Preview:
Citation preview
- 1. Electronic Monitoring of OffendersVasilikiAntzoulis
- 2. Electronic Monitoring Used for offenderswho need asupervised
structuredenvironment Alternative to jail andprison sentencing
Communityplacement
- 3. Electronic Monitoring Radio Frequency Global Positioning
System Satellite Tracking
- 4. Benefits Cuts offenders fees Reduce overcrowdingof jails and
prisons Opportunity for theoffender to sustainemployment, appearin
treatment, andkeep family ties
- 5. Complications Standards needed in selection Durability and
reliability of devices Adequate Training
- 6. Ethical Concerns Surveillance can beconsidered against
apersons liberty Too invasive Misuse and Abuse Violation of
privacyrights Affecting the familyinvolved Legislative concern
- 7. Crime and Electronic Monitoring Deters criminalbehavior
Reduces crime Leads to long-termbehavioral change
- 8. Selection Criteria Background checks Mental Stability
Participation Support Following convictions taken
intoconsideration
- 9. Ways to Measure Success 1. Whether or notoffenders
violatedtheir conditions Failed to finishtheir sanction Whether or
not theoffender committedany new offenses
- 10. Advantages & DisadvantagesAdvantages Help save
taxpayers $ Reduce overcrowdedjails/prisons Right tools and
trainingcan produce efficientresultsDisdavantages False positives
Faulty devices Lack of training Stigma
- 11. Public Safety Number one concern for electronicmonitoring
is the publics safety Protecting the public Keeping a track on
offenders
- 12. Conclusion Curfew Drug testing Visits by supervisors
Self-help groups Guidelines andregulations Easily
reportedviolations
- 13. ReferencesArmstrong, G., & Freeman, B. C. (2011).
Examining GPS monitoring alerts triggered by sex offenders: The
divergence oflegislative goals and practical application in
community corrections. Journal of Criminal Justice , 29 (2),
175-182.Button, D. M., Tewksbury, R., Mustaine, E., & K.Payne,
B. (2013). Factors Contributing to Perceptions About
PoliciesRegarding the Electronic Monitoring of Sex Offenders: The
Role of Demographic Characteristics, Victimization Experiences,and
Social Disorganization. . International Journal of Offender therapy
& Comparative Criminology , 57 (1), 25-54.Button, D.,
DeMichele, M., & Payne, B. (2009). Using Electronic Monitoring
to Supervise Sex Offenders: Legislative Patternsand Implications
for Community Corrections Officers. Criminal Justice Policy Review
, 20 (4), 414-436.Brown, T., & McCabe, S. (2008). GPS use in
community supervision: A practitioners primer. Journal of the
AmericanProbation and Parole Association , 32 (1), 25-32.DeMichele,
M., Payne, B. K., & Button, D. M. (2008). Electronic Monitoring
of Sex Offenders: Identifying UnanticipatedConsequences and
Implications. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation , (3/4) (46),
119-135.Nellis, M. (2011). Quakers, penal reform and the challenge
of electronically monitoring offenders. International Review ofLaw,
Computer & Technology , 25 (1/2), 95-105.Martin, J., Hanrahan,
K., & Bowers, J. (2009). Offenders Perceptions of House Arrest
and Electronic Monitoring. Journal ofOffender Rehabilitation , 48
(6), 547-570.Payne, B., & Gainey, R. (2000). Understanding the
Experience of House Arrest with Electronic Monitoring: An Analysis
ofQuantitative and Qualitative Data. International Journal of
Offender Therapy & Comparative Criminology , 44 (1), p.81;
p.13.Payne, B., & Gainey, R. (2004). THE ELECTRONIC MONITORING
OF OFFENDERS RELEASED FROM JAIL ORPRISON: SAFETY, CONTROL, AND
COMPARISONS TO THE INCARCERATION EXPERIENCE. Prison Journal , 84
(4),413-435.