• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
 
ELECTRONIC MONITORING:THE FUTURE OF CRIME CONTROL?
KEVIN P. BARRY
March 2009
INTRODUCTION
This paper provides an overview of electronic monitoring (EM) from a crime-control policy perspective. It includes some general background on the subject; adescription of the current technology; a review of recent developments in empiricalresearch on EM’s effectiveness; a discussion of the related benefits, costs, and other issues facing policymakers and EM program administrators; and a short list of considerations for criminal-justice agencies to take into account in deciding how best toelectronically monitor criminal offenders. The experiences that agencies in a number of  jurisdictions throughout the United States have had with electronic monitoring serve asuseful guides in this regard, offering a glimpse of the largely untapped potential of EM asa central crime-control strategy—and the many challenges currently standing in the way.
BACKGROUND
 
Electronic monitoring, which is used to enforce the conditions of release for criminal offenders, strengthens the ability of corrections officials and law enforcementauthorities to supervise offenders in the community by keeping them under closer surveillance than they otherwise could. While its role in community corrections and theoverall criminal-justice system is still minor, as the technology has improved (especiallywith regard to global-positioning systems, or GPS) and its potential upside made more
 
 2apparent to policymakers, EM has become an increasingly used criminal-justice toolacross the U.S. in recent years—at the federal, state, and local level.
1
Already, at least 33states monitor offenders with GPS, another nine use an alternative form of EM despitenot using GPS, and several others have launched pilot programs.
2
 Although many of the electronic-monitoring programs now in place strictly targetsex offenders—sometimes for life—EM is also used in certain jurisdictions to monitor avariety of other offender types, who may be under the supervision of pretrial release, prison or jail release programs, probation, or parole.
3
Sometimes, EM is even used inlieu of a prison or jail sentence altogether.
4
Legislation can be either enabling or mandatory; that is, the supervising authorities may, within the bounds of the applicablestatutory framework, be able to impose EM at their discretion—or they may be requiredto do so.
5
 
FORMS OF ELECTRONIC MONITORING
Most electronic monitoring uses either radio-frequency (RF) or GPS technology.RF technology transmits a signal from a bracelet worn by the offender (typically aroundthe ankle) to a receiver connected to his home telephone line. The signal has a verylimited range, so if the offender leaves his home, it is broken and the authorities are
1
Although the focus here is national, electronic monitoring is by no means unique to the U.S.—it is used tosupervise offenders in several other countries as well.
2
Pennsylvania Department of the Auditor General, Bureau of Special Performance Audits,
Using GPS technology to monitor sex offenders: Should Pennsylvania do more?
(Harrisburg, PA: PennsylvaniaDepartment of the Auditor General, 2008), 5.http://www.auditorgen.state.pa.us/Reports/Performance/Special/speGPS072108.pdf  
 
3
Ann H. Crowe, Linda Sydney, Pat Bancroft, and Beverly Lawrence,
Offender Supervision With ElectronicTechnology: A User’s Guide
(Lexington, KY: American Parole and Probation Association, 2002), 5.www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/197102.pdf 
 
4
Tracy M.L. Brown, Steven A. McCabe, and Charles Wellford,
Global Positioning System (GPS)Technology for Community Supervision: Lessons Learned 
(Falls Church, VA: Center for Criminal JusticeTechnology, 2007), 2.25.http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/219376.pdf  
5
Crowe et al.,
Offender Supervision With Electronic Technology: A User’s Guide
, 18.
 
 3alerted. RF monitoring is thus only effective for determining whether the offender is athome at any given time. GPS, the newer form of monitoring technology, uses a systemof satellites and cellular communications networks that correspond with a receiver andtransmitter carried by the offender to pinpoint his exact location—no matter where hegoes—on a continuous basis.
6
Similar to RF, the offender typically wears a tamper-resistant anklet that activates an alarm whenever an attempt is made to disable the device.While both forms of EM technology are currently used to supervise offenders in thecommunity, the trend clearly favors GPS, whose surveillance capacity far exceeds that of RF monitoring.GPS-based electronic monitoring can be either active or passive. Activemonitoring enables the authorities to know the exact whereabouts of the offender in realtime,
7
which appears on a computer screen at the monitoring center. If an offender entersan “exclusion zone” (a place where he is forbidden to go) or leaves an “inclusion zone” (a place where he is required to be at specific times), the system generates an immediatealert. With passive monitoring, the offender’s movements are captured in a log but nottransmitted immediately; instead, the offender transmits the location data from his hometo the monitoring center through a land-line telephone on a daily basis, and the data isthen processed and reviewed the next day. Newer “hybrid” systems incorporate elementsof both active and passive monitoring. These systems report location data periodically
6
GPS equipment may consist of one-piece or two-piece units. The one-piece unit is an ankle bracelet witha built-in transmitter and receiver. With the two-piece unit, the transmitter and receiver are built into aseparate GPS device that the offender must carry or keep close by; this device communicates via radio-frequency transmission with the offender’s ankle bracelet to ensure that both the offender and the devicethat determines his location are in the same place. Jesse Jannetta, Randy Myers, Lori Sexton, Sarah Smith,and Alyssa Whitby,
 Report on the Results of the CDCR Two-Piece GPS System Field Test 
(Irvine, CA: UC-Irvine Center for Evidence-Based Corrections, Working Paper, Revised November 13, 2007), 2-3.http://emresourcecenter.nlectc.du.edu/emresdoc/Article-3.pdf .
7
Technically, in near-real time: location data can be updated every ten seconds or so.
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...