Sustainable Policy Measures Based on Implementation of Digital Technologies in Corrections: Exploratory Study from Slovakia and Beyond

Abstract

Across the world, millions of people are incarcerated every year, while hundreds of thousands of them are released back into their home communities. Despite several alternatives within the criminal justice system, incarceration is still considered as the most natural method of correction. This can lead to different types of unsustainable pathways within a society. Despite the growing importance and increasing use of digital technologies, there are relatively few scientific studies related to the implementation of digital technologies in corrections. Therefore, the present paper aims to assess the sustainable policy measures based on the implementation of digital technologies in corrections, namely electronic monitoring (EM). The ooriginality of our paper is supported by unique primary data gathered during the first national survey on the assessment of sustainability measures of EM in Slovakia. Our research reveals that EM implementation contributes to individual and institutional resilience in a socio-economic context; the requirements for a conditional release of serious offenders with mandatory EM seem to have created sustainable conditions for the use of this form of the EM “back door” scheme. EM programs are aimed at suppressing crime through increased accountability and monitoring, which leads to their sustainability. Maintaining social and family ties, reducing risk of imprisonment and undesirable new ties, and keeping working habits are the main sustainable policy measures of EM that support better social inclusion of offenders. Assessment of the sustainable policy measures based on the implementation of digital technologies in corrections, namely electronic monitoring (EM) uncovered in the present paper, creates space for further research and policy implications. Data protection, automated data processing and artificial intelligence in the implementation of digital technologies in corrections are important topics that deserve much more attention in research.

Unlocking the Potential of Smart Security and Surveillance Technology in Prisons: A Brief Review

“…The integration of smart technology necessitates a dynamic and adaptive approach to policymaking [13,57]. Policymakers grapple with the challenge of aligning legal frameworks with the rapid evolution of technology, necessitating continuous updates to address emerging challenges and evolving ethical considerations.…”

Electronic Surveillance in Court Proceedings and in the Execution of Criminal Penalties: Legislative and Logistical Steps Regarding Operationalising the Electronic Monitoring Information System (EMIS) in Romania

“…In other words, a technology legitimised by managerialism and economist arguments that aim to solve complex social and penal problems without looking deeply at their systemic roots, impossible to solve only with technological artefacts." A short overview of the advantages of EM, based on the use of digital technology in coercion, can be found in the study of Borseková et al (2020). The authors showed that the advantages lead to fewer burdens for taxpayers, less specific costs, offender safety, and maintenance of family and community ties.…”

“…The authors showed that the advantages lead to fewer burdens for taxpayers, less specific costs, offender safety, and maintenance of family and community ties. Then, the implementation of EM, aimed at lowering criminality through higher responsibility, will also lead to higher public safety "by using more traditional approaches or community supervision, based on probation supervision and parole, and it is hoped that this approach will reduce the number of repeat offenders in the long term" (Borseková et al 2020). The authors also referred to the ratio between the cost of traditional incarceration and cost of E-incarceration (based on the implementation of EM); the 2012 ratio was 4.86 in Austria, 1.46 in the Czech Republic, 3.32 in Denmark, 3.13 in Latvia, and 2.83 in Norway.…”