NCJ Number
146142
Journal
Journal of Offender Monitoring Volume: 6 Issue: 4 Dated: (Fall 1993) Pages: 1,3-4,6,8-9,12-13
Date Published
1993
Length
8 pages
Annotation
This study tests the hypothesis that for probationers who are electronically monitored, probation will not be revoked based solely on a computer violation report without corroborating evidence.
Abstract
Advocates of electronic house arrest expect that it will free probation officers from surveillance activities that are both expensive and inefficient. An area that has not been examined is the extent to which computer-generated violation reports are used as an enforcement tool. Given uncertainty about the reliability of the monitoring equipment and possible legal challenges, this study anticipated that few probation revocations would be based on computer-generated violations without corroborating evidence. Such corroborating evidence might include a follow-up phone call or a home visit by the probation officer. To test this proposition, researchers examined probation revocations in 16 States. Findings show that it is uncommon for officials to use a system's detection of violations as the only evidence in court. Apparently, the enforcement process requires human involvement before revocation proceedings are initiated. Findings also show that lacking case law, probation agencies have not developed policies on this issue. Decisions to return a probationer to court are left to individual field officers or to local policy. 2 tables, 5 notes, and 8 references