Justice-System Monitoring Technologies and Victim Welfare

Abstract

The evolution of criminal justice technologies is inextricably linked to the emergence of new modes of electronic and digital governance that have become essential components of a surveillance and crime control culture continually seeking out novel responses to actual and perceived threats. The slow emergence of these technologies in the second part of the 20th century was often theorized through a discourse of order and control that has subsequently evolved in the 21st century to emphasize the protective potential of technologies oriented toward the interests of victims. The potential of criminal justice technologies to improve public safety and address issues of repeat victimization has now been subjected to significant scrutiny from scholars across the globe. While it would be conceptually inaccurate to split offenders and victims into two discrete groups, there has been an increase in analytical focus upon the intersections between victims of crime and technology within the context of criminal justice processes that had traditionally been oriented toward offenders. A more sophisticated understanding of the psychological and behavioral potential of criminal justice technologies has emerged that has permanently adjusted the landscape of crime and disorder management and has had a transformative impact upon the relationship between victims, technology, and criminal justice. Yet, at the same time, the integration of digital technologies into the crime control and criminal justice infrastructure still is at an early stage in its evolution, with future trends and patterns uncertain.

Mismatches and criminal justice policy: The case of GPS for domestic violence

“…First, they are predominantly either victim-perimetric, whereby the victim is a secondary consideration, or victimcentric, in which victims are actively sought out and integrated into the agency's practices. RF programs that require victim consent and cooperation (Erez et al, 2004) have greater opportunity to be victim-centric, while technological shifts with secondgeneration (Paterson, 2022) GPS create programs that diverge in a victim-perimetric direction. Second, GPS for DV programs adopt varying "surveillance styles," such that they may be (a) oriented toward crime control and victim protection; (b) focused primarily on offender accountability, intervention, and rehabilitation; or (c) emphasize defendants' due process rights and maintain a more neutral stance (see Ibarra et al, 2014), reflecting various degrees of "tightness" (Hucklesby et al, 2021).…”

“…The trend toward customizability of highly programmable surveillance technologies (Paterson, 2022) continues apace via integration of smart phone-based features, offering new ways of addressing the many circumstances subsumed under the label DV/IPV, but it raises new concerns. Such customization allows for adjustments in how programs operate-more or less onerous, intrusive, supportive, or interactional-and hence injects flexibility into programs where rigidity might be viewed as a proximate cause of mismatch.…”

“…We first characterize documented mismatches in justice system responses to DV/IPV, then examine observed mismatches in courts' use of electronic monitoring (EM) to handle pending DV/IPV cases, both via radio frequency (RF) and GPS. Our investigation of mismatches generated in jurisdictions that employ EM technologies is partially based on a national (US) survey that suggests that the trend under second-generation EM technology (Paterson, 2022) diverges from the victim-centric spirit that guided the pioneering efforts of DV specialty courts. We draw on interviews and observations conducted in two programs that participated in the survey, contextualizing the mismatches amid overarching agency orientations.…”