Penology EXAM Notes B - electronic monitoring PDF

Preview

Summary

electronic monitoring...

Description

PENOLOGY EXAM: PART B- ELECTRONIC MONITORING

See ppt slide from the lecture Electronic monitoring is a method of increasing surveillance of offenders who are under some form of community supervision. Past Questions: -

Rationale for intro in 1997

• Pre- and post-trial and a sentence • Low/high risk/persistent offenders • Many objectives • Reducing costs • Reducing prison population • Increasing deterrence thereby reducing reoffending • Rehabilitation/desistence • Habit-breaking • Provides structure • Control • Swift apprehension • Punishment Feeley and Simon (1992: 465) described EM as an innovative but ambiguous technique of the “new penology” which “despite the lingering language of rehabilitation and reintegration… can best be understood in terms of managing costs and controlling dangerous populations rather than social or personal transformation.” -

Evaluate its uses and evaluate its effectiveness ...

EFECTIVE wearers and staff identified that one of the key benefits of GPS location monitoring was its ability to prove innocence. Staff felt this was particularly important for prolific offenders who were well known to the police and could be investigated if similar offences to those the wearer had committed (or been accused of) had taken place in the local area. From a staff perspective, this impact was also considered to have a positive effect on police time and resources, as they could discount wearers from investigation using GPS data, giving them more time to pursue other lines of enquiry. In turn this meant that wearers could begin to focus on rehabilitation without the risk that they would be arrested again Another perceived benefit of the GPS tag was that it enabled wearers to maintain or reestablish positive and productive lives in the community, including with family. It had enabled them to manage roles as parents or carers (where relevant) and helped show family and friends that they wanted to make positive change. Wearers who were offenders could demonstrate that they were actively engaged in their rehabilitation and that they wanted to comply with the conditions related to the tag (such as charging the tag on a regular basis) as well as wider conditions related to their (suspected) offence.

INEFFECTIVE EM devices pose unique technological challenges including product design, malfunctionrelated difficulties, and risk calculation, For example, a glitch in BI Incorporated‘s system in October 2010 allowed sixteen thousand offenders in forty-nine states to go unmonitored for twelve hours.108 Such technological malfunctions demonstrate the need for risk-management planning and other safeguards.109 Upon establishing more complex and effective technologies, the growing EM manufacturing and sales industry will cement its function in enlarging the prison-industrial complex.

By bringing new populations under surveillance, embedding a new profit-making industry, and threatening individual rights, EM surveillance enlarges the overall criminal system. Even if minimal de-carceration takes place, EM surveillance unjustifiably expands the reach of the criminal system by further amplifying the culture of control. (Carney)

Finally, the GPS tag allowed some wearers (particularly the court imposed bail cohort) to remain economically active. This was perceived to be important because if individuals had been remanded in custody for a period of time, it may have caused them to lose their jobs. For other cohorts, staff gave examples of how the tag had facilitated early release and wearers had moved into employment. There were however, instances where wearing the GPS tag created a barrier to employment, and these are discussed in more detail below. Padgett et al (2006: 81) showed that electronic monitoring 'significantly reduces the risk to public safety from offenders living in the community' as they

reduced

the

likelihood

of

individuals

committing a new offence and acted as a deterrence in relation to absconding from a curfew. When offenders were asked why they complied with curfews their responses fell into four categories: threat of punishment, monitoring potential,

conventional

ties

and

offender

characteristics (Payne and Gainey, 2004: 423). Technology facilitates compliance as they help offenders promote the view that any breaches of the curfew will be instantly detected and an appropriate sanction would follow. The study found that some offenders perceived that they had too much to lose by trying to escape and the controlling nature of the electronic monitoring technology can make the offenders experience the sanction as omnipresent. How the technology impacts on individuals and seeks to produce social ordering has been criticised by Nellis (2003: 77) Integral to this longing for omniperception and perfect meticulous control is a Manichean sensibility - a composite mood of suspicion, fear and hatred - which sees threat and danger everywhere and encourages the development of a permanent watchfulness, tight controls and as the ultimate backstop, tough punishment. Judged against this ideal of meticulous order the 'normal'

creating barriers to work. For instance, one wearer described that it deterred them from looking for work in the first place as they felt they would be unfairly judged. Another explained that the physical size of the tag stopped them from wearing boots that were required for working on construction sites.

vitality and unpredictability of human beings is interpreted to indicate their inherently unruly or intractable wicked nature - A chilling perception, which in turn galvanizes renewed attempts at exclusion or repression.

-

How can it be used in the future

Fogg and Eckles (2007) argue that the future of this type of technology will rely on mobile communications, which may eventually constitute the third generation of EM. The major difference between typical applications of EM and this new persuasive technology is that communication and information can be offered in addition to surveillance. Using mobile communication units that have phone and GPS capabilities offers many possibilities in addition to surveillance. For example, information on the time and location of substance abuse meetings during risky times for an offender can be sent to the offender by the PO, or accessed directly by the offender. Gable and Gable (2005) also argue that the two-way communication afforded by mobile communication could be used for positive reinforcement of prosocial behavior

There were clear expectations in all jurisdictions, except Germany, that EM would be used more in the future. Even in Germany consideration was given to using EM to reduce pre-trial detention. The growth was expected to take place in different ways via new modalities and technologies and increasing the use of existing modalities sometimes via widening eligibility criteria. New and improved technologies opened up further possibilities for expanding the use of EM. GPS was identified particularly as providing opportunities for a higher level of control and monitoring but there was a clear sense that RF technology also has advantages and should continue to play a significant role in EM going forward. The introduction of bi-lateral victim monitoring was being actively pursued in several jurisdictions and was eagerly anticipated by many. Several jurisdictions expected changes to EM to transpire as a result of broader changes in the criminal justice process generally and specifically to the measures for which EM is employed, highlighting that drivers for change are not restricted to EM policy or technological developments.

Electronic monitoring is the future of criminal-justice reform. It provides a compromise between public safety through incarceration on the one hand and public risk through release on the other. It will enable us to free more people at risk of committing crime while providing additional assurance for the general public. It won’t be cheap to operate, but it will cost a lot less than jails or prisons. It won’t provide subjects with unrestricted freedom, but it beats incarceration hands down. new policies must ensure that EM surveillance operates as a solution rather than a useless expansion of the current system. The proper employment of swift and certain justice could possibly prompt improved behavior in

offenders like Lohan. Rebuilding communities must be prioritized. Furthermore, new EM technologies and programs must be comprehensively and continuously assessed into the future to ensure that systemic progress is not only swift, but also certain.

-

‘Electronic monitoring adds a distinctive dimension to community sentences’- discuss in relation to aims of community sentences?

Yes

no Although it has been advanced as a deterrent because of the closer monitoring of offenders compared to standard community supervision, some have claimed it is merely a slap on the wrist and fails to protect the community safely (DiIulio, 1997). I criticized the trend in community corrections to ignore the importance of rehabilitation in a quest to be just as tough on crime as institutional corrections (Larivee, 1993).

Aims of community sentences: Rehabilitation To make amends to the victim of the crime or the local community Reparation: "action by the offender to make good the loss suffered by the victim". Provides an opportunity for the offender to see first-hand the indirect injuries caused by his/her offence. Accountability

 Link these aims to what the EM does and then weather its a ‘distinctive’ dimension i.e. how does it add something different.

-

Electronic monitoring has a number of benefits which outweighs any problems, discuss

BENEFITS A further view was that location monitoring could relieve pressures on other rehabilitative services. This included housing, widely acknowledged as a protective factor from reconviction (see for example, Brunton-Smith and Hopkins, 2014). For example, more offenders could reside safely at private addresses because of wearing a tag, which in turn could create space in Approved Premises for other offenders released on license.

Potential for desistance as the tag could act as a physical reminder to wearers about the requirements of their order and therefore reduce their risk of reoffending. Furthermore, location information provided by the tag could help wearers counter false allegations and, for some, support rehabilitation in the community (discussed in section 5).  https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government /uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/7791 99/gps-location-monitoring-pilot-processevaluation.pdf relieving prison overcrowding in a cost-effective manner and decreasing criminality through increased offender accountability

PROBLEMS A group of wearers described how wearing the GPS tag had led to feelings of increased anxiety, particularly about breaching their licence conditions. In some cases, this had had an impact on day to day activities, such as visiting the library, swimming or going to the gym. Others reported feelings of paranoia due to being monitored. These wearers were concerned about being ‘constantly watched’ by the authorities, which they found intrusive. The large size and weight of the GPS tag also caused some wearers to have difficulty sleeping, which was described as exacerbating feelings of stress and anxiety. Concerns around being judged or stigmatised for wearing the GPS tag further contributed to these feelings. Depending on their circumstances, wearers were concerned about having to explain why they were wearing the tag. In some instances, wearing the tag left them feeling like they had no option but to disclose information about their offence to those around them. Offenders who have experienced electronic monitoring indicated that one of the negative aspects of electronic monitoring was the loss of privacy as the equipment provides constant surveillance of their compliance (Painey and Gainey, 2000: 88; Nellis, 2004: 72).

Offenders on EM also highlighted family dysfunction as a consequence of being monitored at home while other family members were free to come and go. One offender joked that his wife could go when and where she wanted, but he had to stay home and watch the kids (Payne & Gainey, 1998). Family dysfunction becomes problematic in EM homes in other ways as well. Spouses and family members have little time at home alone when their loved ones are on house arrest, and are placed in

situations where they have to deal with the frustrations that the monitored offender experiences while at home. The following description shows how family dysfunction arises from EM: Families often experience stress as a result of the financial burden of participation in the program, the unpredictable phone calls that may come in the middle of the night, damage to the offender’s selfesteem and reputation in the community. A significant amount of stress within the family can set the stage for violence, particularly when the offender is forced to spend more time than he usually would at home. (John Howard Society of Alberta, 2000, para 39).

in some circumstances electronic monitoring can create tensions within a household (National Audit Office, 2006; Gibbs and King, 2003) but generally the sanction provides the opportunity for offenders to gain structure in their life and contemplate their past misdemeanours and make positive changes to their lifestyles (Gainey and Payne, 2000). The experience of being at home for prolonged periods of time meant that some individuals engaged in more prosocial activities and took on family responsibilities (King and Gibbs, 20003).

To be sure, all criminal justice sanctions impact family members. Few, however, create family dysfunction because of the specific dynamics of the sanction. Whether monitored offenders have more family dysfunction than non-monitored offenders remains to be seen. Monitored offenders also experience a loss of agency and autonomy. While all offenders experience a loss of autonomy, offenders supervised in the community on EM may have even less control over their lives than incarcerated offenders do (Payne & Gainey, 1998). The premise for this suggestion is that the degree of control probation and parole officers have over monitored offenders exceeds the degree of control exerted over incarcerated offenders (Petersilia & Deschenes, 1994). A probation and parole officer can threaten a monitored offender with incarceration if they engage in actions viewed as inappropriate (e.g. they can take away the monitored offender’s last bit of freedom). Comments from offenders such as ‘EM has taught me a valuable lesson of what it is like to have your freedom taken away from you’ and ‘Freedom is something you don’t miss “till you don’t have it”’ are indicative of this loss of control experience (Payne & Gainey, offenders on EM experience shame or humiliation from wearing an EM device in public (Gainey & Payne, 2000; Gibbs & King, 2003; Payne & Gainey, 1998). Shame may be more of a problem for females in that their style of dress may be dictated to a greater extent by the monitor than males’ style of dress would be. Still, research shows that married men were more likely than unmarried males to report shame from the monitoring experience (Gainey & Payne

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/779 199/gps-location-monitoring-pilot-process-evaluation.pdf -> evaluates stregth and weakness for staff and workers

https://reform.uk/sites/default/files/2018-10/Tagging%20report_AW_8.pdf – speaks about effectiveness of it

file:///C:/Users/Home%20User/Downloads/electronic-monitoring-uses-challenges-successes.pdf

Electronic monitoring was introduced predominantly to reduce the prison population but also increase the monitoring and control over offenders in the community. This lecture will examine whether this strategy has been successful and some of the implications for offenders, their families and the wider community. Aebi, M. and Delgrande, N. and Marguet, Y. 2015. ‘Have community sanctions and measures widened the net of the European criminal justice systems’, Punishment & society., 17(5): 575-597. Belur, J. et al 2017. No 13 A systematic review of the effectiveness of the electronic monitoring of offenders. London: UCL at https://whatworks.college.police.uk/Research/Systematic_Review_Ser ies/Documents/Electronic_monitoring_SR.pdf Cassidy, D., Harper, G. and Brown, S. 2005. Understanding electronic monitoring of juveniles on bail or remand to local authority accommodation , Home Office Online Report 21/05, London: Home Office. Cavadino, M, Dignan, J. and Mair, G. 2013. The Penal System: an Introduction (5th ed) London: Sage Cohen, S. 1985Visions of social control : crime, punishment and classification , Polity Press Dodgson, K. 2001 Electronic monitoring of released prisoners : an evaluation of the Home Detention Curfew scheme , Home Office Research Study No. 222, London: Home Office. Elliot, R., Airs, J., Easton, C., Lewis, R. 2000. Electronically monitored curfew for 10-15 year olds – report of the pilot , London: Home Office.

Geoghegan, R. 2012. Future of corrections: exploring the use of electronic monitoring. London: Policy Exchange. Available at:http://www.policyexchange.org.uk/images/publications/future%20of %20corrections.pdf Criminal Justice Joint Inspectorate. 2008. A complicated business: a joint inspection of electronically monitored curfew requirements, orders and licences , London: MoJ at http://www.justice.gov.uk/inspectorates/hmiprobation/docs/electronic_monitoring_thema1-rps(1).pdf Criminal Justice Joint Inspectorate 2012. It’s Complicated: The management of electronically monitored curfews. A follow-up inspection of electronically monitored curfews. Manchester: HMIP Holdsworth, E. and Hucklesby, A. 2014. ‘Designed for men, but also worn by women’, Criminal Justice Matters, 35: 14-15. Available at: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/09627251.2014.90219 9. Hucklesby, A. 2008. ‘Vehicles of Desistance? The impact of electronically monitored curfew orders’, Criminology & criminal justice. 8(1): 51-71. Hucklesby, A. 2009. ‘Understanding offenders’ compliance: a case study of electronically monitored curfew orders’, Journal of law and society. 36(2): 248-71 Hucklesby, A. 2011. ‘The working life of electronic monitoring officers’, Criminology & criminal justice., 11(1): 1-18. Hucklesby, A. 2013. ‘Insiders’ views of electronically monitored curfew orders’, in M. Nellis, R. Bas, K. Beyens and D. Kaminski Electronically monitored punishment : international and critical perspectives, London: Routledge. Hucklesby, A 2013. ‘Compliance with electronically monitored curfew orders: some empirical findings’ in A. Crawford and A Hucklesby

(eds) Legitimacy and compliance in criminal justice, London: Routledge. Hucklesby, A. 2018. ‘A complicated business: the operational realities of privatised electronic monitoring of offenders’ in A. Hucklesby and S. Lister (eds) The private sector and criminal justice, Basingstoke: Palgrave: 223-259. Hucklesby, A, Beyens, K., Boone, M., Dünkel, F., McIvor, G and Graham, H .2016. Creativity and Effectiveness in the use of electronic monitoring: a case study of five jurisdictions, available at www.emeu.leeds.ac.uk Hucklesby, A and Holdsworth, E. 2016. Electronic Monitoring in England and Wales, available at www.emeu.leeds.ac.uk Hudson, K. and Jones, T. 2016. ‘Satellite Tracking of Offenders and Integrated Offender Management: a local case study’, Howard Journal, 55(1-2): 188-206 Lockhart-Miram, G., Pickles, C. and Crowhurst, E. 2015. Cutting Crime: the role of tagging in offender management. London: Reform. Available at: https://reform.uk/sites/default/files/2018-10/Tagging %20report_AW_8.pdf Lobley, D. and Smith, D. 20...