The Pros And Cons Of Electronic Monitoring

In the case of technology being used by a probation officer. One major tool that is at their disposal is social media. "Officers can look on social networking sites to see if people on probation are associated with gang members, drinking, using drugs, or doing anything else that might violate the conditions of their probation." (Sweeney, E. (2009, November 29) GPS monitoring devices are also commonly used "to determine whether a probationer was in the vicinity of a crime scene." (Sweeney, E. (2009, November 29) There has been much success in using technology in the law enforcement field. So much so that it is widely used across multiple platforms.

Punishment has evolved from the days of waiting to be hung to the sophisticated prison systems of today. However prisons in the United States are crowded and costly and they are not always appropriate for all offenders, especially those that have committed minor offenses. In the last couple of decades new methods of punishment has been developed for the minor offender. These fall under the category of intermediate community sanction and consist of electronic monitoring and home confinement. These punishments have proven very useful in dealing with minor offenders, pretrial confinement and others in need of supervision. They seem to be effective and help to transfer some of the cost of prison back to the offender.

At any given time, there are approximately 2 million American citizens incarcerated and nearly 700,000 inmates returning to their communities each year. (Petitt & Western, 2004; Western, 2001). Since most prisoners are eventually released, mass incarceration has in turn produced a steep rise in the number of individuals reentering society and undergoing the process of social and economic reintegration. (Travis, 2005). During the period between 1982 and 2007, the number of Americans incarcerated in jails and prisons increased by 274% (Pew Center on the States, 2009). In addition to the increase of the individuals incarcerated, there is an even larger amount of individuals under community supervision, with a recent study finding that one in every 48 American adults are either on probation or parole on any given day (Glaze & Bonczar, 2011). Recent statistics show that the percentage of parolees re-incarcerated after release currently stands at 32% (Maruschak and Parks, 2012).

Probation serves as the most frequently used sentence for those convicted. This is evident when you consider that the United States justice system oversees nearly 7 million people. Over half of those, a staggering 3.7 million people, are on probation with another 840,000 on parole (Rabuy, 2017). With those individuals representing the largest percentage of the American corrections system, it is important that we learn as much as possible about probation in order to improve the success of these programs. Probation involves a set of conditions that the probationer agrees to adhere to in exchange for remaining in the community. Typical conditions include a waiver of the offenders fourth amendment rights, maintaining employment or school

While evaluating the drug court programs several types of dependencies were discovered. One dependency was created because of multiple measures of criminal behavior during the same time of the follow-ups. Each evaluation had to utilize a particular research sample so that statistical independence could be maintained. An odds-ratio effect size was used because this type of format is most appropriate effect size for the outcomes referring to recidivism. The coding of the effect size was done in such a way that positive effect sizes indicated the treatment group had more of a favorable outcome than the comparison group. The researchers coded an effect size that quantified each court's effects on recidivism. There was also the coding of drug court programs, research methodology, and samples (Mitchell et al., 2012). The results of the study showed that participants in the drug court programs have lower recidivism rate than nonparticipants. These rates show to be less following their removal from the drug court programs. These findings express the need for continuous funding, development, and operation of drug court programs as they prove a reduction in recidivism. However, when it comes to drug courts in the juvenile judicial system, the finding are considerably less than adult drug

The issue is intermediate sanctions and community corrections within the correctional practices. The two classic forms of punishment/supervision for crimes in the United States are imprisonment and probation. Imprisonment is extremely expensive, often too harsh for both the offender and his/her family based on the crime committed, and tends to be far less effective than hoped in rehabilitating the offender. Probation is used far more frequently than imprisonment but is problematic because many repeat offenders have already unsuccessfully undergone prior probation and there is a lack of supervision due to the heavy caseloads of probation department caseworkers. Faced with the great expense, extreme nature and ineffectiveness of imprisonment vs. the ineffectiveness and lack of supervision in probation, lawmakers have struggled to fill the gap between those two classic law enforcement measures with

By reducing the number of low-risk parolees returning to prison for technical violations of their parole, intermediate sanctions can be implemented rather than a costly return to prison. This can reduce overpopulated prisons by several thousand. Public-private partnerships can also be used to address the cost-effectively of overcrowding problems. As a result, many states are adopting improved probation and parole programs with assessment tools. These reform programs allow state's policy to execute probation violations to result in immediate but small consequences, such as a two-day stay in jail. New technologies also present opportunities to use alternatives to incarceration, particularly for low-risk offenders. These alternative forms of supervision are usually a small fraction of the cost of incarceration. The use of Global Positioning System monitors, rapid-result drug tests, and ATM-like reporting kiosks offer authorities ways to monitor offenders without the high cost of locking them up. These new capabilities are giving judges and prosecutors confidence they can protect public safety with sanctions other than a costly prison

Electronic monitoring is a device that allows Justice Officers and officials to ensure an offender is at a certain location when 65 required to be there. The use of the monitoring device is becoming more popular as a way to control and supervise offenders within the community to ensure citizens are safe. In the mid-1960 a Harvard Psychologist Robert Schwitzgebel developed the first electronic monitoring device. The device was intended to provide an inexpensive alternative for offenders than incarceration or within the justice process. Even though the device was patented in 1969 it didn’t start coming into effect until the 1980’s. It’s used by courts to track the location of offenders that are under surveillance or restricted to certain areas.

According to Corrections Today, day reporting centers are facilities utilized in rehabilitating mostly offenders on probation, in providing assistance in counseling and social skills on a daily basis. The day reporting center is an intermediate sanction that is cost effective and serves as a punishment to the offender in a rehabilitative manner as well as displaying safety to the public (Siegel & Bartollas, 2014). The day reporting centers are a different method in rehabilitating and educating offenders versus historical methods of punishment imposed on people. In conjunction with day reporting centers, electric monitoring home detention programs were utilized in the 1980's and are increasing as both are intermediate sanctions (Sudipto & Barton, 2006).

Moreover, the studies had also been conducted to evaluate correctional programs’ effects on recidivism. All studies point to one conclusion; offenders who participate in correctional education programs are less likely to return to prison after being released. For example, researchers at the Indiana Department of Correction (IDOC) evaluated correctional education’s effect on inmates who participated in the programs offered in IDOC and compared their results with a group that had not

The paradox of probation model argues that there are two central outcomes that determine the probation-prison link: the extent to which probation diverts individuals away from prisons or draws cases under greater supervision, and how much probation

I am doing this paper on electronic monitoring. I am doing this paper because I need a paper to write for you and this is the page I opened to in the book to get the idea. No, really because I believe that electronic monitoring is a terrific way to police probation and parolees when probation and parole officers are so severely overworked. By not having to check in on the offenders as much, because at any time we can hit a button and know exactly where they are, or be notified instantly when they are somewhere they shouldn’t be, it would be a lot easier on probation and parole officers.

In England and Wales, during the 1980’s “tracking” and “electronic monitoring” became the forefront of policy maker’s agenda to tackle young, “low risk” offenders released from prison, or as an alternative community order for those who potentially may have been subject to a custodial sentence. Electronic monitoring can be defined as “a system of home confinement aimed at monitoring and controlling and modifying the behaviour of defendants or offenders” (Prisoners Reform Trust, 1997, as cited in Ardley, 2005), and was introduced by the Criminal Justice Act, 1991 (HMI Probation, 2012). Electronic monitoring was founded upon the notion of “tracking” offenders movements, then expanded to include curfew tagging, which involves confining offenders to their homes, (Nellis, 2004) and came into practice in the U.K in 1995 (Ardley, 2005). Foremost, electronic monitoring was developed with the goal that it would provide a more cost effective solution to custodial sentences, thus reducing the prison population, with no added risk to the public. To diminish the risk of “learnt criminal behaviour through communication” through offenders mixing with other offenders in custody, as identified by Sutherland’s Differential Association Theory (Newburn, 2009), and attempting to reduce stigma and disruption to family life (Ardley, 2005).

Global Positioning Anklets used in conjunction with other methods such as risk assessments and cognitive behavioral treatment. The use of these anklets acts more of a sanction against the offender and servers to improve cognitive behaviors so that they can become a functioning member of society. The use of these devices and other forms of electronic monitoring are currently a large part of probation. In 2004 over 20% of offenders on probation were on electronic monitoring. (Gable 1) That number has increased over the last ten years. Forms of electronic monitoring are now the go-to item as far as sanctions against offenders.

The court system, the corrections system and law enforcement authorities have to work as partners to make this a reality. Time in jail is appropriate for violent offenders; however, less serious offenders who commit non-violent crimes are better served by community based corrections program such as parole and probation. Money needs to be redirected as an investment into public safety by allocating enough dollars for both the prison system and the community-based corrections system. Community-corrections is guided by the viewpoint that it is a partnership between social services and law enforcement (The Pew Charitable Trusts, 2009). The “1 in 31” report by The Pew Charitable Trust set up this framework for an effective corrections system in the 21st century: 1) sort offenders by risk to public safety, 2) base intervention programs on science, 3) harness technology, 4) impose swift and certain sanctions, 5) create incentives for success and, 6) measure progress. States that have implemented policies that reflect these guidelines include Arizona, Kansas, Hawaii, Florida and many