Open main menu

An electronic ankle tag.

Electronic tagging is a form of surveillance which uses an electronic device, fitted to the person.

In some jurisdictions an electronic tag fitted above the ankle is used for people as part of their bail or probation conditions. It is also used in healthcare settings and in immigration contexts in some jurisdictions. Electronic tagging can be used in combination with the global positioning system (GPS). For short-range monitoring of a person that wears an electronic tag radio frequency technology is used.

HistoryEdit

The electronic monitoring of humans found its first commercial applications in the 1980s. Portable transceivers that could record the location of volunteers, were first developed by a group of researchers at Harvard University in the early 1960s. The researchers cited the psychological perspective of B. F. Skinner as underpinning for their academic project. The portable electronic tag was called behavior transmitter-reinforcer and could transmit data two-ways between a base station and a volunteer who simulated a young adult offender. Messages were supposed to be sent to the tag, so as to provide feedback to the young offender and thus assist in rehabilitation. The head of this research project was Ralph Kirkland Schwitzgebel.[1]

Reviews of the prototype electronic tagging strategy were critical. In 1966 the Harvard Law Review ridiculed the electronic tags as Schwitzgebel Machine and a myth emerged, according to which the prototype electronic tagging project used brain implants and transmitted verbal instructions to volunteers. Laurence Tribe in 1973 published information on the failed attempts by those involved in the project to find a commercial application for electronic tagging.[2] In the United States, the 1970s saw an end of rehabilitative sentencing, including for example discretionary parole release. Those found guilty of a criminal offense were send to prison, leading to sudden increase in the prison population. Probation became more common, as judges saw the potential of electronic tagging, leading to an increasing emphasis on surveillance. Advances in computer aided technology made offender monitoring feasible and affordable. After all, the Schwitzgebel prototype had been built out of surplus missile tracking equipment.[3]

In 1982 the NIMCOS company built several credit card sized transmitters that could be strapped onto an ankle.[4] The electronic ankle tag transmitted a radio signal every 60 seconds, which could be picked up by a receiver that was no more than 45 meters away from the electronic tag. The receiver could be connected to a telephone, so that the data from the electronic ankle tag could be send to a mainframe computer. The design aim of the electronic tag was the reporting of a potential home detention breach.[5] In 1983 judge Jack Love in a state district court imposed home curfew on three offenders who had been sentenced to probation. The home detention was a probation condition and entailed 30 days of electronic monitoring at home.[6] The NIMCOS electronic ankle tag was trialed on those three probationers, two of which re-offended, so the goal of home confinement was satisfied but the aim of reducing crime through probation was not.[7]

Uses for electronic taggingEdit

Medical and health useEdit

The use of electronic monitoring in medical practice, especially as it relates to the tagging of the elderly and people with dementia, is capable of generating controversy, and media attention.[8] Elderly people in care homes can be tagged with the same electronic monitors used to keep track of young offenders. For persons suffering from dementia, electronic monitoring might be beneficially used to prevent them from wandering away.[8] The controversy in its medical use relates to two arguments, one as to the safety of the patients, and the other, as to their privacy and human rights.[9] At over 40 percent, there is a high prevalence of wandering among patients with dementia. Of the several methods deployed to keep them from wandering, it is reported that 44 percent of wanderers with dementia have been kept behind closed doors at some point.[10] Other solutions have included constant surveillance, use of makeshift alarms and, the use of various drugs that carry the risk of adverse effects.[9]

Commercial useEdit

Smartphones feature location-based apps to use information from Global Positioning System (GPS) networks to determine your approximate location.[11]

Parental useEdit

A company in Japan has created GPS enabled uniforms and backpacks.[12] School children in distress would be able to hit a button, immediately summoning a security agent to their location. Other similar applications in the U.S. have included mobile phones enabled with GPS tracking, to allow parents to track their school children.[13]

Vehicular useEdit

Public transit vehicles are outfitted with electronic monitoring devices that communicate with GPS systems, tracking their location. App developers have integrated this technology with mobile-phone apps. Now, passengers are able to receive accurate public transit timetables.[14]

EffectivenessEdit

The use of ankle bracelets, or other electronic monitoring devices, have proven to be effective in research studies and possibly deter crime.[15]

Several factors have been identified as necessary to render electronic monitoring effective: appropriately selecting offenders, robust and appropriate technology, fitting tags promptly, responding to breaches promptly, and communication between the criminal justice system and contractors.The Quaker Council for European Affairs thinks that for electronic monitoring to be effective, it should serve to halt a developing criminal career.[16]

The National Audit Office in England and Wales commissioned a survey to examine the experiences of electronically monitored offenders and the members of their family. The survey revealed that there was common agreement among survey respondents that electronic monitoring was a more effective punitive measure than fines, and that it was generally more effective than community service. An interviewed offender is credited with saying: ‘You learn more about other crimes [in prison] and I think it gives you a taste to do other crimes because you've sat listening to other people'.[17]

In 2006 Kathy Padgett, William Bales and Thomas Bloomberg conducted an evaluation of 75,661 Florida offenders placed on home detention from 1998 to 2002.[15] But only a small percentage of these offenders were made to wear an electronic monitoring devices. Offenders with electronic tagging were compared to those on home detention without. The factors thought to influence the success or failure of community supervision, inc type of electronic monitoring device and criminal history, were measured.[18] Offenders that wore electronic tags were 91.2 percent less likely to abscond than those offenders not monitored at all. Monitored offenders were 94.7 percent less likely to commit new offenses than unmonitored offenders.[18]

CriticismsEdit

The electronic monitoring of a person, on whom an electronic tag is fitted, does not physically restrain this person from leaving a certain area. Neither does it prevent this person from re-offending, which is the primary aim of probation. Furthermore, the public perception of home detention is such, that it is perceived as a lenient punishment.[19]

As early as 1988, the Penal Affairs Committee of the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers), wrote a briefing in its Green Paper strongly opposing the adoption of electronic monitoring in England and Wales. The Committee noted all the claims made in favor of electronic monitoring but insisted that all such claims could be ‘either demolished or rendered invalid' by arguments against it. The major argument or criticism against it was that on the basis of past experience, electronic monitoring would not absolutely be used on people at risk of custody, but on people who would otherwise have been granted probation or community service. This would lead to a widening of the net of control rather than reducing prison population; it would undermine constructive and supportive interventions. The Penal Committee concluded that the degrading monitoring of fellow human beings, electronically, was morally wrong and unacceptable.[20]

In the US in 1990, Ronald Corbett and Gary T. Marx criticized the use of electronic monitoring in a paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Society of Criminology, Baltimore. In the paper, which was later published in the Justice Quarterly, the authors described ‘the new surveillance' technology as sharing some ethos and the information-gathering techniques found in maximum-security prisons thereby allowing them to diffuse into the broader society. They remarked that ‘we appear to be moving toward, rather than away from, becoming a "maximum-security society".[21] The authors acknowledged the data mining capacity of electronic monitoring devices when they stated that "data in many different forms, from widely separated geographical areas, organizations, and time periods, can easily be merged and analyzed".[21]

In 2013, it was reported that many electronic monitoring programs throughout the US were not staffed appropriately.[22] George Drake, a consultant who worked on improving the systems said "Many times when an agency is budgeted for electronic-monitoring equipment, it is only budgeted for the devices themselves". He added that the situation was ‘like buying a hammer and expecting a house to be built. It's simply a tool, and it requires a professional to use that tool and run the program.' Drake warned that programs can get out of control if officials don't develop stringent protocols for how to respond to alerts and don't manage how alerts are generated: "I see agencies with so many alerts that they can't deal with them", Drake said. "They end up just throwing their hands up and saying they can't keep up with them." In Colorado, a review of alert and event data, obtained from the Colorado Department of Corrections under an open-records request, was conducted by matching the names of parolees who appeared in that data with those who appeared in jail arrest records. The data revealed that 212 parole officers were saddled with the duty of responding to nearly 90,000 alerts and notification generated by electronic monitoring devices in the six months reviewed.[22]

Movies, literature and the artsEdit

As a condition for her bail, Gabrielle Baillieux, the protagonist in Peter Carey's Amnesia, had to wear an ankle monitor. Later a colleague takes it off and the device is transferred to a dog, whose movements are tracked instead.[23]

Notable instancesEdit

English professional footballer Jermaine Pennant played a Premier League match in 2005 while wearing an electronic tag; he had received the tag for drink-driving and driving while disqualified.[24]

Lindsay Lohan failed to appear at a mandatory hearing, and a warrant was issued for her arrest. The judge ordered Lohan to wear a SCRAM bracelet, an electronic device that monitors the bloodstream for alcohol and drugs and alerts authorities if prohibited substances are consumed.[25]

Roman Polanski, one of the most famous fugitives from American justice in the world was finally arrested in Switzerland. The terms of his release included $4.5 million bail, house arrest wearing an ankle bracelet at his chalet, known as Milky Way, in the Swiss ski resort of Gstaad, after having spent sixty-seven days in a Zurich detention centre.[26]

Bernard Madoff, the financier accused in a $50 billion fraud case before trial was ordered under house arrest, with electronic monitoring, and posting $10 million bail against his $7 million Manhattan apartment, and against his wife's homes in Montauk, N.Y., and Palm Beach, Fla.[27]

Dr. Dre in 1992, the rapper was arrested for assaulting record producer Damon Thomas and later pleaded guilty to assault on a police officer, eventually serving house arrest and wearing a police-monitoring ankle bracelet.[28]

JurisdictionsEdit

USAEdit

The US correctional system is overwhelmed by the over-incarceration of nonviolent offenders such as drug users. Private prison corporations themselves have begun to expand into the "alternatives" industry. The GEO Group now has a range array of "community services" and treatment programs. In 2011, it acquired the country's largest electronic-monitoring firm, BI Incorporated, for $415 million. For the most part, these companies deal not with probationers, but with people whose offenses are often too minor to merit jail time. The system is known as "offender-funded" justice.[29]

Jack Long, a Georgia attorney, filed a habeas petition on behalf of a client who, after stealing a two-dollar can of beer from a convenience store, was ordered to spend a year wearing an ankle bracelet operated by a company called Sentinel Offender Services. The man wound up owing more than a thousand dollars to the company in fees and late-payment penalties, and started selling his blood plasma to keep pace. Dozens of probationers are jailed because of electronic-monitoring bills, most of which were not authorized by any legal statute.[29]

United KingdomEdit

Those subject to electronic monitoring may be given curfews as part of Bail conditions, sentenced under the Criminal Justice Act 2003 in England and Wales (with separate legislation applying in Scotland). Alternatively offenders may be released from a prison on a Home Detention Curfew. Released prisoners under home detention allowed out during curfew hours only for:

  • A wedding or funeral (service only) of a close relative
  • A job interview
  • Acting as a witness in court
  • Emergencies.[30]

Additionally, electronic monitoring may be used for those subject to a curfew given under the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011 (previously known as Control order under the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005[31])

Since electronically monitored curfews were rolled out throughout England and Wales their use has increased sharply, from 9,000 cases in 1999-2000 to 53,000 in 2004-05. In 2004-05, the Home Office spent £102.3 million on the electronic monitoring of curfews and electronically monitored curfews are considered cheaper than custody.[32]

Typically, offenders are fitted with an electronic tag around their ankle which sends a regular signal to a receiver unit installed in their home. Some systems are connected to a landline in the case where a GSM is not available, whilst most arrangements utilize the mobile phone system to communicate with the monitoring company. If the tag is not functioning or within range of the base station during curfew hours, or if the base is disconnected from the power supply, or the base station is moved then the monitoring company are alerted, who in turn, notify the appropriate authority such as the police, the National Probation Service or the prison the person was released from.[33]

In 2012, the Policy Exchange think tank examined the use of electronic monitoring in England and Wales and made comparisons with technologies and models seen in other jurisdictions, particularly the United States. The report was critical of the Ministry of Justice's model of a fully privatized service - which gave little scope for police or probation services to make use of electronic monitoring. The report, Future of Corrections, also criticized the cost of the service, highlighting an apparent differential between what the UK taxpayer was charged and what could be found in the United States.[34]

Subsequently, there were a number of scandals in relation to electronic monitoring in England and Wales, with a criminal investigation opened by the Serious Fraud Office into the activities of Serco and G4S.[35] As a result of the investigation, Serco agreed to repay £68.5 million to the taxpayer and G4S agreed to repay £109 million.[36] The duopoly were subsequently stripped of their contract, with Capita taking over the contract. In 2017, another criminal investigation saw police make a number of arrests in relation to allegations that at least 32 criminals on tag had paid up to £400 to Capita employees in order to have 'loose' tags fitted, allowing them to remove their tags.[37]

The monitoring of sex offenders via electronic tagging is currently in debate due to certain rights offenders have in England and Wales.[38]

Electronic tagging has begun being used on psychiatric patients, prompting concern from mental health advocates who state that the practice is demeaning.[39]

Australia and New ZealandEdit

In Australia and New Zealand the existing law permits the use of electronic monitoring as condition for bail, probation or parole. But, according to the 2004 Standard Guidelines for Corrections in Australia the surveillance must be proportionate to the risk of re-offense. It is also required that, the surveillance of the offender is minimally intrusive for other people who live at the premises. Electronic tagging of a person is part of different electronic monitoring systems in Australia. Correctional agency statistics are collected in Australia for so called "restricted movement orders". In South Australia a drive-by facility allows the monitorer to drive past a building in which the tagged person is suppose to be.[40] In New Zealand the electronic tagging of offenders began 1999, when home detention could be imposed instead of imprisonment.[41]

BrazilEdit

In August 2010, Brazil awarded a GPS Offender Monitoring contract to kick start its monitoring of offenders and management of the Brazilian governments early release programme[42]

South AfricaEdit

Electronic monitoring as a pilot project was started in March 2012, involving 150 offenders, mostly prisoners serving life terms. The project was rolled out to reduce the South Africa's prison population. It consequently would also reduce the taxpayer's burden on correctional facilities.[43] South Africa locks up more people than any other country on the continent.[43]

See alsoEdit

ReferencesEdit

  1. ^ Dan Phillips, ed. (1995). Probation and Parole. Routledge. p. 95. ISBN 9781317993483.
  2. ^ Dan Phillips, ed. (1995). Probation and Parole. Routledge. p. 96. ISBN 9781317993483.
  3. ^ Dan Phillips, ed. (1995). Probation and Parole. Routledge. p. 97. ISBN 9781317993483.
  4. ^ Dan Phillips, ed. (1995). Probation and Parole. Routledge. p. 97. ISBN 9781317993483.
  5. ^ Dan Phillips, ed. (1995). Probation and Parole. Routledge. p. 98. ISBN 9781317993483.
  6. ^ Dan Phillips, ed. (1995). Probation and Parole. Routledge. pp. 97–98. ISBN 9781317993483.
  7. ^ Dan Phillips, ed. (1995). Probation and Parole. Routledge. p. 98. ISBN 9781317993483.
  8. ^ a b "Electronic tagging for Alzheimer's". BBC News. 27 September 2002.
  9. ^ a b Julian C Hughes and Stephen J Louw, ‘Electronic Tagging of People with Dementia who Wander: Ethical Considerations are Possibly more Important than Practical Benefits' (2002) 325(7369) British Medical Journal 847﹘848 <PubMed>
  10. ^ McShane R et al, ‘Getting Lost in Dementia: A Longitudinal Study of a Behavioral Symptom' (1998) 5 International Psychogeriatrics 239﹘245
  11. ^ "IOS 6: Understanding Location Services".
  12. ^ Katz, Leslie. "GPS-enabled school uniforms hit Japan". Retrieved April 2005. Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
  13. ^ Griffiths, Sarah. "No more lost children!". Retrieved 31 May 2015.
  14. ^ Shakibaei, Bambui. "Real time GPS locations on transport apps". Retrieved 31 May 2015.
  15. ^ a b Stuart S Yeh (2010) "Cost-benefit analysis of reducing crime through electronic monitoring of parolees and probationers" Journal of Criminal Justice 1090 - 1096.
  16. ^ Quaker Council for European Affairs (2010) "Investigating Alternatives to Imprisonment", http://www.qcea.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/rprt-alternatives-en-jan-2010.pdf
  17. ^ National Audit Office (1 February 2006) "The Electronic Monitoring of Adult Offenders: Report by the Comptroller and Auditor General" http://www.nao.org.uk/publications/nao_reports/05-06/0506800.pdf
  18. ^ a b Kathy Padgett, William Bales and Thomas Blomberg (2006) "Under Surveillance: An Empirical Test of the Effectiveness and Consequences of Electronic Monitoring" Criminology and Public Policy, pages 61 - 91 .
  19. ^ Mike Nellis, Kristel Beyens & Dan Kaminski (2013). Electronically Monitored Punishment: International and Critical Perspectives. Routledge. p. 95. ISBN 9781136242786.
  20. ^ . Penal Affairs Committee. 1988. pp. 13–19. Missing or empty |title= (help)
  21. ^ a b Ronald Corbett and Gary T. Marx, ‘Critique: No Soul In The New Machine: Technofallacies In The Electronic Monitoring Movement' (1991) Justice Quarterly
  22. ^ a b "Electronic monitoring of Colorado parolees has pitfalls". The Denver Post. 8 June 2013. Retrieved 22 October 2019.
  23. ^ Peter Carey (2015). Amnesia. Random House Canada. p. 52.
  24. ^ news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/4396747.stm
  25. ^ Molly Carney, Correction through Omniscience: Electronic Monitoring and the Escalation of Crime Control, 40 Wash. U. J. L. & Pol'y 279 (2012)
  26. ^ Toobin, Jeffrey. "The Celebrity Defense". The New Yorker. Retrieved 14 December 2014.
  27. ^ Lapidos, Juliet. "How do you qualify for house arrest?". Retrieved 15 January 2009.
  28. ^ https://www.rollingstone.com/music/artists/dr-dre/biography
  29. ^ a b Sarah Stillman. "Get Out of Jail Inc". Retrieved 15 June 2014.
  30. ^ "Home Detention Curfew (HDC)". Prisoners' Families Helpline. 10 December 2010. Retrieved 22 October 2019.
  31. ^ "Q&A: TPims explained". 4 November 2013. Retrieved 22 October 2019.
  32. ^ "The Electronic Monitoring of Adult Offenders - National Audit Office (NAO) Report". National Audit Office. Retrieved 22 October 2019.
  33. ^ "8.6.2 Electronic Monitoring of Offenders". www.le.ac.uk. Retrieved 22 October 2019.
  34. ^ Roy Geoghegan & Chris Miller (1 October 2012). Future of Corrections: Exploring the Use of Electronic Monitoring. Policy Exchange. ISBN 9781907689277.CS1 maint: uses authors parameter (link)
  35. ^ "G4S and Serco investigation". Serious Fraud Office. 4 November 2013.
  36. ^ Ian Dunt (15 February 2017). "MoJ paid G4S & Serco millions for electronic tagging during fraud investigation". politics.co.uk.
  37. ^ "Criminals 'paid £400' for loose electronic tags". Sky News. 15 February 2017.
  38. ^ Electronic tagging of offenders raises rights concerns, The Guardian, 12 August 2010
  39. ^ GPS tracking mental health patients - human rights concerns, BMH UK, 22 June 2010
  40. ^ Mike Nellis, Kristel Beyens & Dan Kaminski (2013). Electronically Monitored Punishment: International and Critical Perspectives. Routledge. p. 84. ISBN 9781136242786.
  41. ^ Mike Nellis, Kristel Beyens & Dan Kaminski (2013). Electronically Monitored Punishment: International and Critical Perspectives. Routledge. p. 82. ISBN 9781136242786.
  42. ^ SecureAlert Signs First-Ever GPS Offender Monitoring Contract in Brazil, TMCnet, 23 August 2010
  43. ^ a b Dept. of Correctional services: Rep of South Africa, South Africa's first ever Electronic of a Remand Detainee, 15/04/2014.