Satellite Tracking of Offenders and Integrated Offender Management: A Local Case Study

Abstract

This article reports findings from an evaluation of a Global Positioning System (GPS) pilot that took place in the Cardiff Integrated Offender Management Unit (IOMU). The evaluation was based primarily upon qualitative interviews with about half of the tracked sample of offenders, plus interviews with key stakeholders from the IOMU, police and courts. The findings revealed a general consensus of positive views from both offenders and practitioners about the experience of GPS tracking. However, these generally positive outcomes were clearly related to the voluntary and relatively targeted nature of the pilot, which would be challenged if/when GPS tracking was introduced more widely.

A systematic review of the effectiveness of the electronic monitoring of offenders

“…While the use of curfews leading to extra time at home may increase stress in some individuals, others have been shown to benefit from more contact with family members in pro-social settings (see Developing better relationships with family members was thus mentioned as having a positive effect on offenders' lives and behaviours, including reducing recidivism (Erez et al, 2012;Finn & Muirhead-Steves, 2002;Killias et al, 2010). EM is also argued to provide more stability and structure in offenders' lives, through enforcing curfews and deadlines, and through the need to gain and maintain employment, which is often part of the requirements of the programme (Finn & Muirhead-Steves, 2002;Hudson & Jones, 2016;Lapham et al, 2007;Mortimer, 2001). This too is seen as a means through which criminal behaviour can be reduced.…”

“…For example, by removing some of the triggers for offending, including substance abuse and anti-social behaviours, it is hoped that recidivism will be reduced. Finally, offenders on EM are protected from the negative effects of incarceration, either completely, if they are placed on EM rather than being imprisoned, or partially, if EM allows for early release from incarceration (Bonta, Wallace-Capretta, & Rooney, 2000b;Di Tella & Schargrodsky, 2013;Finn & Muirhead-Steves, 2002;Hudson & Jones, 2016;Omori & Turner, 2015). Avoiding the influence of criminogenic people and prison conditions might be helpful for reducing recidivism rates for these offenders (Finn & Muirhead-Steves, 2002).…”

Comparing electronic monitoring regimes: Length, breadth, depth and weight equals tightness

“…In these circumstances, wearers may be unaware when EM will end and/or what they need to do for it to be removed, creating uncertainty and potentially intensifying its 'grip'. Similar issues arise with Integrated Offender Management 'voluntary' schemes in England (Hudson and Jones, 2016). The use of EM under these schemes, which provide intensive supervision programmes for high-risk and/or prolific offenders, is not legally regulated.…”

“…By contrast, GPS technologies provide ‘freedom’ for individuals to go about their daily lives within any spatial restrictions imposed, although their movements are mapped and recorded continuously. However, the ‘freedom’ which is experienced under GPS is likely to be qualitatively different from ‘unmonitored’ freedom and may be premised on what the alternative is likely to be or is thought (Hudson and Jones, 2016). The impact of being ‘watched’ is also relevant to RF with studies suggesting that both the physical presence of the equipment and feelings of being ‘watched’ influence wearers’ behaviour (Gacek, 2019; Hucklesby, 2009; Nellis, 2013).…”