Electronic Monitoring Today Essay Research Paper Electronic

10 October 2017

Electronic Monitoring Today Essay, Research Paper

Electronic Monitoring Today

Electronic monitoring has emerged as one of the most popular signifiers of community corrections in the United States today. Electronic monitoring began and/or was foremost used in about 1984. Today, about 12,000- 15,000 wrongdoers or participants are being monitored on a day-to-day footing. The electronic monitoring equipment used today allows us to find if a monitored participant is in his/her needed topographic point at the proper clip. When I speak of electronic supervising the first thing that comes to your head is likely an ankle watchband. Well, today? s engineering has called for a few new and interesting non to advert easier signifiers of monitoring wrongdoers and participants. ( It is indispensable for me to observe that non all individuals being monitored have been convicted of offenses. Monitoring is besides used as a status of pre-trial release. In my research I will concentrate on the guidelines of probation monitoring ) . Today, we have proctors in the signifier of wrist watchs, we besides have proctors in the signifier of voice confirmation through the wrongdoers telephone, and there is besides a system of ocular confirmation that assures that the participant is replying the phone. There are even units that have drive-by options that allow a supervising officer to sit outside of a edifice and state whether or non an wrongdoer is indoors, where he/she is required to be. These signifiers are in add-on to the ankle watchband. Over

the old ages engineering has besides been able to? heighten battery life and better the sets worn by wrongdoers by doing them non-stretchable and tamper-resistant. A new nomadic unit allows oversing officers to look into on wrongdoers and keep bipartisan conversations with them without of all time holding to go forth their vehicles ( Papy 132 ) . ?

In the wrist watch plan the participant is signaled through the device at assorted random times throughout the twenty-four hours. The participant is so obligated to name a cardinal monitoring station from a nearby phone utilizing a 1-800 figure. The cardinal monitoring station picks up the participant? s location utilizing company ID. The participant is so supposed to press and keep the face of the wrist watch to the phone. The device generates a beeping codification, which will place the participant. The telephone call besides is able to observe whether or non the device has been tampered with, and if the participant is in their correct, needed locations. The officer plans the figure of random signals.

In the voice confirmation system, the participant is either called at their place at random or they are scheduled to do a call at certain times. However, the system is computerized to pick up the participant? s voice no affair what type of phone, or what type of status the phone is in. This system is 95 % accurate and can easy state the difference between relations. It can besides do a positive designation when the participant has a cold.

In connexion with the voice confirmation system there is a ocular confirmation option that allows the officer to do certain that the participant is the individual replying the phone.

The oversing officer has three chief duties: selecting participants for the plan, put ining whatever device is necessary for the monitoring plan ( fundamentally? hooking up the wrongdoer? ) , and oversing the participants. ? Military officers are contacted each clip one of the following? cardinal events? occurs: unauthorised absences from the abode ; failure to return to the abode from a scheduled absence ; late reachings ; early goings from a abode ; equipment malfunctions ; fiddling with the monitoring equipment ; loss of electrical power or telephone service ; location confirmation failure ( where a participant moves the monitoring equipment from the abode without permission ) ; and when the monitoring equipment misses a indiscriminately scheduled call to the monitoring centre ( Altman, Murray, Wooten 31 ) ? . These are all certain misdemeanors that set off and can alarm the officer of a participant foul up. When the officer is alerted of a misdemeanor he/she calls the cardinal monitoring station and finds out who is in misdemeanor and does whatever is necessary to manage the job.

While electronic monitoring is a turning tendency in community corrections, two of the major inquiries are is electronic monitoring cost effectual? If so, which system is the best and most secures?

Unfortunately today in our society we have reached some highly crime-ridden times. Crime rates are surging, and the corrections system is running out of topographic points and things to make with wrongdoers. Prisons and gaols are being overcrowded. The figure of people on probation in early 1998 was good over 3.2 million. All of these maps are bing

us money. Following to protecting the community, and rehabilitating wrongdoers we besides want to happen new plans and thoughts that will salvage us money. ? ? Besides provides us with a important cost nest eggs for the authorities. In financial twelvemonth 1996 ( harmonizing to the Administrative office ) , if place parturiency did non be, more than 8,000 wrongdoers would hold been in prison or halfway houses and more than 5,000 suspects would hold been detained in detainment centres or halfway houses ( Altman, Murray, Wooten 32 ) ? . One of the chief inquiries asked when covering with community corrections, and the electronic monitoring devices is are they cost effectual. Are they salvaging us money, or losing us money? Well, in 1996, the cost of captivity was about 42-61 million, depending on the degree of captivity, and the cost of monitoring was 19 million. The entire cost of nest eggs in that class was around 23-42 million. On the other side the cost of detainment was

2-41 million, depending on the type of detainment installation, and the cost of monitoring was around 12 million. The entire cost of salvaging in this peculiar class was 15-29 million. Now, when asked if electronic monitoring is cost

effectual the entire nest eggs for the twelvemonth of 1996 was 38-70 million. These figures are all depending on the degree of captivity or the type of detainment installation we are covering with when speaking about salvaging. Different installations have their ain day-to-day rates. ( Stats from chart in Altman, Murray, and Wooten 32 ) . By looking at the figures in this chart, it is easy to see that so far electronic monitoring is salvaging money. Even though these figures are from 1996 the figure sum for nest eggs should be higher today. I say this because ; as the figure of wrongdoers rises so should the figure of those put on the systems. In bend, salvaging even more dollars.

Now that we have dealt with the job of cost-effectiveness. What system is the best? The electronic monitoring systems have come a long manner since the mid 80? s. They have evolved into much more than merely the ankle watchbands. Earlier I antecedently described to you the a few types of proctors. In my sentiment the best proctor is non ever the cheapest proctor. The best proctor is the 1 that will maintain an wrongdoer out of the prison system, and aid to reintegrate an wrongdoer back into the community. Equally good as maintain tight surveillance on the wrongdoer and guarantee the community that they are safe. The

proctor that does this the best I feel is the voice confirmation proctors. ? Those system maps basically place calls to pretrial releasees at programmed intervals to remind them or teach them to make such things as study to the office, attend their following scheduled tribunal visual aspect, supply a urine specimen, or

whatever other information officers need to convey to suspects. These system maps can besides be used to supervise suspects? place detainment or curfew conditions of release ( Cadigan 53 ) ? . This monitoring system works in one of two ways: the wrongdoer either calls the system at specified times, or the system will name the wrongdoer at assorted specified times. Once the wrongdoer speaks into the phone the system can pick up the proper voice at a 95 % acknowledgment rate. This system is able to distinguish between household members, so that brothers, female parents, male parents, or sisters can non seek to cover for suspects. When this plan has been implemented into a place there are certain phone characteristics that must be cut off of the wrongdoers phone. Features such as three manner naming, dual line, call-forwarding. The wrongdoer must demo cogent evidence of this, by demoing his phone measure to the oversing officer every month. This system is strictly tamper cogent evidence. This is why I feel that it is the best manner to travel in taking a proctor.

Not merely has electronic monitoring emerged as one of the most popular signifiers of community corrections today. It is besides one of the most cost-efficient plans in community corrections. We have learned about electronic monitoring devices other than the ankle watchband. We have learned the dollar sum that electronic monitoring is salvaging our authorities. I have besides discussed with you the device that I feel provides the community with the best

safety confidence, and allows the wrongdoer to be treated and reintegrated back into society. Electronic monitoring is a really of import portion of community corrections today! The more wrongdoers traveling through the system the proctors we will hold being used. Over the old ages as offense has risen so has the engineering of the electronic monitoring device. As offense additions so will the engineering for these devices. I feel really confident in the systems we use today, in that they are protecting us ( observant citizens ) and maintaining a stopping point oculus on them ( condemnable wrongdoers ) .

A limited
time offer!
Get authentic custom
ESSAY SAMPLEwritten strictly according
to your requirements