evidence based electronic monitoring the legal landscape and inconsistent evidence n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Evidence-Based Electronic Monitoring: The Legal Landscape and (Inconsistent) Evidence PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Evidence-Based Electronic Monitoring: The Legal Landscape and (Inconsistent) Evidence

Evidence-Based Electronic Monitoring: The Legal Landscape and (Inconsistent) Evidence

512 Views Download Presentation
Download Presentation

Evidence-Based Electronic Monitoring: The Legal Landscape and (Inconsistent) Evidence

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. Evidence-Based Electronic Monitoring: The Legal Landscape and (Inconsistent) Evidence Brian K. Payne, Georgia State University Deeanna Button, University of Delaware Matthew DeMichele, American Probation & Parole Association

  2. Objectives 1.Discuss how laws effecting the use of electronic monitoring tools have shifted, especially to incorporate location tracking with GPS. 2.Discuss how these legislative changes have implications for the way community corrections officers supervise offenders. 3.Provide information about the effectiveness of electronic monitoring tools.

  3. Evidence-Based Electronic Monitoring of Sex Offenders [cont.] • Technology • Rapidly evolving • Legislation = active GPS • Technology is one more tool • Combined with others • Means to end = structured containment • Not the end • Provides WINDOW into offender’s life

  4. Evidence-Based Electronic Monitoring of Sex Offenders [cont.] • Many electronic tools to supervise offenders • Technology • Radio frequency • Location tracking • Computer monitoring and forensics • Crime and GPS data integration • Polygraph • Others

  5. Radio Frequency: Martha Stewart’s Model

  6. Radio Frequency

  7. Radio Frequency [cont.] • Home arrest • Curfew monitoring • Judge Love (Albuquerque, NM) • 1983 • By 1990 in 50 states • Several countries • Repairs • False positives of violations

  8. Radio Frequency [cont.] • Drive-by units • Random calling • Identity verification • Slow scan photos • Electronic voice analysis • Remote alcohol detection (late 1980s)

  9. Location Tracking

  10. Location Tracking [cont.] • Late 1990s • Cellular Technology • 24 Satellites • U.S. Department of Defense

  11. Location Tracking [cont.] • Active and Passive • Exclusion Zones • Workload Differences • Liability • Legislation

  12. Benefits of Using GPS • Flexibility • Reintegration • Control • Retribution

  13. Benefits of Using GPS • Flexible • Can be applied to different types of offenders • Sex offenders • Burglars • Domestic violence offenders • Gang members

  14. Benefits of Using GPS • Reintegration • Offenders are able to live at home • Maintain employment • Avoid criminogenic conditions related to incarceration

  15. Benefits of Using GPS • Control • Capacity to effectively control offenders via: • Inclusion and exclusion zones • Curfews • Data points show offender’s daily movements • Is he/she spending time at McDonald’s (playground)? • Or why is he/she spending so much time at the Mall (kid’s stores)?

  16. Benefits of Using GPS Retribution • Deprivation of autonomy • Deprivation of goods and services • Deprivation of liberty • Deprivation of intimate relations • Monetary costs • Family effects • Watching others • Bracelet effects

  17. Cost of Using GPS • Seemingly cost effective • GPS: $10 per day • Incarceration: $60 per day • Civil confinement: $110,000 per year

  18. Cost of Using GPS • Incarcerated populations remain the same • Community corrections populations continues to grow • GPS is an additional cost

  19. Cost of Using GPS • Estimated GPS cost • $9,000 a year per sex offender • Actual cost: • Tennessee: $2.5 million a year for 650 offenders • Iowa: $2.4 million a year for 500 offenders • Fees pay for technology • Fees do NOT pay for the workload

  20. Political Fears Stems from media driven frenzy Agenda driven politicians Frightened and concerned citizens Unanticipated Effects Fails to consider legislation’s impact on criminal justice administrators and practitioners Legislation

  21. Legislation for Effective Community Corrections Policy • 47 states have EM legislation • 14 states have legislation describing GPS for sex offenders • 7 states use either active or passive systems • 8 states require the use of active electronic monitoring

  22. Legislation for Effective Community Corrections Policy • 18 states clearly define use of EM • 29 states require offenders to pay at least a portion of EM fees • 17 states regulate the amount of time offenders spend on EM • 11 of these states stipulate time limits for general EM devices • 7 of these states place specific time limits for GPS supervision

  23. Legislation for Effective Community Corrections • 27 states have specific policies for monitoring sex offenders • 19 states require EM for sex offenders • Only three states mention EM use for domestic violence offenders • Four states use EM for convicted drug and alcohol offenders

  24. General vs. Specific Sentence Integration Risk Assessment Punitive Evaluation Offender Fees Child Abuse Repeat Offenders Legislative Typologies

  25. General vs. Specific Policies • General Policies • Lack precise definition of EM expectations • Neglect to mention • Type of offender • Length of time to be monitored • Mandatory technological capabilities

  26. General vs. Specific Policies • General Policies (examples) • Pennsylvania: Individuals eligible for house arrest involving EM shall be determined by administrative staff • Utah: In determining its sentence the court…may require the defendant to participate in an EM program

  27. General vs. Specific Policies • Specific Policies • More specific in policy stipulations • More likely to mention • Type of offender • Length of time to be monitored • Mandatory technological capabilities

  28. General vs. Specific Policies • Specific Policies • Florida: Requires that offenders who are designated sexual predators must upon release and for the rest of their life be subject to GPS • Indiana: Requires a sexually violent predator be placed on lifetime parole to be monitored via GPS device. Amends definition of “monitoring devices” to include those that provide 24 hour information on an offender’s location, and capable of notifying appropriate officials of offender’s violation

  29. Sentence Integration • Integrate EM into the offender’s sentence • Kansas, Louisiana, and Maine: Mandatory prison sentences in addition to required lifetime electronic monitoring • Michigan: Requires a term of 25 years without possibility of parole [and] requires lifetime electronic monitoring…”

  30. Risk Assessment • Risk assessments to determine the probability of offender recidivism • Provisions of sexually dangerous: • Seriousness of the assault • Age of the victim • Number of prior offenses

  31. Risk Assessment • Review boards used to assess sexual dangerousness of offender • Louisiana, New Mexico, and Connecticut • Georgia: requires GPS monitoring if Sexual Offender Registration Review Board deems and offender “sexually dangerous”

  32. Risk Assessment • EM utilized according to risk • Categorized to one of three levels • Risk of repeat offense • Risk to public safety • Violent predator status • Montana: GPS monitoring must be imposed upon “level 3 sex offenders” • Illinois: requires those convicted of an offense that would qualify the accused as a sexual predator be subject to EM

  33. Used as Additional form of long term punishment Florida: Sexual offenders Upon release and for the rest of their life Subjected to GPS “active electronic monitoring” South Carolina: Electronic geographical location monitoring Offenders who violate terms of community supervision Used as additional punitive sanction Punitive Nature of Policies

  34. Evaluation of Policies • Data collection required to evaluate sex offender electronic monitoring legislation • Illinois and Kansas: statistical information on numbers of offenders required to register who are subject to electronic monitoring • Indiana: mandates reports on cost and implementation issues of GPS monitoring, including feasibility of recovering expense of GPS from offenders

  35. Offenders must pay for monitoring Or a portion of fees Georgia, Michigan, Oklahoma, Tennessee… Exceptions mentioned Louisiana and Alaska Unanticipated Consequences Realistic Workload Reliance on Offender Fees

  36. Child Abusers • Victim age • Specific vs. General • “crimes against children under age 14” • “particularly those against children” • Mandatory terms • Mandatory sentence length • Mandatory conditions

  37. Child Abusers • Georgia: • Minimum sentence 25-50 years or life • Particularly for forcible crimes against children under age 14 • Florida: • sex crimes • particularly those against children • upon release and for the rest of their life be subject to GPS • Wisconsin: • lifetime GPS tracking • probation for committing a serious child sex offense

  38. Repeat Offenders • Severe sentences for repeat offenders • Kansas • First-time offenders: minimum 25 year sentence without parole • Second-time offenders: minimum 40 year sentence without parole • Third-time offenders: life without parole • Michigan and Iowa • Second-time offenders: life without parole • South Carolina • Second-time offenders: death penalty for sex crimes against a child less than 11 years of age

  39. Legislation and Electronic Monitoring • The use of GPS to monitor sex offenders represents perhaps the most comprehensive form of legislation that has been passed

  40. EM of sex offenders is recent legislative concern Policymaking community blurring issues of electronic monitoring and sex offenders The use of these policies to control sex offenders continues to increase despite the lack of empirical research supporting such growth One more Tool (not the only tool) Legislation and EM: Unanticipated Consequences

  41. Legislation and Electronic Monitoring • Electronic monitoring of sex offenders result of: • Growing political and public concern about sex offenders • Technological shifts • Evolving template of state sex offender laws

  42. Rehabilitate and punish offenders Free up jail and prison space Reduce Cost Ensure offender compliance through Treatment Enforcement Surveillance Expectations are difficult to fulfill EM is not a program, but a tool EM contributes to information gathering Information about the offender EM does not reduce the human component Expectations of Community Corrections

  43. Where’s the Evidence? • Does electronic monitoring work? • Does electronic monitoring reduce recidivism? • Does electronic monitoring improve case management? • How do we know?

  44. Where’s the Evidence? [cont.] • Little research - weak methodologies • Mixed results • Better for some populations • Differences across types of offenders • What is purpose of electronic monitoring? • Punishment? • Accountability? • Behavior change?

  45. Where’s the Evidence? [cont.] • Not a FIX • Electronic Monitoring does not replace OFFICER • ONE Tool • Incorporated with other TOOLS • Create highly structured CONTAINMENT

  46. Evidence [cont.] • Finn and Muirhead Steves (2002) • High-risk male parolees • Electronic monitoring showed no impact after four years • Sex offenders on electronic monitoring • Less likely to return to prison • Longer survival in community

  47. Evidence [cont.] • Bonta, Wallace-Capretta, & Rooney (2000) • Electronic Monitoring + Treatment • LOWER recidivism for high-risk • No effect on lower risk • Match offender to interventions • Low-risk in high-risk setting • More recidivism

  48. Evidence [cont.] • Padgett, Bales, & Blomberg • 75,661 (RF and GPS) • Electronic monitoring of offenders in the community may prove an effective public safety alternative to prison

  49. Technical violation RF = 95.7% less likely GPS = 90.2% less likely SO = slightly less likely Absconding RF = 91.2% less likely GPS = 90.2% less likely SO = 42% less likely Revocation for new crime RF = 95% less likely GPS = 95% less likely SO = 44.8% less likely Evidence [cont.]

  50. GPS for Violent Offenders: Some Concerns • Lack of research • Workload • Net-widening • False sense of security • Responsiveness to characteristics of violent offending • Sanction’s responsiveness to the motivations for offending