NCJ Number
133605
Journal
Indian Journal of Criminology Volume: 19 Issue: 1 Dated: (January 1991) Pages: 2-8
Date Published
1991
Length
7 pages
Annotation
This review traces the origin and development of electronically monitored house arrest and discusses financial, legal, and ethical arguments for and against electronic monitoring.
Abstract
Electronic monitoring is a relatively new phenomenon; the first sustained program began in December 1984 in Palm Beach County, Florida. According to surveys conducted by the National Institute of Justice, officials in 21 States were electronically monitoring 826 offenders as of February 1987. Just 1 year later, officials in 33 States were electronically monitoring 2,277 offenders. Electronic monitoring is often viewed as a technological extension of house arrest. Consequently, arguments raised in favor of house arrest are also thought to apply to electronic monitoring. These arguments relate to cost savings, sheltering of offenders from the detrimental effects of prison, and ease of implementation. Weaknesses of electronic monitoring focus on its use to widen the net of social control, cost and administrative issues, its intrusiveness and perhaps illegality, constitutional issues not yet resolved by courts, and its limited incapacitative effect. The American Civil Liberties Union charges that electronic monitoring programs discriminate against the poor because they require that offenders have homes and telephones and that they pay supervision fees. Electronic monitoring programs will probably continue to grow in number, but this trend may be due more to cost-effectiveness than to their proven worth in reducing recidivism. 21 references