1. 1. Electronic Monitoring of OffendersVasilikiAntzoulis
2. 2. Electronic Monitoring Used for offenderswho need asupervised structuredenvironment Alternative to jail andprison sentencing Communityplacement
3. 3. Electronic Monitoring Radio Frequency Global Positioning System Satellite Tracking
4. 4. Benefits Cuts offenders fees Reduce overcrowdingof jails and prisons Opportunity for theoffender to sustainemployment, appearin treatment, andkeep family ties
5. 5. Complications Standards needed in selection Durability and reliability of devices Adequate Training
6. 6. Ethical Concerns Surveillance can beconsidered against apersons liberty Too invasive Misuse and Abuse Violation of privacyrights Affecting the familyinvolved Legislative concern
7. 7. Crime and Electronic Monitoring Deters criminalbehavior Reduces crime Leads to long-termbehavioral change
8. 8. Selection Criteria Background checks Mental Stability Participation Support Following convictions taken intoconsideration
9. 9. Ways to Measure Success 1. Whether or notoffenders violatedtheir conditions Failed to finishtheir sanction Whether or not theoffender committedany new offenses
10. 10. Advantages & DisadvantagesAdvantages Help save taxpayers $ Reduce overcrowdedjails/prisons Right tools and trainingcan produce efficientresultsDisdavantages False positives Faulty devices Lack of training Stigma
11. 11. Public Safety Number one concern for electronicmonitoring is the publics safety Protecting the public Keeping a track on offenders
12. 12. Conclusion Curfew Drug testing Visits by supervisors Self-help groups Guidelines andregulations Easily reportedviolations
13. 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.