Electronic Monitoring
Electronic monitoring has emerged as one of the
most popular forms of community
corrections in the United States today.
Electronic monitoring began and/or was
first used in approximately 1984.
Today, approximately 12,000- 15,000 offenders
or participants are being
monitored on a daily basis. The electronic monitoring
equipment used today
allows us to determine if a monitored participant is in
his/her required
place at the proper time. When I speak of electronic monitoring
the first
thing that comes to your mind is probably an ankle bracelet. Well,
today’s
technology has called for a few new and interesting not to mention
easier
forms of monitoring offenders and participants. (It is essential for me
to
note that not all persons being monitored have been convicted of
crimes.
Monitoring is also used as a condition of pre-trial release. In
my research I
will focus on the guidelines of probation monitoring). Today,
we have monitors
in the form of wristwatches, we also have monitors in the
form of voice
verification through the offenders telephone, and there is also
a system of
visual verification that assures that the participant is
answering the phone.
There are even units that have drive-by options that
allow a supervising officer
to sit outside of a building and tell whether or
not an offender is inside,
where he/she is required to be. These forms are in
addition to the ankle
bracelet. Over the years technology has also been able
to "enhance battery
life and improve the bands worn by offenders by making
them non-stretchable and
tamper-resistant. A new mobile unit allows
supervising officers to check on
offenders and hold two-way conversations
with them without ever having to leave
their vehicles (Papy 132)." In the
wristwatch program the participant is
signaled through the device at various
random times throughout the day. The
participant is then obligated to call a
central monitoring station from a nearby
phone using a 1-800 number. The
central monitoring station picks up the
participant’s location using caller
ID. The participant is then supposed to
press and hold the face of the
wristwatch to the phone. The device generates a
beeping code, which will
identify the participant. The telephone call also is
able to detect whether
or not the device has been tampered with, and if the
participant is in their
correct, required locations. The officer programs the
number of random
signals. In the voice verification system, the participant is
either called
at their home at random or they are scheduled to make a call at
certain
times. However, the system is computerized to pick up the
participant’s voice
no matter what type of phone, or what type of condition
the phone is in. This
system is 95% accurate and can easily tell the difference
between relatives.
It can also make a positive identification when the
participant has a cold.
In connection with the voice verification system there
is a visual
verification option that allows the officer to make sure that the
participant
is the person answering the phone. The supervising officer has three
main
responsibilities: selecting participants for the program, installing
whatever
device is necessary for the monitoring program (basically "hooking up
the
offender"), and supervising the participants. "Officers are contacted
each
time one of the following ‘key events’ occurs: unauthorized absences
from the
residence; failure to return to the residence from a scheduled absence;
late
arrivals; early departures from a residence; equipment
malfunctions;
tampering with the monitoring equipment; loss of electrical
power or telephone
service; location verification failure (where a
participant moves the monitoring
equipment from the residence without
permission); and when the monitoring
equipment misses a randomly scheduled
call to the monitoring center (Altman,
Murray, Wooten 31)". These are all
certain violations that set off and can
alert the officer of a participant
foul up. When the officer is alerted of a
violation he/she calls the central
monitoring station and finds out who is in
violation and does whatever is
necessary to handle the problem. While electronic
monitoring is a growing
trend in community corrections, two of the major
questions are is electronic
monitoring cost effective? If so, which system is
the best and most secures?
Unfortunately today in our society we have reached
some extremely
crime-ridden times. Crime rates are soaring, and the corrections
system is
running out of places and things to do with offenders. Prisons and
jails are
being overcrowded. The number of people on probation in early 1998 was
well
over 3.2 million. All of these functions are costing us money. Next
to
protecting the community, and rehabilitating offenders we also want to
find new
programs and ideas that will save us money. "...Also provides us
with a
significant cost savings for the government. In fiscal year 1996
(according to
the Administrative office), if home confinement did not exist,
more than 8,000
offenders would have been in prison or halfway houses and
more than 5,000
defendants would have been detained in detention centers or
halfway houses
(Altman, Murray, Wooten 32)". One of the main questions asked
when dealing
with community corrections, and the electronic monitoring
devices is are they
cost effective. Are they saving us money, or losing us
money? Well, in 1996, the
cost of incarceration was about 42-61 million,
depending on the level of
incarceration, and the cost of monitoring was 19
million. The total cost of
savings in that category was around 23-42 million.
On the other side the cost of
detention was 2-41 million, depending on the
type of detention facility, and the
cost of monitoring was around 12 million.
The total cost of saving in this
particular category was 15-29 million. Now,
when asked if electronic monitoring
is cost effective the total savings for
the year of 1996 was 38-70 million.
These figures are all depending on
the level of incarceration or the type of
detention facility we are dealing
with when talking about saving. Different
facilities have their own daily
rates. (Stats from chart in Altman, Murray, and
Wooten 32). By looking at
the figures in this chart, it is easy to see that so
far electronic
monitoring is saving money. Even though these figures are from
1996 the
figure amount for savings should be higher today. I say this because;
as the
number of offenders rises so should the number of those put on the
systems.
In turn, saving even more dollars. Now that we have dealt with the
problem of
cost-effectiveness. What system is the best? The electronic
monitoring
systems have come a long way since the mid 80’s. They have evolved
into much
more than just the ankle bracelets. Earlier I previously described to
you the
a few types of monitors. In my opinion the best monitor is not always
the
cheapest monitor. The best monitor is the one that will keep an offender
out
of the prison system, and help to reintegrate an offender back into
the
community. As well as keep tight surveillance on the offender and assure
the
community that they are safe. The monitor that does this the best I feel
is the
voice verification monitors. "Those system functions essentially place
calls
to pretrial releasees at programmed intervals to remind them or
instruct them to
do such things as report to the office, attend their next
scheduled court
appearance, provide a urine specimen, or whatever other
information officers
need to convey to defendants. These system functions can
also be used to monitor
defendants’ home detention or curfew conditions of
release (Cadigan 53)".
This monitoring system works in one of two ways:
the offender either calls the
system at specified times, or the system will
call the offender at various
specified times. Once the offender speaks into
the phone the system can pick up
the proper voice at a 95% recognition rate.
This system is able to differentiate
between family members, so that
brothers, mothers, fathers, or sisters cannot
try to cover for defendants.
When this program has been implemented into a home
there are certain phone
features that must be cut off of the offenders phone.
Features such as
three way calling, double line, call-forwarding. The offender
must show proof
of this, by showing his phone bill to the supervising officer
every month.
This system is purely tamper proof. This is why I feel that it is
the best
way to go in choosing a monitor. Not only has electronic monitoring
emerged
as one of the most popular forms of community corrections today. It is
also
one of the most cost-effective programs in community corrections. We
have
learned about electronic monitoring devices other than the ankle
bracelet. We
have learned the dollar amount that electronic monitoring is
saving our
government. I have also discussed with you the device that I feel
provides the
community with the best safety assurance, and allows the
offender to be treated
and reintegrated back into society. Electronic
monitoring is a very important
part of community corrections today! The more
offenders going through the system
the monitors we will have being used. Over
the years as crime has risen so has
the technology of the electronic
monitoring device. As crime increases so will
the technology for these
devices. I feel very confident in the systems we use
today, in that they are
protecting us (law-abiding citizens) and keeping a close
eye on them
(criminal offenders).