Electronic monitoring (EM) is an innovative, technology-driven method used in different criminal justice and correction systems around the world to keep tabs on an individual’s whereabouts. EM uses different technologies like RF, GPS, mobile apps, and biometric verification in accordance with the specific needs, programs and classifications of the case in question. EM devices can come in the form of anklets, bracelets, mobile apps or dedicated mobile devices.
EM first made its appearance in the United States in the 1980’s and was quickly adopted by more countries as an alternative capable of reducing prison overcrowding, incarceration costs, and recidivism, among other benefits. However, heated discussion and debate abound regarding its effectiveness, social impact and influence on rehabilitation.
In this article, we’ll take a closer look at the pros and cons that define this discussion, so that you can decide for yourself:
The argument for EM:
Ease convicts’ reintegration and lower the risk that they’ll become repeat offenders
EM programs can be instrumental in helping an offender reintegrate back into society. They are used as intermediary monitoring devices, enabling offenders to leave incarceration facilities for external work programs that offer convicts on-the-job-training. These programs are powerful motivators that reduce recidivism by offering convicts stable ground as they begin rebuilding their lives after they complete their prison terms. EM also allows offenders to leave incarceration facilities for vacation time. This helps them become re-accustomed to life at home with their families.
Research from Pew Trust shows that “many individuals reported that electronic monitoring gave them an excuse not to run around with the wrong crowd or get involved in situations they shouldn’t have been in.”
Empowers the possibility of alternatives to incarceration
In many cases, incarcerating low risk offenders actually increases the chances that they’ll become hardened criminals. Their exposure to experienced criminals while serving their sentences, turns prisons into a sort of “School of Crime”, where low risk convicts expand their criminal network and learn new ways of committing crimes. Using EM allows the judicial system to sentence low risk offenders to alternative punitive programs that keep them away from more hardened criminals. Many consider these programs to be superior correctional approaches in that they offer punishment and rehabilitation without the inherent risks of incarceration. Some examples of these programs include: House arrest, open prisons, probation, parole, and electronic monitoring.
Reduces overcrowding pre-trial
Pre-trial programs allow suspects to remain in their home environments while awaiting, as well as during, their trials. This reduces prison overcrowding while at the same time enabling low risk offenders to avoid police custody while their cases are tried. When used correctly, EM almost completely reduces the risk of a suspect fleeing to another jurisdiction or country. Instead of paying a hefty bail – which many suspected offenders cannot afford – they can enter an EM program and stay at home and work whilst their trial is in process.
According to Joe Russo, former director of the National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology Center of Excellence at the University of Denver: “The big advantage is the ability to maintain the necessary control of individuals in the community where they can maintain family ties, employment, and everything that’s going well in their lives. That’s the biggest; if you can do that without putting the public at risk, then that’s obviously a no-brainer.”
This is critically important to maintaining the family structure, enabling suspected offenders who have children or other dependents to continue to care for them. However, there are those that point to the fact that this type of program cannot be applied to sole parents as they have certain restrictions. For example, they cannot take a dependent to the hospital if needed.
Reduces prison overcrowding and lower correctional costs
Overcrowded prisons are one of the main drivers of poor prison conditions throughout the world, contributing to a lack of privacy, mental health problems and increased violence. EM has proven that it can help to significantly reduce overcrowding by removing the need to incarcerate low risk and even moderate risk offenders. What’s more, EM empowers shortened sentences through back door programs, based on set parameters such as the number of months left of a sentence, type of felony, and so on.
The cost of EM is also significantly lower when compared to the cost of maintaining an individual in a facility. The average daily cost of incarceration was nearly $95 in 2017. This is in comparison to an average cost of just $15 a day for EM in the United States.
Provides enhanced protection for victims of domestic violence
EM is also particularly useful in cases such as monitoring sex offenders and domestic violence victims. EM offers victims enhanced protection, especially during the first months of separation. Studies show that paroled sex offenders considered to be high-risk were much less likely to relapse when their whereabouts were monitored using GPS EM.
Moreover, EM is the only effective measure to enforce restraining orders, while providing victims support and protection which help with their recovery and healing.
Offenders also testify to the benefits of EM programs. Specifically, offenders claim that EM ensured that they kept their distance from the victims, which enabled them to heal and adopt safer behavior patterns. Read our blog posts about the effectiveness and psychological benefits of EM in cases of domestic protection.
The argument against EM:
Lack of confinement poses a threat to society
EM detractors have plenty of criticism against the use of EM devices within the justice system. One of their arguments is that EM is not confinement. This means that those who truly wish to breach EM terms have no problem tampering with devices in order to commit crimes undetected. A recent surge of violent crimes in Chicago was linked to increased use of EM devices among violent offenders. In some cases, suspected murderers were released into their community with EM devices, only to go on to commit multiple homicides.
As a result, we believe that EM should be used wisely and be fitted based on sensible risk-assessment of the defendant.
It unfairly puts the cost of detention on the subject
Other arguments claim that EM unfairly puts the cost of detention on the subject when they are unable to work. Stories of devices breaking down and the negative social impact EM wearers face also form part of the argument.
It adversely impacts the family structure
The book, Prison by any other name focuses on the effect of EM on the family structure. The authors’ claim that although the wearer is present, they are unable to take part in family activities and help with family transportation. They claim that the burden falls on other family members, who need to compensate for the lack of the wearer’s mobility.
Correctional service officials aren’t sufficiently involved
In the UK, the argument against EM revolves around a lack of involvement of the corrections and probation service in managing EM programs. It is the notion that EM replaces probation and rehabilitation professionals and the removal of human practitioners from the rehabilitative process. This argument denotes that EM is an isolated solution, that in some cases completely eliminates the crucial effect human practitioners can have on rehabilitation.
Conclusion
It’s clear that EM devices, like almost every other punitive measure in use by civil organizations, has its pros and cons. However, when looking closely, it’s clear that the overwhelming majority of its drawbacks can be reduced and even eliminated by making use of holistic, complementary programs, public awareness campaigns and expectation management.
Evidence clearly shows that when used in the proper context, EM offers huge benefits to both society at large and the individuals under EM programs. There is no denying that implementing an effective EM program is complex and requires extensive planning. We believe that the sensible use of EM, that is based on structured risk assessment of each individual, maximizes its benefits including the chance for rehabilitation. At the same time, it reduces the risk of misused EM, including tasks it is not designed for.
Shortly we will be publishing an EM guide that puts forth recommended best-practices for implementing an effective EM program.
