In what ways is the Electronic Monitoring (EM) of offenders supportive of traditional ways of supervising offenders in the community, and in what ways does it threaten them ?

Summary During the last 20 years or so, the use of Electronic Monitoring of offenders

has increased dramatically. This essay seeks to blend elements of theory, policy, law,

and research evidence on EM. The purpose is to examine the importance of EM and

its flaws. The result of the study showed EM-curfews disrupt offending patterns, if it

integrated into broader supervision strategies. EM also strengthens the community

penalties. EM is reintegrating offenders more effectively into society. It plays as a

community sanctions measure in the future and is expressive of the managerial-

surveillance. EM also helps in modernising community supervision. It needs

creativity to articulate the concept of 'offender management' into practice. Monitoring

officers have a direct impact on the integrity and efficiency of EM. The reintegrated

measure forms of supervision are needed to avoid false expectations of protectiveness.

EM aims to encourage offenders to desist from crime. However, irresponsible use of

EM raised ethical aspects, and when it operates without support, the offender finds it

painful.

IntroductionThere are few moments more touching than when (it’s not about the offender,

but sets a context) to search missing dementia patients, the police using GPS tracking

devices to dementia patients (the Daily Telegraph, May 1, 2013). The development of

EM may offer potential for supporting community supervision of offenders. Clearly,

the above examples show EM are may something community look for as community

supervision. EM can stimulate organisational change as well as shifts from support to

surveillance, or a rebalancing of the two elements.

The following essay questions, the pros and cons of EM and raises concern

over issues such as the strength and threat of EM as the ways of supervising offenders

in the community. In chapter 1, I will cover the following points, firstly the origin of

EM and how it spreads elsewhere. The second chapter question about the justification

of EM and Offender Supervision. There are many problems surrounding this question,

for example, the justification for exclusion from public space either as punishment or

prevention? Does EM affect offender criminal behavior during the monitored period?

Does EM solve the problem of local communities? How EM relates to compliance in

the context of theorising 'compliance' with legal rules in a given situation'? How to

theorizing EM? How EM relates to punishment paradigm? How EM contributes to

social order? How the operator impacts to EM? How does the concept of 'offender

management' work? How EM accommodates public protection? Are there any

downsides to EM? How is EM viewed in a managerialism context? How prominent is

EM? What is the future of EM? How communities’ penalties and Electronic

Monitoring integrate? How to ensure the principle-practice of EM?

1. The Origin of EMEM originated in the USA, and through a process of 'policy transfer'

(Whitefield 1997; Nellis 2000; Newburn 2002) spread from there to Canada,

Singapore, Australia, New Zealand, Europe and latterly South Africa(Nellis 1991;

Rezema 1992).1 Regarding Europe, for example, Rezema (2003a) suggest that the

expansion of EM is being driven by: reducing correctional cost, reducing the

stigmatization; avoiding offender victimization in prison; reducing social cost by

permitting imprison able offenders to support families and stay in work; and

increasing the detectability of non-compliant offenders. 2 The Probation

Service/NOMS come to be seen in traditional humanistic-rehabilitative paradigm, and

certainly the Home Office (2004b:78) now refers to EM as 'central' to community

supervision.3 In the long run, however, it is traditional humanistic penalties and EM is

vulnerable to populist punitiveness critique. Critiques are based on expectation of

what is both possible and desirable in crime control.4 Joan Petersilia (2003: 194)

recognizes the reliability of technology, while also warning that laws run slower than

the developing of correctional technology. Taken in this way, Home Office offer

insight into the construct of future community supervision.

1 Nellis 2004:2362 Nellis 2004:2373 Nellis 2004:2414 Nellis 2004:241

The Home Office suggest that neutral scientific evidence of effectiveness in

rehabilitating offenders is becoming less important than the political and managerial

appraisal of what might be effective in protecting the public (Tonry 2003).5

Enforcement is the key to understanding the relationship between EM and traditional

community penalties. Compared to the human overview, EM reduces many of the

uncertainty of community supervision. For example, The Criminal Justice and Court

Services Act 2000, which sought to infuse EM across the full range of community

penalties, and parole, with a view to making all of them more enforceable (Nellis

2004b). Although Bottomley et al (2004) see that there were implementation

difficulties with the uses of EM proposed by the Act.6 EM is thus confirmed as a

surveillant rather than an incapacitate model of control.7 While research so far has

concluded 'that most trainees did observe the curfew restriction' and ' in the strict

sense the curfew was not "enforceable". They emphasize the importance of the client-

worker relationship.8 While evidence so far show that the offender’s views EM-based

curfews as punitive and confining. While studies by Mair and Mortimer (1996:24)

recorded one EM disadvantage as 'the feeling of being watched' as a, however, Payne

and Gainey (1998) recorded 'occasionally I get paranoid, but I get on with it and get

over it’. Only Richardson (1999, 2002) goes beyond this, expressing a sense of being

'transparent' of the unseen watchers. She suggests that the ingredient for interpreting

being subject to EM as surveillance does exist.9 What the situation now? While

studies by Mark Rezema so far has concluded that after 20 years of electronic

monitoring, we do 'not [know] as much as we should'. With a (very roughly)

estimated 100,000 American daily experiencing EM, and a resurgence of official

interest in technology (Lilly 2003), this is a disappointing as it is alarming. Rezema

(2003a: 5) said that although EM may be justified on the economic and humanitarian

ground, when one applies it in isolation from other services, it has no detectable

impact on recidivism.10 This evidence show that EM reduces many of the uncertainty

of community supervision. However, there is some discussion about the impact on

recidivism. Taken in this way, Rezema's argument is helpful in understanding why

EM may or may not have the impact on recidivism. Its also offer insight that

enforcement is the key to understanding the relationship between EM and traditional

5 Nellis 2004:2306 Nellis 2004:2397 Nellis 2004:2408 Nellis 2004:227 cites Ely et.al 1987:183-19849 Nellis 2004:23610 Nellis 2004:230-1

community penalties. Next, I seek to consider another observation on Electronic

Monitoring and offender supervision.

2. EM and Offender SupervisionThe emergence of Electronic Monitoring is challenging the traditional

approaches to offender supervision.11 But can exclusion from public space be

justified, either as punishment or prevention? Von hirsch and Shearing (2000) are

largely hostile to the idea, grounding their resistance to it in a liberal theory of

citizenship. Exclusion from public space should form no part of retributive

punishment, or of preventive behavior.12 The Penal Affair Consortium (1997) in

England considered tagging as 'uniquely stigmatizing' community penalty for young

people. Applying labeling theory, they warned that tagged youngster wears it as a

badge of honor.13 While studies so far show that, in the United States, EM became

caught up in the 1990s debates as a means of reducing prison use and as a means of

making community supervision tougher.14 And yet, whatever legal strategies may one

day, we hope for that-many offenders who would otherwise do harm will still require

support and supervision of the community.15 Taken in this way, EM makes

community supervision tougher. Von Hirsch and Shearing argument is helpful in

understanding why people may resistance to EM. Its also offer insight that support

and supervision of the community is another key to understanding the relationship

between EM and traditional community penalties. Next, I seek to consider another

observation on the affect of EM to offender criminal behavior during the monitored

period.

Does EM affect offender criminal behavior during the monitored period?

Whether one want to call on classical criminological theory, the routine activity

theory of other theories that consider the social and or psychological dynamics of

criminal behavior, at least some offenders would be more likely to desist from crime

than if they were not under monitoring.16 EM has been used in criminal justice as both

the 'front end' and the 'back end'. The 'front end' uses of EM include pre-trial, pre-trial

diversion, probation and intermediate sanctions. On the 'back end', that is after

incarceration, EM has been used as an attempt to gradually increase the

11 Nellis 2012b :812 Nellis 2012b :19713 Nellis 2012b :203 cites Penal Affair Consortium 199714 Nellis 2012b:315 Nellis 2012b:1616 Rezema 2012:248

responsibilities of reintegrating parolees.17 While studies so far show that there are

different goals for EM use, for example, EM might reduce recidivism by increasing

offender accountability; EM could increase general deterrence by making community

sanctions tougher, and if potential offenders perceive that the consequence of a given

act is not jail, but 'only EM'.18

Most of the researches in the UK suggest that offenders and their families are

generally positive about EM, particularly as a way of keeping the offender out of

prison and out of trouble, and as a stabilizing influence in their lives.19 Taken in this

way, Rezema's argument is helpful in understanding why the offender may or may not

desist from crime under monitoring. Its also offer insight that the good offender's

perception is the key to understanding the relationship between EM and criminal

behavior during and (perhaps) after the monitored period. Next, I seek to consider

another observation on the role of EM to solve the problem of local communities.

Does EM solve the problem of local communities? Communitarian theorist

Arnitai Etzioni (1999) suggested that the creation of self-governing, geographically

isolated sex offenders monitored by RF EM might solve the problem of local

communities' refusal to accept them.20 The location of a policy and practice to offer a

holistic approach to sexual offenders hopefully desistance orientated.21 The Jacob

Wetterling Act 1994 had barely taken effect when in 1966; 'Megan's Law' ensured

that residence restrictions on sex offenders were followed.22 Child Protection and

Safety Act 2006 endorsing the principle of lifetime tracking and giving a stronger

monitoring role to law enforcement agencies.23Jessica's Law narrowed the distance of

residency restrictions. It increased homelessness of paroled sex offenders.24 While

studies by Finn and Muirhead-Steves (2002) so far has showed that EM did delay

reconviction for paroled sex offenders.25 While research in Florida so far has shown

that, EM had a crime-suppressive effect over the period of time.26 Taken in this way,

Finn and Muirhead-Steves' finding is helpful in understanding why paroled sex

offenders may delay their reconviction under EM. However, it increased

17 Rezema 2012:25118 Rezema 2012:24919 Hucklesby 2012:237 cites Mair and Mortimer 1996; Walter 200220 Nellis 2012c:24721 Nellis 2012c:32922 Nellis 2012c:24623 Nellis 2012c:24924 Nellis 2012c:25525 Nellis 2012c:247 cites Erez and lbarra 2007; Halberstadt and La Vigne 2011.26 Nellis 2012c:256 cites Padgett et al. 2006

homelessness of offenders. Its also offer insight that there needs a rebalancing of the

two elements of support and surveillance. Next, I seek to consider another observation

on the relation between EM and compliance.

How EM relates to compliance in the context of theorising 'compliance' with

legal rules in a given situation'? In Lessig's terms, EM is in connection with law and

norms. From the perspective of the subjective reasons, the offender compliance is

likely to be determined by instrumental reasons; normative reasons; and compatibility

with the order requirements even as a means of eliciting compliance.27 However,

studies so far show that Electronic Monitoring was championed as more demanding

than the softer, humanistic forms of gaining compliance traditionally required by the

community-based offender supervising the showing of trust in the context of

supportive professional relationship.28

Current EM technologies in the US and Europe are strongly participant

dependent as compliance always remains a choice.29 However, privacy theorist Elaine

Ramesh (1997) insisted that [ICD] implantation reduce personal liberty and privacy.30

While research so far shows that, ICD implants pose basic questions about the reach

of state power, and can be conjured into harbingers of 'cyborgisation' and

‘posthumanity’.31 Rezema (2009) has pointed out, any form of embedded

environmental surveillance -'uberveillance', as Clark (2007) calls it, would by its very

ubiquity, reduce the need to offenders for 'individuated monitoring packages'.32

Privacy activists are campaigning against the irresponsible use of RFID and they have

developed a prototype "Bodily Integrity Act'-arguing from human dignity premise.33

The European Group on Ethics (EGE) adopted Opinion Number 20 about ICT’s

ethical aspects of implants in the human body. They conclude that surveillance should

be debated and legally approved.34 Although the research looked at ICD implant and

RFID, I think the argument equally applies to ethical and legal aspect of surveillance.

Ramesh's finding does not mean that EM technologies should be abandoned, but that

EM technology may be more usefully applied with balanced to ethical and legal

aspect of suveillance. Taken in this way, EM is eliciting compliance. The

irresponsible use of EM raised ethical aspect. However, it also raise ethical aspect if

27 Jones 2006:185 cites Bottoms 2001:9028 Nellis 2012a:173 cites Nellis, 2009b29 Nellis 2010:34930 Nellis 2012a:16131 Nellis 2012a:173 cites Gray,1995; Kurzweil,200532 Nellis 2012a:17333 Nellis 2012a:172 cites Kaherine Albrecht and Liz McIntyre 2005, 200634 Nellis 2012a:173

we are not applied the benefit use of EM.35 Next, I seek to consider another

observation on theorizing the EM.

How to theorizing EM? EM-curfews are theorized as a way of “doing time at

home”.36 Hucklesby determines that EM-curfews had the prospective as habit’s

breaker - links by “networks, places, people, and situations”.37 While studies by Adam

Crawford (2003) called EM-curfews as the “regulated self-regulation” which based on

“contractual governance” of individuals, distinct from the “behaviour contracts of

anti-social” studied by Crawford, compliance through the curfew times was the only

performance requested by EM.38 While studies by Her Majesty’s Inspectorates of

Probation shown illustrations of the disrupting offending patterns of EM-curfews

deliberated by the courts, if it integrated into broader supervision strategies.39 EM can

either be used in conjunction or separately with other form of community penalties.40

EM makes known a physical location. In the traditional Foucauldian sense, it would

hard to represent EM as a corrective penalty.41 Taken in this way, Her Majesty’s

Inspectorates of Probation offer insight to the integration of EM into the broader

supervision strategies.

Telepresence, from the supervision programme framework, is seen as a useful

element.42 While Research by Payne and Gainey (2004) in the USA showed that, the

painful consequences were more vivid by EM. Offender compliance was the result of

more humanistic community penalties, for example, community service and

probation.43 Taken in this way, Adam Crawford's theory is helpful in understanding

EM-curfews theorised as the “contractual governance” of individuals to “regulated

self-regulation”. Next, I seek to consider another observation on relation between EM

and punishment paradigm.

How EM relates to punishment paradigm? While studies by UCLA policy

expert Mark Kleiman sees EM as a way to fully punish the past deeds and prevent

35 Nellis 2013. Public Lecture. Custody, Community and the Uses of EM. Court-Senate Suite Lecture Theatre, Collins Building Richmond St. University of Strathclyde. 2-5pm36 Nellis 2009a:41-2 cites Ball, Huff and Lilly, 198837 Nellis 2009a:56 cites Hucklesby, 2008:6638 Nellis 2009a:5839 Nellis 2009a:59 cites Court Administration and Constabulary 200840 Nellis 2009a:4741 Nellis 2009a:5842 Nellis 2009a:59 cites Nellis, 200943 Nelis 2009a:45-6 cites Payne and Gainey, 2004:425

future action. Control and punishment have replaced counselling and support as the

core business of post-release-policy.44 An examination of the legal, regulatory, policy

and contractual frameworks for EM will reinforce the punishment paradigm, either

through explicitly punitive content or through their silence on the rehabilitative and

human rights aspects of EM.45 In most cases, legal frameworks simply empower

authorities to use EM and to impose penalties. The California legislation provides a

typical example: whenever parole is not complying with the rules or supervision

conditions, the officer supervising the individual might, take the individual into

custody for a violation of parole.46 While research by Gies et al (2012) carried out a

quantitative study of 516 ‘‘High Risk Sex Offenders’’ in California, dividing them

equally between those on GPS monitoring and those under traditional parole

supervision. He found a 38% higher likelihood of a return to custody, either through

parole revocation or new criminal charge, among those not on EM. While studies by

Bales (2010) did a quantitative and qualitative study of people under ‘‘community

supervision’’ in Florida and found a 31% lower ‘‘rate of failure’’ for those on EM. 47

Taken in this way, EM will reinforce the punishment paradigm. Next, I seek to

consider another observation on EM contribution to social order.

How EM contributes to social order? While Lyon's critique of surveillance

theory points out that consumerism is a major contribution to social order and this

depends on 'commercial surveillance' but does not represent the panoptic imposition

of norms because the subject makes 'real choices' (Lyon, 1994: 74).

In theoretical terms, (it's set the context of EM) it is the putative role of technology in

efforts either to maintain social order or to restore social order.48 But if, as Bauman

suggests, the search for order is a creation, in a similar way to critical theory's

somewhat related notions of technological rationality and technocratic consciousness,

this does not mean that it operates everywhere.49 While studies so far show that by

providing 'free' access to information, citizens are seen to be empowered. At the same

time, there are concerns in certain quarters that this very freedom really spells

disorder.50 While The Home Office has announced the expansion of tagging at the

beginning of December 1999. There has been a swift enforcement of EM to offenders.

44 Kilgore 2012a:3 cites Hallett 2011; Wacquant 2009a, b; Mauer 2006; Visher et al. 200445 Kilgore 2012a:1046 Kilgore 2012a:1147 Kilgore 2012a:6-748 Bloomfield 2001:181 cites Douglas, 1966, 197349 Bloomfield 2001:18450 Bloomfield 2001:185

Monitoring equipment can pick any breach of the curfew order.51 Taken in this way,

EM is seen as means to maintain and to restore social order. Next, I seek to consider

another observation on the operator impacts to EM.

How the operator impacts to EM? While studies so far show that the

disjuncture between the theory and practice is in terms of how far the technology fits

with existing organizational, occupational and individual concerns of those involved

in operating it (McCahill, 2002).52 While studies so far show that taking account of

monitoring officers’ working practices and concerns when drawing up policies and

procedures for the operation of EM is likely to result in the more effective operation

of EM.53 The values encompassed in the efficiency credo may be held in conjunction

with, either the punishment or care/humanity credos.54 While research in England and

Walesso far suggests that monitoring officers have a direct impact on the integrity of

EM and its efficiency in providing a robust punishment. For example, if visits are not

undertaken, when required, equipment may continue to malfunction, offenders may

not be breached and some offenders may be wrongly breached.55 Taken in this way,

monitoring officers have a direct impact on the integrity and efficiency of EM. Next, I

seek to consider another observation on the implementation of 'offender management'

concept.

How does the concept of 'offender management' works? The concept of

'offender management' in practice proved hard as there were both systemic and

individualised elements to the concept.56

Some countries will choose to maintain EM only as a form of stand-alone

surveillance, which may reduce crime over the duration of the order, or have other

penal effect, but will surely fall short of the potential which the American originator

saw it at 50 years ago (Gable and Gable 2002).57 Systematically, decision-making

about EM policy and strategy is part-developing from the center toward the regions,

but, it is not clear whether changes the practices at the individual level are really

desired at all.58 For example, the Court Services and Criminal Justice Act 2000

51 Bloomfield 2001:177 cites Home Office 199952 Hucklesby 2011:6053 Hucklesby 2011:7254 Hucklesby 2011:61 cites Lacey, 1994; Liebling, 200455 Hucklesby 2011:7256 Nellis 2010a:51457 Nellis 2010a:51058 Nellis 2010a:521

announced two innovative uses of EM-as a condition in two community penalties and

as a condition of post-release license or supervision in the community part of a

detention and training order (DTO) for, the young offender. The most significant

finding at the Home Office-into the new uses in the pilot area was that take-up of

them was extremely low (Bottomley et al.2004), due to 'a failure to articulate the

policy issue underlying the new legislation' (2004:47), more so in respect of

community penalties than the post-release licenses.59 Sentencers have also had to be

persuaded of the need to increase the use of EM. For example, Her Majesty's Court

Services encouraged the use of bail tagging in September 2005 (BI/241/09/05).60

Another example, The Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 designed to make

EM-bail more credible in the eyes of both courts and defendants. Significantly, EM

bail was now made a specific requirement of the Bail Act. This was intended to

ensure that tagging was only used where necessary' (Ministry of Justice 2008:05).61

However, While research by The CJJI (2008:7) so far has championed the use of EM

for the 'crime reductive or rehabilitative purposes', highlighting the handful of 'cases

[where] curfews were being used creatively to address patterns of offending behavior'.62

While research into the Scottish equivalent of ISSPs-Intensive Monitoring and

Support Services (ISMS)-was frustratingly inconclusive about the utility of the

integral EM curfew and did not explore how social workers did or did not make use of

the fact that a youngster was tagged (Khan and Hill 2008).63 Taken in this way, it

needs creativity to articulate the concept of 'offender management' into practice. Next,

I seek to consider another observation on how EM accommodates public protection.

How EM accommodates public protection? Public protection, conceived as

something that can be consciously and continually engineered, has emerged as a

social and political ideal in its own right, rather than imposing punishment or

rehabilitation on offenders.64 Dystopias are easily conjured in respect of such

scenarios, and it is not as if there is nothing to fear from a technology that could

potentially displace humanistic forms of offender supervision, significantly infringe

human rights, and reduce political incentives to pursue greater social justice.65 Button

et al (2009) see no meaningful theoretical match between the indiscriminate adoption

of EM, particularly GPS tracking, and the concrete motivations of particular

59 Nellis 2010a:51160 Nellis 2010a:52261 Nellis 2010a:52362 Nellis 2010a:54763 Nellis 2010a:52464 Nellis 2010b:35465 Nellis 2010b:356

offenders. They echo Mair's (2005) observation about the use of EM in England and

Wales, that as it becomes both cheaper and technically more proficient, policy-makers

turn to it regardless.66 However, in practices, Button et al (2009) note that the parole

officer may be forced to subordinate more social forms of supervision to the servicing

of data-flows generated by EM, and fear that EM may become the mainstay of sex-

offender supervision rather than an additional tool to complement the rehabilitative

and reintegrates measure. They seemly accept Padgett, Bales and Blomberg's (2006)

claim that EM of various kinds has a crime suppression effect over the duration of a

(relatively short) monitoring period, if not afterwards, but are rightly skeptical of the

researcher's inference that the same suppressive effect could be maintained if the

duration was simply extended for years (see also Nellis 2007b). Current evidence

suggests that EM become cumulatively less bearable to those subject to it, such that

lifetime tracking may create false expectations of protectiveness, quite apart from the

human right implications.67 Taken in this way, the reintegrated measure forms of

supervision are needed to avoid false expectations of protectiveness. Next, I seek to

consider another observation on how telecommunication networks support

community supervision.

Urban theorist Stephen Graham suggests that the new networks of

telecommunication have a tendency to be mainly silent or invisible.68 But how this

telecommunication networks support community supervision?

The state- encouragement of EM-inovation happens by three means: 1) The political

construction of EM, as forms of modernising community supervision. 2) The

implementation of EM by civil servants. 3) The specification and quality upgrading of

EM equipment.69 The paradoxical outcome on EM was caused by the rise of a broader

surveillance culture. It legitimates it and stimulates its expansion. It is also difficult to

project a geolocating offender as convenience. This makes populist punitiveness still

impinged the penal policy-making.70 Such sentiment are possibly underlying in “the

telematics imaginary,” and Bogard’s fear of the future, which, in extremes, it traps

us— more “the inhuman” as envisioned by Lyotard (1991), less the convivial “e-

topia” as envisioned by Mitchell.71 Furthermore, administrative and rules linking to

66 See Nellis 2010b: 351-2 cites Button et al (2009) who suggest that more integrated, inter-agency working with the sex-offender would probably be more effective than reliance on technology. 67 Nelis 2010b:35268 Nellis 2009:104 cites Graham 1997:3369 Nellis 2009:111 70 Nellis 2009:11971 Nellis 2009:119-120

EM’s use can change its meaning, impact, and intensity, both to the contiguous

system of supervision and to offenders.72 Many community sentences today have the

element of contractual—in order to procure active cooperation of offender’s.73 While

research so far showed that for the period of their EM-curfew, the location of

offenders is knowable, verifiable, retrievable, and usable as evidence in court.74 While

research so far showed that reduced non-custodial sentencing or, instead, custodial

terms support offenders to repel the reoffending-stress and can improve family

relationships. It offers the elasticity of offenders-participation and to discover paid-

work or continue with structured education, reparation programmes and training

planned to block the behaviour of offending.75 Taken in this way, EM support in

modernise community supervision. Next, I seek to consider another observation on

some downsides to EM.

Are there any downsides to EM? On 26 January 2005, the Home Office

adopted the idea of a civil, 'non-custodial' including EM. The penalty for breach, even

though it was a civil order, would be imprisonment (Beattie 2005).76 In the Prevention

of Terrorism Act 2005, EM was formally extended to a new category of people-

terrorist. Control orders were seen by the Government as a viable intermediate way

among release on unconditional bail and detention without trial in prison.77 Evidence

shown that, ten bail orders were converted into non-derogating control orders.

Mahmoud Abu Rideh' claimed his misperception about the control orders process and

also the deficiency of support had directed him to take an overdose the previous

weekend.78 Taken in this way, EM has a negative impact to community supervision.

Next, I seek to consider another observation on viewing EM in a managerialism

context.

How is EM viewed in a managerialism context? In a managerialism context,

Brian Bloomfield considers that we will have electronic surveillance that mediates

and ordering objects in time and space with its electronic-tag.79 Major reviews of

sentencing policy and court structure and resettlement practice (critically reviewed in

Rex and Tonry, 2002; Tonry, 2003) led eventually to the Criminal Justice Act 2003,

72 Nellis 2009:10373 Nellis 2009:10974 Nellis 2009:10875 Nellis 2009:113 cites On Guard Plus 200476 Nellis 2009:26677 Nellis 2006:26478 Nellis 2006:272-379 Nellis 2005:173 cites Bloomfield 2001:183

which introduced, for the first time, blended all existing community penalties into a

single generic community order which sentencer could tailor to individual cases on

mix-and-match basis.80 EM is expressive of the managerial-surveillance;81 it has been

used, discursively, to erode confidence in merely humanistic intervention. But the

vision of the social order implicit in techno-scientific managerialism is not itself

atavistic-as Pratt (2002:187) rightly observes, managerialist precepts tend to 'provide

a buffer against the dominance of popular sentiment on penal development'.82 EM in

its present law-enforcement forms can be seemed 'less eligibility' that makes

punishment publicly plausible (Sparks, 1996).83 Evidence from Home Secretary

Blunkett shown, that tracking would even be used on every offence where we are

concerned about sentencing of the community, but where our prisons used

unnecessarily.84 EM is also understood as what Haggerty and Ericson (2000) calls as '

the surveillant assemblage'.85 Under the Act 2002 of the Criminal Justice and Police,

unconvicted-suspect on bail were made eligible for tagging if magistrates considered

them at risk of offending. Under The Act 2000 of the Criminal Justice and Court

Service permitted integration of EM to the very nature of community sanction.86

Evidence shows that, in April 2001, they had the creation of 50 Intensive Supervision

and Surveillance Programs (ISSPs) for persistent young offenders.

They were subjected to 25 hour’s compulsory education, as well as using EM, 'to

ensure young people were at the right time 'in the right place”.87 Taken in this way,

EM is expressive of the managerial-surveillance. Next, I seek to consider another

observation on the prominence of EM.

How prominent is EM? Stacey saw EM as a more effective way of supervising

the offender in community.88 EM has intensified control over offenders in the

community.89 The Criminal Justice and Court Service Act 2000, made EM available

across both the range of community penalties and of post-release supervision.90 while

research by Home Office (2002a) so far has shown a small reduction in prison use

through a transformation in offender’s supervision. Taken in this way, EM is integral

to it, but not symbolically prominent.91 Possibly we are seeing a shift in criminal

80 Nellis 2005:17081 Nellis 2005:16082 Nellis 2005:179-8083 Nellis 2005:18184 Nellis 2005:17685 Nellis 2003a:7786 Nellis 2003a:6787 Nellis 2003a:67 cites Bateman, 2001; George 2002:2588 Nellis 2003b:24789 Nellis 2003b:25790 Nellis 2003b:252

justice from a humanistic to a managerialist-surveillant paradigm, in which EM

displaces and supersedes social work.92 Andrew Wade (1988) warning against net

widening. The chief probation officer was hostile to EM (Read 1990). James

Cannings (1989) recognized that EM should at least be experimented with as a form

of intensive supervision.93 Detention Curfew scheme had the effect of increasing

probation contact with tagged offenders.94 Fionda (2000:187) warns, 'the

managerialist argument lies beyond the limits of humanitarianism'.95 However,

Schmidt (1998) research shown that, EM had cost-benefits and it did not worsen

public safety. Lobley and Smith (2000: see also Smith 2001). While research on the

Scottish EM trials so far has shown that, EM would be cost-effective.96 EM possess

conventional attributes of punishment-it restricts liberty and regulates an offender-

time. Therein, however, lays the symbolic difficulty, something we have come regard

as a convenience rather than as a threat to our freedom.97 Next, I seek to consider

another observation on the future of EM.

What is the future of EM? EM acts as a visible reminder to the offender of

their responsibility to the omnipresent process of social control.98

Today's officer possible thinks of the job of community corrections as a job of

surveillance whereas yesterday's officer often saw the job as one of service.99

Technology is an extension of traditional modes of social control, designed to mirror a

generic deference to authority.100 While research so far shown the feasibility of EM.

There was a satisfaction among the families and EM-persons. EM prevents domestic

violence considerably if there were no 24 hours a day restriction. There was an

appreciation from wives to their husbands for a longer time spending at home.101

Mike Nellis see in the future, surveillance will play a bigger part in the nature of

offender supervision.102 Norman Bishop sees that EM is in line with the European

Council Recommendation Number R (92)16, about measures, and community

sanctions. He also warned of future form of EM like behavior controlling implants.103

Dick Whitefield sees that EM could work together with social work. In the future,

91 Nellis 2003b:24892 Nellis 2003b:24993 Nellis 2003b:25094 Nellis 2003b:25195 Nellis 2003b:25296 Nellis 2003b:25397 Nellis 2003b:25698 McCormick 1994:14799 McCormick 1994:150 cites Studt1973100 McCormick 1994:151101 Mayer et al 2001:7102 Mayer et al 2001:8-9103 Mayer et al 2001:9

they had to develop new analytical skill and the ability to work the offender's family.104

EM had two advantages. It was more coercive than traditional community base

surveillance techniques, and more 'humane' than imprisonment.105 In the USA,

probation services view EM as a way of delegitimizing their work in the eyes of the

public and the authorities.106 Taken in this way, EM's plays as a community sanctions

measure in the future. Next, I seek to consider another observation on integrating

communities’ penalties and EM.

How communities’ penalties and EM integrate? Constant EM reduces the

habits of missed appointment for personal counseling or drug treatment.107 Satellite

tracking is designed to monitor the victim as well as the offender can enforce an order

of protection.108 Electronic tracking is a relatively inexpensive way to protect children

from pedophiles and women from abusive husbands or boyfriends.109 Max Winkler

described a sub dermal microcomputer with artificial intelligence software able to

detect and release a tranquilizer of soporific if a crime of unacceptable sexuality

seems imminent.110 However, it raises privacy issues.

Studies in North America, Europe, and Asia reported that their "biggest concern" was

abuse.111 Ari Juels, Ronald Rivest, and Michael Szydlo wrote the privacy of the

consumer was threatened by the RFID tags ubiquity in the future.112 Although the

research looked at satellite tracking, sub dermal microcomputer and RFID, I think the

argument equally applies to tension between privacy issue of communities penalties.

The actual monitoring of compliance by EM might pose a danger to protection

against 'unreasonable search and seizure' as set forth in the fourth amendment to the

U.S. Constitution.113 The use of EM bracelet might degrade a parent in the eyes of the

spouse and children.114 While empirical research of privacy, Wolfe and Laufer (1974)

found that privacy means controlling access to information and spaces. Those

meaning seems relevant by the omnipresent of EM devices.115 EM of curfew

104 Mayer et al 2001:9105 Levy 2001:15106 Levy 2001:30 cites Tonry 1990:185107 Monmonier 2002:133108 Monmonier 2002:133109 Monmonier 2002:132110 Monmonier 2002:135111 Albrecht and McIntyre 2006:154112 Albrecht and McIntyre 2006:160 cites Munarriz 2004113 Ball 1988:100114 Ball 1988:109115 Ball 1988:128

compliance can be understood as an attempt to withdraw the societal 'privilege',

through restriction in time and/or space. Indeed, the criminal justice system views EM

as a 'privilege' to offender, in the sense that failure to comply could lead them to

prison.116 EM can provide a reintegration of offenders into society; and EM provides

effective and cheap resources of tougher offender’s supervision.117 Communities’

penalties and new technology cannot be left to make fragmented and partial

accommodation to each other.118 The Green Paper, Punishment, Custody and the

Community (Home Office 1988), had published and was received by probation

officers as posing a serious threat to the traditional caring. From this perspective,

probation work dealt in human beings; EM meant treating human as an objects.119

Taken in this way, EM is reintegrating offenders more effectively into society. Next, I

seek to consider another observation on how to ensure the principle-practice of EM.

How to ensure the principle-practice of EM? To ensure principled practice of

EM, it needs clear policy and targeting; specified standards of operation; and

independent inspection.120 In the USA, the liability of supervisor for failure to respond

to known violations; vendor liability; and rights to privacy is under the Fourth

Amendment.121 While research by Stina Holmberg (2012) in Belgium so far, point to

evidence that to reduce recidivism and to decrease imprisonment use, the integrated

form of EM can be useful.122 There seem to be general support for the argument that

there are seven principles underliying EM's best practices. While studies by John

Scott (2012) so far concludes that: human factor intervention to offender should never

be replaced by the technology; social work and probation officer need a better

undertanding about the advantage and disadvantage of EM; education to public about

EM is needed; evidence and research-are key factor to EM expansion; the clear

purpose of EM in relation to strategies of criminal justice should be addressed; the

victim and offender view about the use of EM should be respected; to avoid net

widening and to reduce imprisonment's use, the use of EM is mainly important.123

While research on EM schemes in the USA so far report that, properly

targeted, it has been useful with adolescent offenders, whose parents use it as an ally

116 Mair 2001:177 cites Jones 2000:18117 Mair 2001:168 cites Home Office 1998:8118 Mair 2001:181119 Mair 2001:170120 Whitefield 1997:126121 Whitefield 1997:83 cites Fabelo 1995122 Nellis M and Delphine Vanhaelemeesch 2012:23 cites Holmberg 2012123 ibid

for reasserting control.124 EM with adult offenders meets public expectation in

relation to deterrence and retribution; an element of incapacitation; sufficient

flexibility to meet a wide range of offender needs.125 Tagging remains one of the

easiest to present in policy terms.

The continuum stretches among the new toy-'the magic bracelet' and the way of

enforcing the community sentences.126 In the USA, the use of EM techniques for

probationers, parolees, and even pre-trial detainee is judicially acceptable as a proper

method of supervision.127 Evidence from the Office of Alternative Sanction (OAS)

programs demonstrates, when tagging is integrated into a range of options; when it is

managed well and sanctions are both clear and swiftly applied; then more effective

penalties for less money are an achievable goal.128 Evidence shown that, in Sweden,

the Probation Service's involvement with EM has given the services, and supervision

in the community, a real boost.129 However, the expansion of EM possibly will

undermine the 'softer' community penalties.130 While research in Indiana so far has

shown, that successful completion of the EM sentence is significantly related to

previous offending history.131 While other research in Indiana, shown that, those

young people EM as a condition of supervision not only completed the supervision

period satisfactory more often (90% as against 75%), but reoffend less during the

follow-up period (16.9% against 25.9%).132 Taken in this way, EM strengthen

community penalties.

Conclusion

Results of the study showed Electronic Monitoring-curfews disrupt offending

patterns, if it is integrated into broader supervision strategies. EM also strengthens the

community penalties. EM is reintegrating offenders more effectively into society. EM

acts as a community sanctions measure in the future and is expressive of the

managerial-surveillance. EM helps modernise community supervision.

It needs creativity to articulate the concept of 'offender management' into practice.

Monitoring officers have a direct impact on the integrity and efficiency of EM and the

reintegrated measured forms of supervision are needed to avoid false expectations of

124 Whitefield 1997:125125 Whitefield 2001:101-2126 Whitefield 2001:91127 Whitefield 2001:107 cites Renzema and Skelton 1990128 Whitefield 2001:94129 Whitefield 2001:96130 Whitefield 2001:97131 Whitefield 2001:98 cites Roy1999132 Whitefield 2001:103

protectiveness. EM encourages offenders to desist from crime however, irresponsible

use of EM raises ethical aspects, and when EM operates without support, the offender

finds it painful.

References

Albrecht K and McIntyre L (2006) Spy chips: how major corporations and government plan to track your every purchase and watch your every move. New York: Penguin/Plume

Ball R A, Huff R and Lilly J R (1988) House Arrest and Correctional Policy: doing time at home. Newbury Park, Calif: Sage.

Bloomfield B (2001) In the Right Place at the Right Time: electronic tagging and problems of social order/disorder. The Sociological Review 49(2)174-201

Hucklesby A (2011) The Working life of Electronic Monitoring Officers. Criminology and Criminal Justice 11(1) 1-18

Hucklesby A (2012) Insider's views, Offender's and staffs' experiences of electronically monitored curfew. In Nellis, Electronically Monitored Punishment: critical and international perspectives. London: Routledge

Jones R (2006) ‘Architecture’, criminal justice and control. in Armstrong S and McAra L (eds) Perspectives on Punishment: the contours of control. Oxford: Oxford University Press

Kilgore J (2012a) Progress or More of the Same? Electronic Monitoring in the Age of Mass Incarceration and Parole. Critical Criminology (published online November 2012) DOI 10.1007/s10612-012-9165-0

Mair G (2001) Technology and the Future of Community Penalties. in Bottoms G, Gelsthorpe L and Rex (eds) Community Penalties: Change and Challenges. Cullompton, Devon: Willan Publishing

Mayer M, Haverkamp R and Levy R (2001) (eds) Will Electronic Monitoring Have a Future in Europe? Frieburg: Max Planck Institute

McCormick K R E (1994) Prisoners of Their Own Device: computer applications in the Canadian correctional system. in McCormick K R E (ed) Carceral Contexts: readings in control. Toronto: Canadian Scholars’ Press Inc.

Monmonier M (2002) Spying with Maps: surveillance technologies and the future of privacy. Chicago: the University of Chicago Press

Nellis M (2003a) “They Don’t Even Know We’re There”: the electronic monitoring of offenders in England and Wales. in Ball K and Webster F (eds) The Intensification of Surveillance: crime, terrorism and warfare in the information age. London: Pluto

Nellis M (2003b) Electronic Monitoring and the Future of the Probation Service. In Chui W H and Nellis M (eds) Moving Probation Forward; evidence arguments and practice. Harlow: Longmans

Nellis M (2004) Electronic Monitoring and the Community Supervision of Offenders. in Bottoms A E, Rex S and Robinson G (eds) Alternatives to Prison. Cullompton: Willan

Nellis M (2005) Electronic Monitoring, Satellite Tracking and the New Punitiveness in England and Wales. in Pratt J, Brown D, Hallsworth S, Brown M and Morrison W (eds) The New Punitiveness: trends, theories, perspectives. Cullompton: Willan

Nellis M (2006) Electronic Monitoring and The Creation of Control Orders for Terrorist Suspects in England and Wales. in Abbas T (ed) Islamic Political Radicalism. Edinburgh University Press.

Nellis M (2009) Electronic Monitoring and Penal Control in a Telematic Society. In Doakes J, Knepper P and Shapland J (eds) Urban Crime Prevention, Surveillance and Restorative Justice: Effects of Social Technologies of Justice. FL. Boca Raton: CRC Press

Nellis M (2009a) Surveillance and Confinement: Understanding Offender Experiences of Electronically Monitored Curfews (2009). European Journal of Probation1 (1)41-65

Nellis M (2010) Eternal Vigilance Inc.: the Satellite Tracking of Offenders in Real-Time. In Journal of Technology and Human Services 28.23-43

Nellis M (2010a) Electronic Monitoring: Towards Integration in Offender Management. in McNeil, F, Raynor P, Trotter C and (eds) Offender Supervision. Cullompton: Willan

Nellis M (2010b) Electronic Monitoring, Satellite Tracking and Public Protection. in Davies A and Nash M (ed) Handbook of Public Protection. Cullompton: Willan

Nellis M (2012a) Implant Technology and the Electronic Monitoring of Offenders: old and new questions about compliance, control and legitimacy. in Crawford A and Hucklesby A (eds) Legitimacy and Compliance in Criminal Justice. London: Routledge

Nellis M and Delphine Vanhaelemeesch (2012) Electronic Monitoring in Europe: Report form the 8th CEP Electronic Monitoring Conference in Balsta, Sweden, 8th-10th November 2012. The Journal of Offender Monitoring Vol 24 (2) 23-26

Nellis M, Beyens K and Kaminski D (eds) (2012b) Electronically Monitored Punishment: critical and international perspectives. London: Routledge

Nellis M (2012c) The GPS Satellite Tracking of Sex Offenders in the USA. In Brayford J, Cowe F, and Deering J (eds) Sex offenders: Punish, Help, Change or Control. London: Routledge

Whitfield D (1997) Tackling the Tag: the electronic monitoring of offenders. Winchester: Waterside Press

Whitfield D (2001) The Magic Bracelet: technology and offender supervision. Winchester: Waterside Press.

Other sources Nellis (2013) Public Lecture. Custody, Community and the Uses of EM. Court-Senate Suite Lecture Theatre, Collins Building Richmond St. University of Strathclyde. 2-5pm

NewspaperThe Daily Telegraph, May 1, 2013. GPS tags for dementia patients.