Benefits of Electronic Monitoring

In the last few decades, the number of offenders sent home on condition they comply with terms of electronic monitoring has been on the rise. Electronic monitoring programs serve as alternatives to incarceration. Electronic monitoring (EM) is a type of technology
that tracks the offender’s location to ensure he or she complies with a curfew. Common technologies used in an EM program include global positioning devices (GPS), home monitoring devices, voice identification devices, alcohol detection devices, ankle, and wrist bracelets. The most commonly used technology is the home monitoring device (HMD). An ankle or wrist bracelet worn by the offender transmits a unique signal to the HMD. The HMD communicates with a monitoring center through a telephone line. The HMD are of two types; active and passive HMDs. Active HMD transmits a continuous signal whereas passive HMD requires the offender to answer the phone or insert a magnetic strip into the HMD whenever the monitoring center calls.
Benefits of Electronic Monitoring
Electronic monitoring can save the taxpayers money. The EM program reduces the number of offenders placed in correctional facilities. This makes a considerable difference because it cost five times more to maintain number offender in a correctional facility. An offender placed under the electronic monitoring program has a chance to work and subsequently pay for his or her monitoring. For the reasonable to high-risk offenders, the EM program is a diversion program. It reduces overcrowding in the jails and eliminates the need to build new correctional facilities. EM is also commonly used at the end of a penitentiary sentence with the intention of helping the offender reintegrate smoothly back into the community (Welsh 45).
The EM technology reduces the burden of work done by the parole officer, especially officers monitoring moderate and high-risk officers. The parole officer continuous monitoring the offender but part of the process is automated. The EM program suppress crime while the offender is under monitoring, this reduces the influence of the high-risk population on the community. When compared to other rehabilitation alternatives, Electronic Monitoring is less criminogenic. The offender when placed under Electronic Monitoring is less likely to offend then when he or she serves his or her sentence in a prison. Recent studies indicate a difference in the recidivism. Offenders who are placed in a correction facility are more likely to engage in an illegal activity than offenders who are under EM. Gendreau et al. noted a decline in recidivism by up to 10% when offenders are under EM. EM is a expertise that records the location of the offender within the community in real time without the intervention of a parole officer. The technology also allows for the detection of a prohibited substance within the body of the offender in real time. The technology engages GPS technology and emerging drug testing technologies (Karunanithi 13).
The EM technology enables the successful rehabilitation of offenders by allowing them, to remain within their community during the rehabilitation period. In 2002, a study identified an 85% recidivism rate for youth monitored electronically within a Texas community. A North Carolina community also recorded a 75% success rate within offender placed under the EM program. The EM technology enable parole officers to monitor the whereabouts of offenders in real-time. This enables the law enforcement officers to ensure that offenders adhere to the terms of this release. The technology enables the point pointing of an offenders location, this serves as an alibi in a court of law. The technology also enables the tracking of students who chronically miss school enabling teachers to take appropriate action. When the EM system is used to keep track of sex offenders, the system notify the parole officer when the offenders is near the house of the victim. This allows the offender to receive critical intervention real-time, ensuring the crime does not recur (Welsh 34).
The EM program has a significant influence on crime rate after the monitoring period ends. A study, including prison inmates who served the last part of their sentence at home using EM indicate a reduced rate of repeated offending. The inmates were confined to their homes except for time spent at work or at school with an hour allowance free activity. The inmates in the EM groups had a low relapse into serious crime compared to inmates incarcerated in a prison. Only 14% of the inmates in the EM program conducted serious crimes compared to 26% in the incarceration program. The EM program has many advantages over the traditional correctional program. The program allows offenders nearing the end of their sentence to serve in incarceration center that enable them to attend day jobs while they return to the prison every evening. These open institutions also allow offenders to return home every two weeks for 48 hours to visit friends and family. This program reduces the rate of repeat offenders within the following three years after release by 14% (Karunanithi 56).
The use of monitoring devices to rehabilitate offenders could reduce the rate of repeat offences by up to half a million. The social value of incarceration, repeat offenders, and property destruction could reduce by up to 400 billion each year. The cost-benefit ratio of using EM when compared to incarcerations is 12 dollars per day per person. Electronic monitoring accrues benefits to both the offenders by helping him or her reintegrate more smoothly into thyme society and by reducing the cost of rehabilitation on the society (Welsh 13).
Conclusion
The available evidence suggests that an EM program when combined with home detention effectively reduce repeat offences, deter crime, and accrue numerous benefits to the society. Monitoring has no treatment component but seems to deter repeat offences by helping control impulse because the offender believes they are monitored in every waking moment. Regardless of the offenders ability to control impulses, the neighborhood and poverty play a pilot role in determining whether the offender engages in criminal activity in the future. It is therefore paramount that policy makers focus on poverty and social conditions that promote criminality.





 Works cited
Gendreau, P. & Ross, R. (1979). Effective correctional treatment: Bibliotherapy for cynics. Crime and Delinquency 25(4), 463Y489.
Karunanithi, Mohanraj K. "Physiological Monitoring." Studies In Health Technology And Informatics 151.(2010): 207-218. MEDLINE Complete. Web. 16 Oct. 2013.
Welsh, Brandon, and David P. Farrington. Preventing Crime: What Works for Children, Offenders, Victims, and Places. New York: Springer, 2007. Print.