Electronic monitoring in the criminal justice system (2003)

Sometimes criminal justice authorities may wish to control or to monitor the location of an individual without resorting to imprisonment. For example, before a criminal trial, police may want to ensure that the defendant stays in town or stays away from the complainant. After conviction, a judge may wish to place limits on an offender's freedom while not employing a full-time custodial sanction. Upon release from prison, a parole board may want to impose restrictions on an offender. Community-based programs aim to meet these goals through release conditions such as reporting to officials or complying with a curfew. Electronic monitoring is a technological means of enforcing such conditions. Using tracking systems, criminal justice agencies can monitor an individual's location and be alerted to any unauthorised movements. Technology, thus, can be useful in detention, restriction and surveillance. However, constant surveillance of people, particularly through the use of devices fixed to their body, or even implanted beneath the skin, raises serious civil liberty and ethical concerns. This paper reviews developments in electronic monitoring in criminal justice settings in Australia and identifies the arguments for and against their use at a time when technology can provide solutions that previously were impractical. Adam Graycar Director The technologies of electronic monitoring have their roots in the work of Dr Ralph Schwitzgebel of the Science Committee on Psychological Experimentation at Harvard University (1968). In 1964, he developed a one-kilogram Radio Telemetry Device that could be worn by a person. The device transmitted signals to a modified missile-tracking unit up to 400 metres away, which determined the wearer's location on a screen. In the early 1980s an American judge, supposedly inspired by a Spiderman comic, persuaded a company to develop a monitoring bracelet suitable for offenders to wear (Rondinelli 1998). In 1983, the first order was made requiring an offender who had breached parole to wear an anklet to monitor his future behaviour (Liverani 1998). This use of electronic monitoring devices became commonly known as tagging. These developments took place at a time when communitybased sanctions were becoming more prevalent and of greater significance in reducing prison populations (Richardson 1999). Against a background of stubbornly high prison populations and rapidly developing technology, governments are now reaching a critical point in the use of electronic monitoring as a means of reducing costs and improving the effectiveness of corrections. The aggressive marketing of private companies has been instrumental in the growth of electronic monitoring (Maxfield & Baumer 1990; Liverani 1998). There are three main rationales behind the use of electronic monitoring: * Detention Electronic monitoring can be used to ensure that the individual remains in a designated place. For example, home detention schemes typically require offenders to be at home during established curfew hours. This was one the first uses of electronic monitoring and remains the most popular (Mukherjee 1999; Crowe 2002). * Restriction Alternatively, electronic monitoring can be used to ensure that an individual does not enter proscribed areas, or approach particular people, such as complainants, potential victims or even co-offenders (Marien 2002; The Economist, 15 August 2002). * Surveillance Finally, electronic monitoring may be used so that authorities can continuously track a person, without actually restricting their movements. Electronic Monitoring Technologies There are a number of technologies available that can aid with the detention, restriction or surveillance of individuals within the criminal justice system. Most involve some kind of device that is locked onto the subject's wrist or ankle with tamper-proof elements to prevent removal. …