The electronic monitoring of offenders: penal moderation or penal excess?

Abstract

The technologies used in the electronic monitoring of offenders continue to develop, and next-generation "tags" will likely feature new capabilities. As the technology becomes more powerful, older criminal justice institutions and practices may appear increasingly anachronistic in one form or other, and their legitimacy called into question. Electronic monitoring systems may appear progressive alternatives to older forms of punishing. However, given the surveillant and controlling qualities of electronic monitoring systems, extending their use is in many respects troubling. This article seeks to examine the electronic monitoring of offenders in the light of the concepts of "penal moderation" and "penal excess", as well as to reflect on this sanction at the interface of the academic fields of the sociology of punishment and surveillance studies. It is argued that issues relating to intended aims and actual effects of the electronic monitoring of offenders go to the heart of contemporary debates and contradictions regarding penal purpose, the effects of the criminal justice system, electronic surveillance, and explanations of penal change.

Valvottu koevapaus ja siihen liittyvä päihdekuntoutus rikoksentekijöiden kuntoutuksessa

“…Säh-köistä valvontaa on arvosteltu toisaalta liian pehmeäksi ja vapaaksi ja toisaalta rangaistuksia käytännössä ankaroittavaksi seuraamusmuodoksi, jolla sosiaalinen kontrolli ulotetaan syvemmälle ihmisten yksityisyyteen ja myös omaisten elämään. (Bülow 2014;Jones 2014;Mäkipää 2010, 49-52 Laadullinen aineisto voidaan yhtäältä ymmärtää faktanäkökulmasta, jolloin aineiston oletetaan antavan tietoa tosiasioista tai toisaalta näytenäkökulmasta, jolloin aineistoa tarkastellaan näytteenä jostain kulttuurisesta tms. kokonaisuudesta (Alasuutari 1999).…”

“…Myös tutkimusaineistojemme kautta muodostunut kuva on samansuuntainen, vaikka tutkimuksemme ei suoranaisesti tarkastelekaan sähköisen valvonnan vaikuttavuutta. Sitä vastoin aiemmista tutkimuksista (Bülow 2014;Jones 2014) poiketen sähköisen valvonnan hyväksyttävyyteen liittyvät ongelmat eivät tämän tutkimuksen tuloksissa nousseet esille lukuun ottamatta pelkoa omaisten leimaantumisesta.…”

Social interaction between employee and offender in supervised probationary freedom in Finland

“…Criticism has been directed at issues such as the stigma caused by wearing the monitoring devices, the extension of the punishment to the home of the prisoner's family, and the discriminating nature of this form of punishment because of the requirements it sets for both living and work. Electronic monitoring has, on one hand, been criticized for being too soft and free as a form of punishment, and on the other hand, for being too severe as it extends social control increasingly deeply into people's private life (Jones, 2014). In Finland, the critical debate on electronic monitoring and SPF has been minimal, and in implementation, among other things, the supervisory visits are organized as discreetly as possible in order to avoid stigmatizing offenders.…”

Youth Justice in the Digital Age: A Case Study of Practitioners’ Perspectives on the Challenges and Opportunities of Social Technology in Their Techno-Habitat in the United Kingdom

“…These practitioners suggested that technological evidence cannot be trusted as foolproof, that is, it is possible that a message was not conveyed in a timely manner, or that that there was a systemic failure in communication. Such workers were clear that technology was a complementary aid to their everyday practice, and not a replacement way of working (Jones 2014). One practitioner summed this up as thus:…”