Assignment Question
Locate and read an on-line article on electronic monitoring of criminal offenders. Do you believe electronic monitoring assists in keeping track of criminal offenders or not? Explain your answer” I’m looking for two major concepts in your response: First, discuss the on-line article you have chosen, and why did you choose the report? Does it support your answer on if electronic monitoring assists in keeping track of offenders or not? Indicate in some detail things such as how it does/does not keep track of offenders. Attach article with Reflection paper. Paper should be at least 500 words but not more than 700 words. Second, besides content, I’ll be looking for organization, editing, and sentence structure within the essay. Therefore, be sure you use good organizational skills when responding to the question and correct editing, such as spelling and grammar. Guidelines There needs to be a well-organized response to the reflection question. Include an introduction, body paragraphs (at least three), and conclusion. The essay will be evaluated with three criteria: organization content editing Please see the grading rubric below for specifics on the criteria. Length: The reflective question answer should be at least 500 words and not longer than 700 words. Format: Use MLA format guidelines. You can see a copy of these in the Week 0 area. Save the file in .doc, .docx, or pdf.
Assignment Answer
I chose to discuss the article “Electronic Monitoring in the Criminal Justice System” by Hannah Graham and Gill McIvor for my reflection (Graham and McIvor). I selected this report because it provides a comprehensive overview of electronic monitoring (EM) technologies and their use in the criminal justice system, particularly in Scotland. The article discusses the different types of EM technologies, their purposes, and their implications for keeping track of criminal offenders.
The article begins by outlining the key points related to electronic monitoring (Graham and McIvor). It emphasizes that EM serves various purposes, including reducing imprisonment, monitoring compliance, reducing reoffending, and supporting desistance from crime. The three main types of EM tagging technology are Radio Frequency (RF) tagging, Global Positioning System (GPS) tagging, and Remote Alcohol Monitoring (RAM) (Graham and McIvor).
RF tagging, as described in the article, is primarily used for monitoring curfews and location restrictions. It involves attaching a tag to the monitored person’s ankle or wrist, which transmits a signal to a monitoring unit at their designated location. This technology does not track the wearer’s movements but ensures compliance with specific time and location restrictions (Graham and McIvor).
On the other hand, GPS tagging allows real-time tracking of the wearer’s location and can create exclusion zones. GPS tags can be tailored to each individual’s specific restrictions, such as staying away from certain places. If a monitored person enters an exclusion zone, it triggers alerts for the monitoring service provider. However, GPS tags require daily recharging, and failure to do so may be considered non-compliance (Graham and McIvor).
Regarding whether electronic monitoring assists in keeping track of criminal offenders, the article provides insights into its various aims and purposes (Graham and McIvor). One of the primary aims is to reduce imprisonment, especially in cases where EM can serve as an alternative to incarceration. EM is often used pre-trial, post-conviction, or as a form of early release. It is generally considered cost-effective compared to imprisonment.
Additionally, EM is used to monitor compliance with court orders and licenses. The article mentions that compliance rates are relatively high in Scotland, with a significant proportion of electronically monitored orders completed successfully. It also highlights that EM can be used to encourage desistance from crime by reducing individuals’ connections to criminal influences and promoting reintegration into society (Graham and McIvor).
However, the effectiveness of EM in reducing reoffending is mixed, as mentioned in the article (Graham and McIvor). Some studies show positive impacts, while others find only modest or minimal effects. The article suggests that the success of EM in achieving its goals depends on how it is used, the quality of data available, and the presence of complementary supervision and support.
In conclusion, the article provides valuable insights into electronic monitoring in the criminal justice system, offering a balanced view of its strengths, limitations, and potential benefits. EM can assist in keeping track of criminal offenders by monitoring compliance with restrictions and potentially reducing imprisonment. However, its effectiveness in promoting desistance from crime and long-term rehabilitation depends on various factors, including the way it is implemented and supported by supervision and services (Graham and McIvor).
Works Cited
Graham, Hannah, and Gill McIvor. “Electronic Monitoring in the Criminal Justice System.” Insights, 10 Oct. 2017.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
What are the different types of electronic monitoring (EM) technologies discussed in the article?
How does RF tagging technology work, and for what purpose is it typically used in the criminal justice system?
What are the potential benefits of electronic monitoring (EM) in reducing imprisonment rates, as mentioned in the article?
What factors influence the effectiveness of EM in promoting desistance from crime and rehabilitation, as outlined in the article?
How does GPS tagging technology differ from RF tagging, and how can it be used to monitor offenders more effectively?
