that are associated with EM. The article then summarises and explains the limited Australian EM experience to date. It predicts that increased application of EM in Australia seems likely and should be evidence-based. In this context, there is an urgent need for increased understanding about the use and impact of EM in Australia. The article concludes with some observations about the importance of comparative analysis in this context.

Participant experiences of a post-release electronic monitoring program for domestic violence in New South Wales, Australia

“…Stress, anxiety, and paranoia were reported, with most complaints focusing on an “over-tracking” whereby participants felt the surveillance meant to deter them from re-contacting the victim unjustly spilled over into other unrelated areas of their lives. Such findings support debates regarding potential unintended consequences of EM technologies (Burrell & Gable, 2008; Corbett & Marx, 1991), including “net-widening” whereby new practices may serve to ensnare individuals in ways not originally foreseen or desired (Bartels & Martinovic, 2017). These findings suggest that the internalization of surveillance by those being monitored and resultant will to avoid offending, which was Bentham's panoptic surveillance theoretical premise (Simon, 2005), does not necessarily occur for all who are monitored.…”

Swinging Doors: An Autoethnographic Look at the Challenges Faced by Previously Incarcerated People in the USA and Australia

“…Yes, doing the math, that is $9,490 for the two-year parole period. The fi nancial burden of wearing these devices can be devastating if you are struggling to make ends meet (Causey, 2013;Bartels and Martinovic, 2017). Additionally, GPS units are fi nicky, need constant care and charging, and often require adherence to strict boundaries set up by parole offi cers and those that monitor the devices regionally (Daubal et al, 2013).…”

Electronic monitoring and monitoring probation: The case of Ireland

“…Studies have examined EM application to a range of offenders (Gainey, 2014; Hucklesby, 2008; McCahill and Finn, 2012) and offender views of the tool. Research has alluded to public attitudes towards EM (Bartels and Martinovic, 2017), including public views of EM appropriateness as a sanction for certain crime types (Muftić et al, 2015). However, inasmuch as there is a growing use of EM, there is much still to learn (McNeill, 2017).…”