Electronic Monitoring

Abstract

The movements of accused and convicted offenders in many countries around the world are increasingly being monitored with electronic supervision tools. Individuals can be placed on electronic monitoring (EM) by the justice system for numerous reasons and can be of varying risk levels. Currently, individuals are placed on EM as conditions of pretrial release, probation, and parole. EM is a versatile tool designed to aid correctional officers in their supervision of offenders sentenced to confinement or house arrest. There are many forms of EM devices that are designed to limit the freedom and monitor the movements of individuals to ensure they are in compliance with court-mandated restrictions. In general, EM is intended to be an alternative to detention in either jails or prisons and is an intermediate sanction that is more punitive than traditional probation but less punitive than imprisonment. The expanded use of EM in recent years is largely attributable to financial constraints and overcrowding experienced by many jails and prisons. However, the empirical research of the effectiveness and unintended consequences is limited. There are serious concerns that have yet to be addressed about possible net-widening associated with EM use and whether it truly is an effective alternative to incarceration.

Hot spots policing of small geographic areas effects on crime

“…First, a keyword search was performed on an array of online abstract databases (see lists of keywords and databases below). Second, the bibliographies of past narrative and empirical reviews of literature that examined the effectiveness of police crime control programs were reviewed (Braga, 2008 , 2016 ; Higginson & Mazerolle, 2014 ; Johnson, Guerette, & Bowers, 2014 ; Lum, Koper, & Telep, 2011 ; Telep & Weisburd, 2012 ; Telep, Weisburd, Gill, Vitter, & Teichman, 2014 ; Weisburd & Telep, 2014 ; Weisburd, Farrington, & Gill, 2017 ; Weisburd, Telep, & Braga, 2015 ;). Third, forward searches for works that cited seminal hot spots policing studies were performed (Braga & Bond, 2008 ; Braga et al, 1999 , 2014 ; Sherman & Rogan, 1995a ; Sherman & Weisburd, 1995 ; Sherman, Buerger, & Gartin, 1989 ; Weisburd & Green, 1995a ; Weisburd et al, 2006 ).…”

Justice-System Monitoring Technologies and Victim Welfare

“…A disputed assumption of enhanced control, inevitably leading to enhanced societal protection, prevails despite decades of evidence challenging the theoretical assumptions that underpin such an approach (Cheliotis, 2013;Cohen, 1985;Cheliotis, 2013;Garland, 2002). The dominance of deterrence-based models of thinking is challenged by countless empirical case studies that highlight the limited effectiveness of surveillance technologies in directly addressing offending behavior (Brancale et al, 2018;Gill and& Spriggs, 2005;Mair, 2005;Mair, 2005;Webster, 2009;Brancale et al, 2018). In opposition to top-down offender-focused logic, a victim-oriented lens emphasizes recognition of the protective factors generated by surveillance-based attempts to distribute psychologically imagined coercive force.…”

Jail Officers’ Adherence to Traditional Bases of Social Power: Understanding Inmate Control in a Unique Correctional Context

“…Scholars have called jails the “nucleus of our system of justice” and advocated more attention from scholars (Bales & Garduno, 2016). The paucity of research on bases of social power among jail officers potentially foreshortens our understanding of power in correctional institutions.…”

“…Distinctive qualities of jails may have important implications for the selection and exercise of power by officers. Jails hold people who have been convicted and sentenced to short terms of incarceration, but they also hold people for a variety of other reasons (Bales & Garduno, 2016). Most notably, a majority of jail inmates in the US—70.9% in 2021—are held while waiting for their case to be resolved (Zeng, 2022); that is, they are detained “pre-trial” and have not been convicted.…”