Policy Implications of Electronic Monitoring

• NCJ Number: 116550
• Author(s): S Melnicoe
• Date Published: 1988
• Length: 7 pages
• Sponsoring Agency: Florence V Burden Foundation
• Sale Source: National Institute of Justice/; NCJRS Photocopy Services
• Publication Type: Legislation/Policy Analysis
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America
• Note: Paper presented at the American Society of Criminology meeting, November 1988.

Annotation

Electronic monitoring is not as likely as conventional house arrest to detain offenders within their homes, change the criminal behavior of participants, and restrain the cost of house arrest.

Abstract

Electronic monitoring lacks the individualized treatment and human contact necessary to foster offender rehabilitation. Also, the challenge of beating a machine will encourage some offenders to resort to equipment sabotage. There is a substantial change of equipment malfunction as well. Due to the high cost of computer equipment, electronic monitoring will increase in cost after the expiration of low initial pricing to gain market share. Also, due to the frequent requirement that offenders pay to participate in the programs, electronic monitoring may become a privilege only for the affluent offender. Electronic monitoring may widen the net of control, since many persons may be sentenced to electronic monitoring who would not otherwise by subject to incarceration. The house arrest programs of Florida and Oklahoma testify to the cost-effectiveness of conventional nonelectronic programs. A high percentage of offenders have successfully completed these programs. The primary success ingredient of these programs is the personal attention give offenders. 11 references.