Electronic Monitoring Devices in Corrections

Electronic Monitoring Devices in Corrections

Electronic Monitoring Devices

Types of Electronic Monitoring Devices (EMDs)

Electronic Monitoring Devices -- EMDs are devices for electronic monitoring on criminals and other groups that are suspected to be involved in any illegal activity, inclusive of defendants who are under trail on conditional release and offenders who have already been convicted on probation or parole. Technically, Electronic Monitoring -- EM is a generic term which covers a broad spectrum of systems and its components. A lot of players dominate the industry, each offering a series of choices covering home monitoring devices, field monitoring devices, wrist and ankle bracelets, voice verification system and alcohol testing devices. There are either active or passive EM systems. The active ones are by far the most popular and dependable, under which the transmitter sends a continuous sign to the Home Monitoring Device -- HMD. ("Keeping track of Electronic Monitoring," 1999)

The HMD cautions the central monitoring center, in case the offender travels beyond the range area. In a passive system, the offender normally is required to talk to a case official over telephone or place the transmitter into that of the HMD to corroborate his attendance. The active systems locate the location of an offender on a continuous basis. Among the latest ones use technologies available under global positioning system -- GPS to observe the offender round the clock in any location whatsoever. Each has their own relative advantages and disadvantages. 'Voice Verification systems' regarded as passive forms of systems need an 'offender' to reply to a home-based phone creating 'electronic voice prints' which finds out if the voice of an offender during a routine verification telephone call tallies with that during enrollment in programs. An additional 'passive system' needs the offender to exhale into a device at home for detecting the presence of alcohol in his blood. ("Keeping track of Electronic Monitoring," 1999)

EM's are embedded with several system parts which engage in interactions to assess the offenders. These are (i) Home Monitoring Devices: -- HMDs: When the offender remains under house arrest, a HMD is installed in his home for use with a transmitter which he keeps hooked to his person always. The HMD operates with the telephone line and jack Besides, it is equipped to show tampering and absence of electricity, retention of memory such that it is able to report all of the messages that are saved on restoration of electric power and an internal antenna in the event the offender tampers with it. The HMD needs outlet of 120-volt for sufficient power and must not be huge or have too much of weight. ("Keeping track of Electronic Monitoring," 1999) ii) Transmitters: These are worn by the offenders in the wrist or ankles to signal the whereabouts of the offenders. In order to be effective, these must be light and easy to carry. It must definitely be shockproof and waterproof, giving liberty to the offender to work and take bath without detriment to the internal components or overall structure. It has to be tamperproof such that the offender is unable to meddle with its working. A particular type is a 'bracelet' which is similar to a buckle of a seatbelt connected to a 'sports watch'. Further the transmitter has a cable connected via the band which snaps in the event of its removal. As the transmitter is shockproof and water proof, it need not be taken out while performing one's daily routine. In the event of its removal, the police are alerted through an alarm. For a unit at home, it is not always important to be fitted with all of the transmitters. A transmitter of a particular manufacturer looks almost like a watch that transits signal about 7 times a day, informing the offender to make calls to the telephone number which is displayed on the watch. Following the receipt of the message, the host computer is able to identify the person, his phone number and if the offender had tinkered the watch. Daily, a report gives a detailed account of all calls and instances of tampering. ("Keeping track of Electronic Monitoring," 1999) iii) Field Monitoring Devices -- FMDs: A unit of verification known as a 'Field Monitoring Device' -- FMD lends the capacity to confirm that an offender is fitted with a transmitter in his person while being in the public. Further Field Monitoring Devices are very flexible since they are comparatively tinier, lightweight, operates within an environment of at least 100 feet. These could be handheld or installed on the roof of a vehicle. Through an FMD, a Case Officer is able to know the names of offender and in which locality they are staying, simply by the transmitting number and if the bracket have been tinkered with by someone. These types of onsite verification are important for an EMP which is successful as it guarantees public safety as well as offender conformity. Moreover, Field Monitoring Devices let officials to react swiftly to the EM infringements as well as make a checking on the offenders in the absence of their knowledge. An FMD sold by a manufacturer is capable of tracking up to 1000 events which is able to download with regard to the host computer for an overall event recording. ("Keeping track of Electronic Monitoring," 1999) iv) Alcohol Testing Devices: Offenders which are imprisoned are banned from the alcohol consumption; hence a lot of EMPS need testing of alcohol to guarantee that those program participants refrains from drinking. In case an offender is found to be positive with regard to alcohol, the HMD transits a message cautioning the center for monitoring regarding violation, as well as subsequently the monitoring center thereafter would send a message of alert to that of the EMP. In case a reading is found to be positive, the HMD normally gives out a request with regard to a repeat reading to check against the false positive reports. In case the second reading is found to be positive, the EMP staff must visit the offender's home to conduct a field test. ("Keeping track of Electronic Monitoring," 1999) v) Voice Verification Systems: Voice Verifications is an important constituent of a lot of EMPs. It might need a setup period of a long duration; nevertheless initial investments in time will give its returns. After functioning starts, the unit is capable of testing the voice pattern of the offender repeatedly during the course of the day with the maximum accuracy. During enrolment in a program offering verification of voice, the voice of the offender is being recorded as that of a voice print which is electronic and saved in the centre for monitoring for listening by the EMP at a later stage. Further programs must need offenders to announce a short sentence or a phrase as single word would not precisely record their 'presence'. At the time of every call, the caller's voice is matched by the EMP with that of the voiceprint on file. The system is also able to analyze sounds within the background for detection if he is within the vicinity where he is supposed to be. ("Keeping track of Electronic Monitoring," 1999)

For verification, offenders might be needed to make calls to the center for monitoring or they might have a call asking them to mention their birth date, time or social security number. Besides, they might also be asked to mention the sentence or phrase which was recorded previously. In case the offender submits false personal information or the sentence or phrase fails to tally with the recorded one earlier, the offender would fail in the test and the centre for monitoring is alerted. Majority of the EMPs apply voice verification together with as well as directly prior to the alcohol test. Such a process mainly ensures that the offender happens to be the individual who takes the test. Several of the EMPs permit the official to make an 800 number call to hear to a recording of the voice verification test of the offender. ("Keeping track of Electronic Monitoring," 1999)

House arrest as a community corrections program:

House arrest or confinement in homes with EM is an intermediate community correction programs devised to confine the activities of offenders within the given community. This provision lets the offenders to stay in their own houses, carry on with their routine duties. Their activities are regularly monitored either through electronic means or through periodic staff contacts to make sure that their actions are in close compliance with that stipulated by the court. Offenders who are placed under home confinement remain confined to their homes for different time period and they are to maintain a strict schedule of daily activities. Normally there are two types of home confinement program viz pre-trial and post-adjudication. Pretrial program make use of home confinement as a substitute to staying in prisons to make sure that the individuals appear in court. On the other hand, post-adjudication programs make use of home confinement as a stricture which is harsher compared to routine supervision, nevertheless it is less restraining compared to confinement in jails. ("Home Confinement / Electronic Monitoring," n. d.)

House arrest or home confinement started as a program to handle particularly as a sentencing substitute meant for drunk drivers, but rapidly spread over to a number of other offender populations in a lot of jurisdictions. Depending on the nature of crime committed by the offenders, home confinement has been designed with various degrees of stages of restrictions. These can vary from ordinary curfews to complete confinement. For instance, the home confinement program of the Federal courts extends three separate levels of restrictions under the U.S. Probation and Pretrial Services, 2000. Under the first level ie., curfew, it requires the program participants to stay at home daily during certain time periods. Under the second level house arrest it requires on the part of the participants to stay at home round the clock save for attending to work, school, treatment etc. which must be approved previously. The most restrictive level, home detention needs round the clock arrest in homes, save for doctor's appointment, appearances in court and other works exclusively sanctioned by the court. ("Home Confinement / Electronic Monitoring," n. d.)

History of EMD:

In the U.S., the first EMD was developed during the middle part of 1960s by the noted History Harvard psychologists Robert Schwitzgebel who perceived that his invention will be able to deliver a humanitarian and low-cost option to custody in case of a lot of people entangled in the process of justice. It was known as 'Dr. Schwitzgebel Machine' and it was a battery pack along with a transmitter who can transmit signal to that of a receiver in the range of a 'quarter mile'. Through, Dr. Schwitzgebel obtained a patent for the device in 1969, the practical use of EMD to nab offenders started only after the 1980s. In U.S., electronic monitoring grew speedily and by 1988, the number of offenders who were put on electronic monitoring went up to 2,300 in 32 states. After 10 years, the usage of electronic forms of monitoring had leapfrogged to more than 95,000 devices in January 1988 registering a rise of forty times. It is important to note that house arrest with electronic monitoring lets a person who is sentenced to a jail term to remain in his home as an option to being behind bars in a jail. In this case home confinement is closely monitored using an electronic sensor attached to the ankle of an offender connected through telephone lines to a central computer that transmits a continuous signal. (Than, n. d.)

In case the signal is intercepted by the offender traveling beyond the authorized radius of the receiver, the host computer keeps record of the date and time of the disappearance of the signal. The computer also keeps a note of the date and time the signal starts sending messages. In case there is a signal interruption, when a parolee must stay in his home, the infringement is verified by the Parole Officer with the result that the offender is liable to be arrested. EMs must be a low cost affair, and has to cater to the re-socialization of the defendant. Apart from that it spells safety to the society. Hence, these were the objectives when it was tried to usher in the criminal laws. Among the EMDs, devices based on the Global Positioning Systems -- GPS technology are the latest ones through which offenders can be monitored round the clock. In case, an offender violates the conditions of an electronic monitoring order, the GPS will be able to detect his actual position. This makes the apprehension of the offender by the law enforcement authorities a task which is comparatively easy. Currently, GPS monitoring system devised to look for offenders continue to be under development stage. (Than, n. d.)

In 1997, a novel form of EM was developed and put to test that depended on the GPS. The GPS is formed by 24 military satellites orbiting our planet and data from three to five among the satellite can state the coordinates of a GPS receiver across the world. Through the use of the GPS system, the details of the EM clients are capable of being found out and entered into central computers. Over the years, GPS systems have evolved and are easier to use and popular also. The major difference between a GPS systems and Radio Frequency EM system is the capability to locate the movement details of the clients. Through the use of GPS, correctional authorities are able to find out when clients leave and return their homes, go to their work and attend compulsory treatment sessions. They are also able to find incase their clients have been visiting prohibitive areas, like the home of the victims or to workplace or to bars or to other places who serve alcohol. (Caputo, 2004)

One more important difference among the RF-based EM systems and GPS is the capability to fix exclusion and red alert zones wherein clients are banned from traveling. As it is not a sanction, EM has surfaced in a lot of interesting places. Devised for application as a post-trial additional home confinement to ensure that the sanction is more practical, it was readily adapted for pre-trial use, as a means of releasing defendants on bail who might otherwise be very dangerous to handle. It is useful in enforcing conditions of bail like avoiding victims or some locations like where children are frequented. It is generally used as a community corrections option to jail or federal prison and as a means of raising surveillance of parolees. It has been applied as an accommodative sanction between raising the number of contact meetings and revocation of probation of parole. It is most applicable to work release or temporary release. (Caputo, 2004)

Necessity of EMDs:

At times, authorities in charge of criminal justice might be desirous of controlling or closely monitoring the movements of an individual without going in for detention. For instance, prior to a criminal trial, the police authorities might wish to guarantee that the defendant does not leave the city and stays away from the complainant. Following conviction, a judge might wish to put restrictions on the freedom of the offender at the same time not invoking a full-time custodial sanction. After release from jail, a parole board might be desirous of imposing limits on an offender. Community-based programs seek to fulfill these objectives by release conditions like reporting to officials or obeying the provision of a curfew. EM enforces such conditions through technological means. Through the use of tracking systems, criminal justice agencies are able to monitor the location of an individual and can be cautioned to any sort of unlawful movements. (Black; Smith, n. d.)

There are three broad underlying principles behind the application of an electronic monitoring. These are (i) Detention: EM can be applied to make sure that an individual stays at an appointed place. For instance, home detention schemes normally need offenders to in their residence during curfew periods. Among the uses, this was one of the first uses of electronic monitoring and continues to be the most popular. (ii) Restriction: As an alternative measure, electronic monitoring can be used to be certain that the person does not infiltrate prohibited zones, or come in contact with specific individuals like complainants, possible victims or even co-offenders. (iii) Surveillance: The application of EM might be there such that authorities are able to persistently track an individual, without really putting a restriction on their movements. (Black; Smith, n. d.)

Coming to the applications of EMDs, there are three stages at which EM are capable of being used in the criminal justice system. These are pre-trial, during sentencing and post-prison. (i) Pre-trial: EM might be a condition upon which a defendant is granted bail. EM must thus be limited to surveillance until precincts and detention is utterly important. EM has been used as a pre-trial necessity in the U.S. Under a particular program, EM was available in case of those who were unable to pay the needed bail amount. The program employed the use of a passive system and in case the accused attended the trial following 90 days, the EM condition was withdrawn since the accused was thereafter regarded as being of low risk. (Black; Smith, n. d.) ii) Primary Sentencing: EM can be applied as a primary sentencing alternative to implement some amount of restrictions on the freedom of the offender. To take an example, home detention schemes normally utilize EM to ensure that the offender remains in his home at the time of curfew. Not like pre-trial system, the application of EM in this perspective involves a sentencing court looking to penalize an offender. This recommends a much greater role for detention. Restriction and surveillance can also be used to lower the odds of the person to commit another offence, especially against the original victim. EM is presently accessible as a primary sentence in the U.S. And is normally regarded to be rather more liberal compared to prison, however stricter compared to probation. (iii) Post-prison: EM might also be included in the post prison stage during the early discharge of a prisoner into the society. For instance, this is used in the UK towards the final part of a custodial as a type of changeover from the prison back into the society. (Black; Smith, n. d.)

Advantages and Disadvantages:

There are a lot of possible advantages linked with the application of EM. Among the major advantage is lowered prison population. This is most possible where monitoring is used as a substitute to prison, instead to better present non-custodial orders. A lot of cost savings might be attained through building lesser prisons as also lowering the cost of managing custodial sentences. One more recommended benefit is the chances of enhancing rehabilitation and reintegration of offenders. EM might permit more offenders to keep up jobs and be in touch with their families. It also helps in avoiding any pessimistic psychological effects of imprisonment, even though the wearing of a device carries its personal psychological pressures. However, a disadvantage of EM is the absence of restraining physical capacities of persons. EM does not physically prevent a person and serious offenders continue to be able to cause offenses prior to any intervention by the authorities concerned. Concerns have been raised that EM as a primary sentence might in fact raise the severity of some sentences. For instance, it is possible that EM might be used in situations where simple suspension or probation would have been resorted to in earlier period. (Black; Smith, n. d.)

Ethical, Legal and Practical issues:

The application of EMs in the criminal justice system raises several ethical, legal as also real issues. Since monitoring is primarily appropriate in correctional perspectives, therefore the issue of punishment comes to the forefront as the potency of modern monitoring technologies to help in the process of surveillance as well as restrictions. Even though it is not a punishment at all, it has the power to enforce limits on the freedom of a person associated with a judicially imposed penalty like home detention. EM is undeniably an invasive technology that necessitates the physical attachment of a device to or in a person. Latest technologies continue to be psychologically invasive within the meaning that every movement of the person can be detected, save when the device is programmed to be switched off. EM also crops up the vital legal question whether particular legislative provisions must be enacted in order to sanction such type of an invasive program. Besides, other issues also come to the forefront regarding the efficacy electronic monitoring and whether it lowers cost and prison populations. (Black; Smith, n. d.)

In case electronic monitoring outcomes in higher breach rates, ultimately the outcome might be a complete rise in prison admissions. Ultimately the issue arises whether EM can help with the reintegration of offenders into the community in a better manner compared to traditional parole or prison programs. One debate has been that EM lends great promise for better rehabilitation of offenders. It lets the offenders to keep employment and maintain closer ties with their households. This setting might be more favorable to changes in behavior compared to a prison setting. but, there can be problems, nevertheless, in case there are no constructive actions in case of home detainees and in situations where other family members have to stay in home in close vicinity of the offender for extended time periods. Moreover, research is required to evaluate the effectiveness of monitoring to lower recidivism and also to improve rehabilitation. Even though the latest technologies of EMDs are regarded to be more efficient in functional power, their power of surveillance makes apprehensions of too much regulation and violation of human rights. Keeping abreast of these developments is crucial, along with the creation of policies to guarantee that in case such technologies are approved, they are applied in the most useful and ethical manner. Specifically, the need for making sure informed consent of those selected to be put under monitoring must be ensured and effective techniques undertaken to address unethical or illegal practices. (Black; Smith, n. d.)

The growth of EMDs has rendered confinement in homes an enforceable sentencing alternative. The number of offenders presently being monitored is intricate to calculate, as the manufacturers who manufacture these devices regard this as privilege information. Nevertheless, according to close estimates, there are nearly 17 different companies providing electronic monitoring of 100000 offenders. Two fundamental types of EMDs are present. Passive monitors react exclusively to inquiries, most ordinarily; the offender receives a computerized telephone call from the probation office and is instructed to put the device on a receiver connected to a telephone. On the other hand active deices transmit continuous signals which a receiver tracks and a computer detects any break in signal. Regardless of supportive publicity, some legal, technical and correctional concerns must be addressed prior to home confinement with electronic monitoring can come to be a standard penalty. (Cole; Smith, 2004)

First of all, criminal justice scholars challenge the constitutionality of installation of these devices. Others hold that monitoring might violate the Fourth Amendment's protection against unjustified searches and seizures. The problem is on the clash between the constitutionality safeguarded justifiable supposition of privacy and the incursion of one's home by surveillance devices. Secondly, technical problems with the monitoring devices continue to be extensive, sometimes delivering incorrect report that the offender is at home. Third, failure rates of offenders might prove to be on the higher side. During the bygone thirty years, the profile of the prison population with the change of the overall population profile of U.S.. The attention of corrections has now changed over to crime control that stresses the value of incarcerations. Not just the number of people in prison has increased a great deal, but a number of states have withdrawn educational and recreational facilities from institutions also. (Cole; Smith, 2004)

The main purpose in using EMDs is to divert offenders from jail and prison. Overcapacity in local jails and state prisons can be regulated by the EMDs. But the judges and prosecutors must participate in planning standards for choosing appropriate candidates for such supervision. Candidates who are subject to EMDs have been chosen from pretrial imprisonment, work-release programs, weekend sentence servers and offenders who are at high risk diverted from prison and supervised under the intensive Supervision Program -- ISP Probation Officer view EMDs as both a positive as well as a negative feature of EMDs. It is to their benefit to be free of the telephone checkup on curfews. Nevertheless, monitoring is a round the clock job which class for speedy action when the computer states a violation. One recommended solution is to utilize the services of Surveillance Officer who focus only on following through on the recording of the computer as regards a violation. Whether a probation administrator takes a decision to make use of EMDs or not hinges on his idea in surveillance vis-a-vis the rehabilitative goal of corrections. Besides, the suitable use of the technology is not as a placement for the probation officer, but as a weapon that liberates the officer to make better application of his time. (Smith; Berlin, 1988)

Effectiveness of Electronic Monitoring:

In excess of 30,000 of the offenders in criminal capacity residing in the community in USA since the year 2000 have been put under monitoring by electronic monitoring for one day at the minimum, and state and federal laws were approved in 2005. This is inclusive of the state legislation of Florida State evolving out of the molestation, kidnapping and subsequent killing of Jessica Lundsford, a 9-year-old. A significant increase in the application of EMDs for sex offenders will be there who are residing in the community, not just low forms of risk, rather a moderate to high levels of risk offenders might be anticipated also. Nevertheless, research has not been able to be abreast with speedy implementing of the new as well as capable penal approach. Practically, till the year 2006, very scanty experimental research relating to the efficacy of EMs for die-hard offenders within the community had been published and these are in the hands of practitioners and policy-makers who had been propagating the usage of the same. ("Assessment of the Effectiveness of Electronic Monitoring on Supervision and Post-supervision outcomes," 2008)

Considering the unavoidable rise in the usage of EM in the near future, practitioners and policy makers are definitely going to encounter more problems regarding its efficacy in safeguarding public safety and also issues regarding the corresponding monetary involvement of making use of a technology as an optional or supplementary confinement. In an endeavor to deal with the shortage of empirical evidence, a study has been undertaken by the FSU criminologist Bill Bales financed by the 'National Institute of Justice' to particularly deal with the efficacy of electronic forms of monitoring in safeguarding public safety and lowering the chances of costly final prison sentences for severe offenders who are on 'home arrest'. Apart from that, the study would evaluate the manner in which and reason behind the working principle of EMs and the nature of expenses towards public safety and also the financial implications. The research has been structured on 3 factors viz, an 'outcome evaluation', a 'process assessment' and an assessment relating to 'cost-efficacy'. ("Assessment of the Effectiveness of Electronic Monitoring on Supervision and Post-supervision outcomes," 2008)

The 'outcome assessment" would verify the efficacy of EM in lowering the chances relating to failure during the period of confinement at home with 3 outcome methods such as 'recidivism', 'revocation' in case of an infringement on the technical front as well as disappearance. The information to be made use of in case of this investigation are considered to be historical and would efficiently track a group of offenders from the level of placement with regard to community monitoring to 2 years of post-placement to find out to what extent the EM would lower their odds of recidivism, technical infringement or/and disappearance. The 'process assessment' would lend a qualitative angle to the very descriptive, statistic as well as quantitative evaluation of data produced from the 'summative assessment'. The 'process assessment' would gather comprehensive information regarding the program as well as its functions to render more data relating to some of the increasingly quantitative elusive features of the operation of the program. ("Assessment of the Effectiveness of Electronic Monitoring on Supervision and Post-supervision outcomes," 2008)

To collect data which is descriptive and relating to the program as well as the background in which the same functions, the assessment would depend on a range of approaches to "data collection as well as data sources, like reviews of media reports, field observations, survey questionnaires of the agency as well as program staff; legal hearings, direct and telephonic interviews with the staff of the program, staff of the agency as also offenders." ("Assessment of the Effectiveness of Electronic Monitoring on Supervision and Post-supervision outcomes," 2008) it is hoped that, along with the final data evaluation, the results from the process assessment would underline few of the perceptible strengths and weaknesses of the EM program of the 'Florida Department of Correction'. ("Assessment of the Effectiveness of Electronic Monitoring on Supervision and Post-supervision outcomes," 2008)

The National Institute of Corrections and its partners formulated a set of principles called as evidence-based practices in 2004. The rationale was that correctional practices and programs must be backed by thorough applied research and evaluation. It is a fact that no more can the correctional administrators and policy makers defend their existing practices and resist to change. There are no pretexts for not being able to find out and execute effective correctional practices and policies and programs through the use of electronic monitoring are the same. Prior to finding out whether a particular thing operates or not, its expectation must be outlined. For example, the question remains whether EM for sex offenders is being given operational effect for punishing, to detect, to rehabilitate or for some other means. As per evidence-based practices, the community corrections field must use a balanced strategy between treatment, surveillance and responsibility in order to prevent more abuse, make offenders responsible and endeavor towards long-term behavior change. The final outcome in case of these agencies is calculated through recidivism - i.e. The number of offenders taken into custody once again, reconvicted or revoked for a technical violation that does not tantamount to crime. (DeMichele; Payne; Button, 2007)

At this juncture, it is worthwhile to find out the opinion of research community as regards electronic monitoring. Are EMDs able to enhance management of offender cases and thus public safety? Do these devices hope to usher in long-term changes in behavior? However there is scanty scientific research recording the efficacy of EMDs with offenders. The most thorough research on EMDs has been conducted by Mark Renzema and Evan Mayo-Wilson in 2005. Their findings were that jut three research reports was able to meet their standards of accepting as technically thorough. The general evaluation was that applications of EM as a tool for lowering crime are not backed by present data which was their report published in the Journal of Experimental Criminology. (DeMichele; Payne; Button, 2007)

An investigation conducted in the year 2000 by James Bonta, Suzane Wallace-Capretta and Jenifer Rooney discovered somewhat reduced recidivism in case of high-risk offenders in a program through the use of EMDs. The most exciting aspect of these investigations is that EMDs was not responsible for lowered repeat occurrences of offending, Instead, high risk offenders supervised with an EMD appear to have a higher chance of finishing treatment, with those who finished treatment performing better on the whole. Thus, the offenders in the EM program had increased chances to complete treatment, and the interaction between these two interventions i.e. cognitive-behavioral treatment and EM lowered recidivism. However, an evaluation conducted of late on more than 75,000 offenders supervised with EMDs in Florida exposed lowered revocations in case of new crimes, violations on the technical front and disappearance in case of sex offenders supervised with EMDs. (DeMichele; Payne; Button, 2007)

It is very crucial that the findings are required to be accepted very cautiously since the writers Kathy Padgett, William Bales and Thomas Bloomberg concede admit that the sex offenders, irrespective of their being supervised with an EMD happen to be the least possible candidates of all categories of offenders to render their regulation revoked because of a new crime or to escape. Absolutely this brings into the forefront the necessity to insistently monitor every sex offender in an identical manner. EM technologies are just possible supervision instruments for sex offenders. Hence, these devices are not a universal remedy to offences, for instance sex offending or any other type of criminal behavior. EMDs are equipped with a lot of advantages, but are also associated with several problems like more workload on the Officer concerned, agency liability and huge costs in terms of investments. (DeMichele; Payne; Button, 2007)

Issues centering around EMDs: