The Effects Of Electronic Monitoring On Offenders

The Effects of Electronic Monitoring on Offenders and the Traditional Ways of Supervision An In-depth Analysis Name of Student University CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Background of the Study We are in a digital world. Our generation today is already bound within the corners of modernization and innovation. Henceforth, in the same sense, there is no denying on the fact that our world today is comprised of various technological advancements. There seems to be a newly found either machine or device almost every month. Whether the purpose is merely for pleasure or for addressing greater necessities, there is always something coming up for the world to enjoy and use at its potential best. As these advancements grow, some other aspects of the society also show progression. Relatively, with these progressions, there are a lot of questions that can be raised when it comes to the issue of maximizing our use of technological advancements. Within this purview, there is a need to study such developments in relation to every aspect of life and the society. Wherefore, in connection with what has been stated above, this study would like to discover the facts and issues behind electronic monitoring (EM) of offenders. It aims to uncover the truth behind this new system in criminal justice where offenders are monitored while they ordinarily live in their respective communities. As stated in a study conducted by Roman, et al., in Washington D.C., EM reduces by 24% the chances of having to arrest recidivist or repetitive offenders1. This is a significantly attractive figure compared to other places that do not practice EM. On the same note, it gives us the idea that implementing EM in communities may in fact has the potential to supervise the offenders within those communities. It may stimulate changes that 1 John Roman and others, ‘The Costs and Benefits of Electronic Monitoring for Washington, D.C.’ (The Urban Institute, 2012) 3. are helpful to support the justice system in carrying out their duty to monitor offenders in a more convenient manner. However, while EM seems to be a promising way to monitor offenders these days, it is of equal importance to discover if it indeed supports the traditional way of supervising offenders. A shift into another form of supervising offenders surely changes a lot of things. If there is such change, how certain are we in redefining it in accordance with the real purpose and objective of the law governing the supervision of offenders? Clearly, there is a need to elaborate on how EM supports the traditional ways of monitoring and supervising offenders because through such elaboration, we will be able to understand how it affects the communities as well as the offenders themselves. More so, we will be able to understand if it indeed offers more benefits to our justice system than risks and disadvantages. Statement of the Problem With the ongoing technological advancements present today and with the emerging usage of EM in most states and countries, the purpose of this study is to seek for the answers to the following questions: 1 In what ways does EM of offenders support traditional ways of supervising offenders in the community? 2 In what ways does EM of offenders threaten the offenders that are being monitored? Significance of the Study The government of the United Kingdom implemented a law called the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act (ROA) 1974 which defines offenses that are worth rehabilitating and determines the punishment period for which these offenses must take in effect2. In connection with this rehabilitation project is the implementation of the EM in every community. The main purpose of implementing the EM of offenders is to control the actions of public offenders. It serves as an easier way to observe and detect those who have made offenses and how they behave in the place where they live. However, on a wider note, while EM may potentially benefit the criminal justice system of the community, there has to be further research that should be conducted on how it affects the traditional ways of supervising offenders. This is because as tradition, the original conventional values and principles behind the law that governs such supervision must be upheld. Without knowledge on how it could affect the main purpose of supervision, how then would it contribute to the need for better practices in terms of resolving crimes and injustices? Thus, on the researcher’s perspective, there is indeed great necessity to define the ways on how the EM of offenders support the traditional ways of supervising them in the community. In the same manner, there is a need to identify the ways that it may threaten such offenders. The determination of such will define whether or not the practice of EM is something that should be done in states not just with higher crime rates, but ideally, to almost all states that would like to participate in practicing the same. 2 Rehabilitation of Offenders Act of 1974 Limitations of the Study This study only aims to find out the relationship between EM of offenders and the traditional ways of supervising offenders and the relationship between EM of offenders and the offenders themselves. Moreover, the goal of this study is to establish the different factors of EM that supports the traditional supervision of offenders, if any, and the ways on how EM threatens offenders in their community. On a more particular note, this study only focuses on the communities that are located within Europe and the United Kingdom. While there are some literature reviews that are in connection to the EM practices that are being upheld abroad, those are only for data gathering and review purposes. Nothing in this study suggests that the results concluded has an effect on those that are outside the UK. In the same manner, while the resolved questions here may be applicable to other communities as there is enough evidence to show that there is parallelism of facts and issues, that does not explicitly recommends that the same conclusion and results would also be applicable to the same community. Lastly, aside from laying the down the specific answers to the problems in this study, the researcher have further conducted an analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of EM to serve as a means on answering the questions. Additional information have been provided to better understand the desired results of the study. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE Offenders and Rehabilitative Punishment An offender, in its most general sense, may be described as someone who has committed an illegal act – someone who has wronged or caused a problem to another3. In the UK, they have distinguished the types of offenders in a community. They are: 1) life-sentenced prisoners; 2) mentally disordered offenders; 3) women prisoners; 4) foreign national prisoners; 5) young adult offenders; and, 6) young people or juvenile offenders4. The first category, life-sentenced prisoners, are those that were given an indeterminate sentence as to how long shall they serve for the offense that they have caused. They do not have the automatic and immediate right to be released upon the happening of a condition. Rather, they are to remain in jail and serve the period of sentence given to them until they adhere to the requisites necessitated by retribution and deterrence5. Under the second category, the mentally disordered offenders are those who are detained in the hospital for treatment, but are under the supervision of the Justice Secretary as they have the potential to expose risky and violent reactions. On the same note, the Justice Secretary is responsible for controlling and monitoring all their actions such as transferring to another healthcare institution or being discharged and then recalled thereafter to the hospital. All these are taken care of by the Justice Secretary, through the Mental Health Casework Section6. 3 ‘Offender.’ 4 ‘Types of Offenders.’ 5 ‘Life-sentenced Prisoners.’ 6 ‘Mentally disordered Offenders.’ The next category talks about women offenders. There is no distinction between men and women as to the prisons to which they are jailed in. Likewise, the same rules and policies apply to both genders. The only special treatment to which women are entitled to are the gender specific standards laid down in Prison Service Order 4800 that particularly mandates women prisons to comply with such order. This specific order requires the staff in women’s prisons to comply with the rules when it comes to treating women. Moreover, women offenders are entitled to enjoy the mother and baby units in their prisons where they can have the chance to live with their children who are under their custody. Younger adult women ranging from the age of 18 to 21 may also have the chance to be relocated into another accommodation if it is evident that they are at greater risks if mixed with those who are in the regular women’s prisons7. The fourth category is about foreign national prisoners. They are the people who come from other countries outside United Kingdom. According to a report by the UK Ministry of Justice, there has been a huge increase in the number of foreign offenders in England and Wales9. Current statistics indicate that 14% of the total population in the prison cells of England and Wales are of different nationalities. Hence, there is a greater struggle in dealing with these particular kinds of offenders. Since they are from different countries and cultures, they have other specific needs to be addressed so that their human rights will not be violated. Furthermore, communication is a bit hard since the prison staff and the offenders sometimes do not share the same language10. 8 ‘Women Offenders.’ 9 ‘Foreign offenders.’ 10 Ibid. Young adult offenders, the fifth category, are those who are 18 years old and above but not exceeding 20 years old. They are being regulated and managed by the Young Offender Institution (YOI). There is actually only a little difference as to how they are administered in comparison with those who are in regular prisons (adult prisoners). Such difference lies in the various opportunities that are made available to them while they are under the custody of the law. An example of this opportunity is that they are given the chance to avail of education or training programs while they are serving their sentence. The goal of this particular option is to help young adult offenders to plan for their future once they are released and to prepare them for a more law-abiding lifestyle once they have returned to their communities. Furthermore, the prisons organize and facilitate activities including voluntary work, sports, and other recreational activities that would help the young offenders enjoy their time while they are in custody11. Lastly and definitely not the least are the young people or juvenile offenders. They are those who are under the age of 18. Under the custody of the Youth Justice Board, those who are aged below 15 are held in the Secure Children’s Home (SCH) and those who are over such age are put in the Secure Training Centre (STC) or a Young Offender Institution (YOI)12. 11 ‘Young adult offenders.’ 12 ‘Young people or Juvenile offenders.’ Electronic Monitoring (EM) By definition, electronic monitoring or EM in its general sense is a term that refers to a special kind of surveillance whereby one is able to monitor the location, movement and behavior of another. On the perspective of criminal justice, therefore, EM is a form of monitoring offenders via electronic means such as radio waves, satellite tracking technology, and global positioning system (GPS). Usually, this process is done by attaching a device into the person or offender so that the law enforcers may monitor his behavior while he is at his community13. Commonly, EM is associated with home detention. There are instances when random phone calls at the offender’s main residence are made to check on whether or not the offender is doing good and behaving well in the community. Police officers and prison wardens really exert effort into implementing such practice. Thus, when an offender fails to comply with the requirements of EM, he is faced into another sanction that may either be a reprimand on his actions or a new charge for another offense, which is failure to comply with the standards, set by law14. EM of offenders may actually be used in a lot of ways, depending on whose jurisdiction it is being implemented under. For instance, it may be used during the pretrial stage in criminal proceedings or as a condition for suspending or of executing a prison sentence. Other jurisdictions also use it as a stand-alone process of supervising criminal sanctions based from what has been executed15. 13 ‘Electronic Monitoring.’ 14 ‘Home Confinement and Electronic Monitoring’ (Office of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 2014) 1 15 ‘Recommendation of the Committee of Ministers to Member States on Electronic Monitoring’ (Committee of Ministers – Council of Europe, 2014) 2 Truth is, EM originated from the United States of America. It was developed through the use of a process they call ‘policy transfer.’16. It then evolved and extended to other countries, Canada and Singapore among others17. In Europe, however, a more expounded explanation was explained as to why EM monitoring was implemented and continued to be expanded. According to Nellis, the reasons behind Europe’s eager urge to execute the said practice of supervision over offenders are the following18: 1 To help with the growing correctional cost by reducing dramatically; 2 To diminish stigmatization or the condemnation of an accused or offender openly in public and branding him thereafter as disgraceful and dishonorable; 3 To avoid the growing numbers of offenders who are being victims in their own prison cells; 4 To balance economic and social growth as offenders who must be in prison need to be at the boundaries of their home to provide for their families; and, 5 To increase the chances of monitoring and detecting those who do not comply with the law Evidently, from what has been stated above, Europe has a lot of reasons on why they are implementing EM of offenders. Along with these reasons, of course, lies their consideration of the benefits and risks that EM may convey. 16 Nellis, Mike, ‘Electronic Monitoring and the Community Supervision of Offenders’ (2004) 17 Ibid.. 18 Ibid. Traditional Ways of Supervising Offenders One way to reduce crimes and drop down crime rates is to have a process of supervision over offenders. Initially, the traditional ways of supervisions vary in accordance to the crime that the offender has committed. For instance, those who are charged with substance abuse offenses are more likely to be kept in a place where no substance such as drugs or alcohol will be available for them19. There are also those who are supervised in the community even if they have committed a really unaccepted crime, such as the sex offenders. There is a specification though – that they are only to serve sentence in the community after spending some time in jail or prison20. In general, though, these traditional ways are similar with each other in the sense that the offenders are being monitored and detected personally by the authorities and not through electronic means. The most common form of traditional supervision is probation whereby a person who is convicted of a crime still has the chance to live in the community to which he belongs. However, such person is mandated to adhere to the rules and orders rendered by the court and follow the supervision of the probation officer who is assigned to him. More so, he is expected to satisfy the conditions of probation until the probation order against him is lifted by the court who granted such probation in the first place. If the court finds out that you violated any of the rules that it laid down or you failed to comply with any of the conditions laid down by law with respect to probation and its periods, you may be asked to attend a probation hearing where you are given due process to explain your side of the story. The probation officer may likewise just give you a 19 ‘Substance Abuse Treatment for Adults in the Criminal Justice System’ (Center for Substance Abuse Treatment, 2005) 20 ‘Community Supervision of the Sex Offender: An Overview of Current and Promising Practices’ (Center for Sex Offender Management, 2000) warning, but most of the time, offenders who violate the rules on probation are subjected to custody of the court. In such case where the judge in the court where you probation exists finds you guilty of the violations being alleged against you, you may suffer adverse results such as additional probation terms or heavy fines. Worst is, sometimes, violations on probation cause the revocation of the order subjecting you to probation. The judge has a lot of options, in fact, with regard to how he will decide on your case, but most of the times, offenders are sent back to jail and will not anymore have the chance to enjoy the life outside the prison again. Another traditional way of supervising offenders is through parole. In here, your release is based on the condition that you will not anymore commit an offense, however light or grave it may be. It is somewhat similar with probation. The only diff...