Evidence based electronic monitoring the legal landscape and inconsistent evidence
Download
1 / 80

Evidence-Based Electronic Monitoring: The Legal Landscape and (Inconsistent) Evidence - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 452 Views
  • Uploaded on
  • Presentation posted in: General

Evidence-Based Electronic Monitoring: The Legal Landscape and (Inconsistent) Evidence. Brian K. Payne, Georgia State University Deeanna Button, University of Delaware Matthew DeMichele, American Probation & Parole Association. Objectives.

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha

Download Presentation

Evidence-Based Electronic Monitoring: The Legal Landscape and (Inconsistent) Evidence

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript


Evidence based electronic monitoring the legal landscape and inconsistent evidence
Evidence-Based Electronic Monitoring: The Legal Landscape and (Inconsistent) Evidence

Brian K. Payne, Georgia State University

Deeanna Button, University of Delaware Matthew DeMichele, American Probation & Parole Association


Objectives
Objectives and (Inconsistent) Evidence

1.Discuss how laws effecting the use of electronic monitoring tools have shifted, especially to incorporate location tracking with GPS.

2.Discuss how these legislative changes have implications for the way community corrections officers supervise offenders.

3.Provide information about the effectiveness of electronic monitoring tools.


Evidence based electronic monitoring of sex offenders cont
Evidence-Based Electronic Monitoring of Sex Offenders and (Inconsistent) Evidence[cont.]

  • Technology

    • Rapidly evolving

    • Legislation = active GPS

  • Technology is one more tool

    • Combined with others

    • Means to end = structured containment

    • Not the end

  • Provides WINDOW into offender’s life


  • Evidence based electronic monitoring of sex offenders cont1
    Evidence-Based Electronic Monitoring of Sex Offenders and (Inconsistent) Evidence[cont.]

    • Many electronic tools to supervise offenders

    • Technology

      • Radio frequency

      • Location tracking

      • Computer monitoring and forensics

      • Crime and GPS data integration

      • Polygraph

      • Others


    Radio frequency martha stewart s model
    Radio Frequency: Martha Stewart’s Model and (Inconsistent) Evidence


    Radio frequency
    Radio Frequency and (Inconsistent) Evidence


    Radio frequency cont
    Radio Frequency and (Inconsistent) Evidence[cont.]

    • Home arrest

    • Curfew monitoring

    • Judge Love (Albuquerque, NM)

    • 1983

      • By 1990 in 50 states

      • Several countries

    • Repairs

    • False positives of violations


    Radio frequency cont1
    Radio Frequency and (Inconsistent) Evidence[cont.]

    • Drive-by units

    • Random calling

      • Identity verification

      • Slow scan photos

      • Electronic voice analysis

      • Remote alcohol detection (late 1980s)


    Location tracking
    Location Tracking and (Inconsistent) Evidence


    Location tracking cont
    Location Tracking and (Inconsistent) Evidence[cont.]

    • Late 1990s

    • Cellular Technology

    • 24 Satellites

    • U.S. Department of Defense


    Location tracking cont1
    Location Tracking and (Inconsistent) Evidence[cont.]

    • Active and Passive

    • Exclusion Zones

    • Workload Differences

    • Liability

    • Legislation


    Benefits of using gps
    Benefits of Using GPS and (Inconsistent) Evidence

    • Flexibility

    • Reintegration

    • Control

    • Retribution


    Benefits of using gps1
    Benefits of Using GPS and (Inconsistent) Evidence

    • Flexible

      • Can be applied to different types of offenders

        • Sex offenders

        • Burglars

        • Domestic violence offenders

        • Gang members


    Benefits of using gps2
    Benefits of Using GPS and (Inconsistent) Evidence

    • Reintegration

      • Offenders are able to live at home

      • Maintain employment

      • Avoid criminogenic conditions related to incarceration


    Benefits of using gps3
    Benefits of Using GPS and (Inconsistent) Evidence

    • Control

      • Capacity to effectively control offenders via:

        • Inclusion and exclusion zones

        • Curfews

        • Data points show offender’s daily movements

          • Is he/she spending time at McDonald’s (playground)?

          • Or why is he/she spending so much time at the Mall (kid’s stores)?


    Benefits of using gps4
    Benefits of Using GPS and (Inconsistent) Evidence

    Retribution

    • Deprivation of autonomy

    • Deprivation of goods and services

    • Deprivation of liberty

    • Deprivation of intimate relations

    • Monetary costs

    • Family effects

    • Watching others

    • Bracelet effects


    Cost of using gps
    Cost of Using GPS and (Inconsistent) Evidence

    • Seemingly cost effective

      • GPS: $10 per day

      • Incarceration: $60 per day

      • Civil confinement: $110,000 per year


    Cost of using gps1
    Cost of Using GPS and (Inconsistent) Evidence

    • Incarcerated populations remain the same

    • Community corrections populations continues to grow

    • GPS is an additional cost


    Cost of using gps2
    Cost of Using GPS and (Inconsistent) Evidence

    • Estimated GPS cost

      • $9,000 a year per sex offender

    • Actual cost:

      • Tennessee: $2.5 million a year for 650 offenders

      • Iowa: $2.4 million a year for 500 offenders

    • Fees pay for technology

    • Fees do NOT pay for the workload


    Legislation

    Political Fears and (Inconsistent) Evidence

    Stems from media driven frenzy

    Agenda driven politicians

    Frightened and concerned citizens

    Unanticipated Effects

    Fails to consider legislation’s impact on criminal justice administrators and practitioners

    Legislation


    Legislation for effective community corrections policy
    Legislation for Effective Community Corrections Policy and (Inconsistent) Evidence

    • 47 states have EM legislation

    • 14 states have legislation describing GPS for sex offenders

    • 7 states use either active or passive systems

    • 8 states require the use of active electronic monitoring


    Legislation for effective community corrections policy1
    Legislation for Effective Community Corrections Policy and (Inconsistent) Evidence

    • 18 states clearly define use of EM

    • 29 states require offenders to pay at least a portion of EM fees

    • 17 states regulate the amount of time offenders spend on EM

      • 11 of these states stipulate time limits for general EM devices

      • 7 of these states place specific time limits for GPS supervision


    Legislation for effective community corrections
    Legislation for Effective Community Corrections and (Inconsistent) Evidence

    • 27 states have specific policies for monitoring sex offenders

      • 19 states require EM for sex offenders

    • Only three states mention EM use for domestic violence offenders

    • Four states use EM for convicted drug and alcohol offenders


    Legislative typologies

    General vs. Specific and (Inconsistent) Evidence

    Sentence Integration

    Risk Assessment

    Punitive

    Evaluation

    Offender Fees

    Child Abuse

    Repeat Offenders

    Legislative Typologies


    General vs specific policies
    General vs. Specific Policies and (Inconsistent) Evidence

    • General Policies

      • Lack precise definition of EM expectations

      • Neglect to mention

        • Type of offender

        • Length of time to be monitored

        • Mandatory technological capabilities


    General vs specific policies1
    General vs. Specific Policies and (Inconsistent) Evidence

    • General Policies (examples)

      • Pennsylvania: Individuals eligible for house arrest involving EM shall be determined by administrative staff

      • Utah: In determining its sentence the court…may require the defendant to participate in an EM program


    General vs specific policies2
    General vs. Specific Policies and (Inconsistent) Evidence

    • Specific Policies

      • More specific in policy stipulations

      • More likely to mention

        • Type of offender

        • Length of time to be monitored

        • Mandatory technological capabilities


    General vs specific policies3
    General vs. Specific Policies and (Inconsistent) Evidence

    • Specific Policies

      • Florida: Requires that offenders who are designated sexual predators must upon release and for the rest of their life be subject to GPS

      • Indiana: Requires a sexually violent predator be placed on lifetime parole to be monitored via GPS device. Amends definition of “monitoring devices” to include those that provide 24 hour information on an offender’s location, and capable of notifying appropriate officials of offender’s violation


    Sentence integration
    Sentence Integration and (Inconsistent) Evidence

    • Integrate EM into the offender’s sentence

      • Kansas, Louisiana, and Maine: Mandatory prison sentences in addition to required lifetime electronic monitoring

      • Michigan: Requires a term of 25 years without possibility of parole [and] requires lifetime electronic monitoring…”


    Risk assessment
    Risk Assessment and (Inconsistent) Evidence

    • Risk assessments to determine the probability of offender recidivism

    • Provisions of sexually dangerous:

      • Seriousness of the assault

      • Age of the victim

      • Number of prior offenses


    Risk assessment1
    Risk Assessment and (Inconsistent) Evidence

    • Review boards used to assess sexual dangerousness of offender

      • Louisiana, New Mexico, and Connecticut

      • Georgia: requires GPS monitoring if Sexual Offender Registration Review Board deems and offender “sexually dangerous”


    Risk assessment2
    Risk Assessment and (Inconsistent) Evidence

    • EM utilized according to risk

    • Categorized to one of three levels

      • Risk of repeat offense

      • Risk to public safety

      • Violent predator status

        • Montana: GPS monitoring must be imposed upon “level 3 sex offenders”

        • Illinois: requires those convicted of an offense that would qualify the accused as a sexual predator be subject to EM


    Punitive nature of policies

    Used as Additional form of long term punishment and (Inconsistent) Evidence

    Florida:

    Sexual offenders

    Upon release and for the rest of their life

    Subjected to GPS “active electronic monitoring”

    South Carolina:

    Electronic geographical location monitoring

    Offenders who violate terms of community supervision

    Used as additional punitive sanction

    Punitive Nature of Policies


    Evaluation of policies
    Evaluation of Policies and (Inconsistent) Evidence

    • Data collection required to evaluate sex offender electronic monitoring legislation

      • Illinois and Kansas: statistical information on numbers of offenders required to register who are subject to electronic monitoring

      • Indiana: mandates reports on cost and implementation issues of GPS monitoring, including feasibility of recovering expense of GPS from offenders


    Reliance on offender fees

    Offenders must pay for monitoring and (Inconsistent) Evidence

    Or a portion of fees

    Georgia, Michigan, Oklahoma, Tennessee…

    Exceptions mentioned

    Louisiana and Alaska

    Unanticipated Consequences

    Realistic

    Workload

    Reliance on Offender Fees


    Child abusers
    Child Abusers and (Inconsistent) Evidence

    • Victim age

      • Specific vs. General

        • “crimes against children under age 14”

        • “particularly those against children”

    • Mandatory terms

      • Mandatory sentence length

      • Mandatory conditions


    Child abusers1
    Child Abusers and (Inconsistent) Evidence

    • Georgia:

      • Minimum sentence 25-50 years or life

      • Particularly for forcible crimes against children under age 14

    • Florida:

      • sex crimes

      • particularly those against children

      • upon release and for the rest of their life be subject to GPS

    • Wisconsin:

      • lifetime GPS tracking

      • probation for committing a serious child sex offense


    Repeat offenders
    Repeat Offenders and (Inconsistent) Evidence

    • Severe sentences for repeat offenders

      • Kansas

        • First-time offenders: minimum 25 year sentence without parole

        • Second-time offenders: minimum 40 year sentence without parole

        • Third-time offenders: life without parole

      • Michigan and Iowa

        • Second-time offenders: life without parole

      • South Carolina

        • Second-time offenders: death penalty for sex crimes against a child less than 11 years of age


    Legislation and electronic monitoring
    Legislation and Electronic Monitoring and (Inconsistent) Evidence

    • The use of GPS to monitor sex offenders represents perhaps the most comprehensive form of legislation that has been passed


    Legislation and em unanticipated consequences

    EM of sex offenders is recent legislative concern and (Inconsistent) Evidence

    Policymaking community blurring issues of electronic monitoring and sex offenders

    The use of these policies to control sex offenders continues to increase despite the lack of empirical research supporting such growth

    One more Tool (not the only tool)

    Legislation and EM: Unanticipated Consequences


    Legislation and electronic monitoring1
    Legislation and Electronic Monitoring and (Inconsistent) Evidence

    • Electronic monitoring of sex offenders result of:

      • Growing political and public concern about sex offenders

      • Technological shifts

      • Evolving template of state sex offender laws


    Expectations of community corrections

    Rehabilitate and punish offenders and (Inconsistent) Evidence

    Free up jail and prison space

    Reduce Cost

    Ensure offender compliance through

    Treatment

    Enforcement

    Surveillance

    Expectations are difficult to fulfill

    EM is not a program, but a tool

    EM contributes to information gathering

    Information about the offender

    EM does not reduce the human component

    Expectations of Community Corrections


    Where s the evidence
    Where’s the Evidence? and (Inconsistent) Evidence

    • Does electronic monitoring work?

    • Does electronic monitoring reduce recidivism?

    • Does electronic monitoring improve case management?

    • How do we know?


    Where s the evidence cont
    Where’s the Evidence? and (Inconsistent) Evidence[cont.]

    • Little research - weak methodologies

    • Mixed results

      • Better for some populations

      • Differences across types of offenders

    • What is purpose of electronic monitoring?

      • Punishment?

      • Accountability?

      • Behavior change?


    Where s the evidence cont1
    Where’s the Evidence? and (Inconsistent) Evidence[cont.]

    • Not a FIX

      • Electronic Monitoring does not replace OFFICER

      • ONE Tool

        • Incorporated with other TOOLS

        • Create highly structured CONTAINMENT


    Evidence cont
    Evidence and (Inconsistent) Evidence[cont.]

    • Finn and Muirhead Steves (2002)

      • High-risk male parolees

      • Electronic monitoring showed no impact after four years

      • Sex offenders on electronic monitoring

        • Less likely to return to prison

        • Longer survival in community


    Evidence cont1
    Evidence and (Inconsistent) Evidence[cont.]

    • Bonta, Wallace-Capretta, & Rooney (2000)

      • Electronic Monitoring + Treatment

      • LOWER recidivism for high-risk

      • No effect on lower risk

        • Match offender to interventions

        • Low-risk in high-risk setting

        • More recidivism


    Evidence cont2
    Evidence and (Inconsistent) Evidence[cont.]

    • Padgett, Bales, & Blomberg

      • 75,661 (RF and GPS)

    • Electronic monitoring of offenders in the community may prove an effective public safety alternative to prison


    Evidence cont3

    Technical violation and (Inconsistent) Evidence

    RF = 95.7% less likely

    GPS = 90.2% less likely

    SO = slightly less likely

    Absconding

    RF = 91.2% less likely

    GPS = 90.2% less likely

    SO = 42% less likely

    Revocation for new crime

    RF = 95% less likely

    GPS = 95% less likely

    SO = 44.8% less likely

    Evidence [cont.]


    Gps for violent offenders some concerns
    GPS for Violent Offenders: Some Concerns and (Inconsistent) Evidence

    • Lack of research

    • Workload

    • Net-widening

    • False sense of security

    • Responsiveness to characteristics of violent offending

    • Sanction’s responsiveness to the motivations for offending


    Gps for violent offenders some concerns1
    GPS for Violent Offenders: Some Concerns and (Inconsistent) Evidence

    • Stigma and degree of control

    • Redefining the justice orientation

    • Legal issues

    • Cost of using GPS


    Gps for violent offenders some concerns2
    GPS for Violent Offenders: Some Concerns and (Inconsistent) Evidence

    • Establish purpose of GPS monitoring policies

    • Clearly defined goals make successful implementation more probable

    • Do not over-estimate actual abilities of technology


    Gps for sex offenders some concerns
    GPS for Sex Offenders: Some Concerns and (Inconsistent) Evidence

    • Recognize that policies may have unintended negative consequences and be prepared with appropriate remedies


    Gps for violent offenders some concerns3

    Zero tolerance policies should be avoided and (Inconsistent) Evidence

    Training

    Funding

    Probation and parole officers should expect dramatic workload increases

    Must maintain physical contact and “intense scrutiny”

    Must take all alerts seriously

    GPS for Violent Offenders: Some Concerns


    Gps for violent offenders some concerns4
    GPS for Violent Offenders: Some Concerns and (Inconsistent) Evidence

    • Collaborative effort is required

      • Law Enforcement

      • Jails/Prisons

    • Probation and parole officers are NOT solely responsible for sex offending prevention


    Gps for violent offenders some concerns5
    GPS for Violent Offenders: Some Concerns and (Inconsistent) Evidence

    • More criminological research in this area

      • Research should focus on

        • Sex offenders and strategies to control them

        • Officer and Offender interaction: How do GPS policies affect this interaction?


    Unanticipated consequences of monitoring policies for sex offenders
    Unanticipated Consequences of Monitoring Policies for Sex Offenders

    • False sense of security

    • Sanction stacking

    • Restructured workloads

    • Anomic conditions in the electronic monitoring program

    • Isolation


    Unanticipated consequences of monitoring policies for sex offenders1
    Unanticipated Consequences of Monitoring Policies for Sex Offenders

    • False sense of security

      • EM policies may not be providing direct protection to the community

      • 95% of all sex crimes involving a victim less than 18 years of age involve a known offender


    Unanticipated consequences of monitoring policies for sex offenders2
    Unanticipated Consequences of Monitoring Policies for Sex Offenders

    • Sanction stacking

      • Occurs when probationers and parolees are exposed “to a number of punitive and rehabilitative controls, which often leads to violations and returns to the correctional system”


    Unanticipated consequences of monitoring policies for sex offenders3
    Unanticipated Consequences of Monitoring Policies for Sex Offenders

    • Restructured workloads

      • GPS supervision increases per offender workload by lengthening the enrollment phase for an offender

      • Time spent informing the offender with various operation and technological concerns

      • Time spent fitting, cleaning, replacing, maintaining equipment


    Unanticipated consequences of monitoring policies for sex offenders4
    Unanticipated Consequences of Monitoring Policies for Sex Offenders

    • Anomic conditions in the electronic monitoring program

      • The potential for normlessness in officer caseloads escalates with unrealistic expectations and lack of guidance

      • One problematic offender will make it difficult to supervise other offenders

      • Officer confusion


    Unanticipated consequences of monitoring policies for sex offenders5
    Unanticipated Consequences of Monitoring Policies for Sex Offenders

    • Isolation

      • Potential to push officers further away from face-to-face interaction with offenders


    Brutalization effect
    Brutalization Effect Offenders

    • Offenders may perceive the controlling nature of GPS in negative ways and react aggressively as a result of the sanction


    Implications of current legislation and evidence
    Implications of Current Legislation and Evidence Offenders

    • General vs. Specific Policy

      • States with specific policies may have dramatically increased workloads


    Implications of current legislation and evidence1
    Implications of Current Legislation and Evidence Offenders

    • Sentence Integration

      • Officers will need to expand their abilities to ensure that various types of sentences are administered simultaneously or consecutively


    Implications of current legislation and evidence2
    Implications of Current Legislation and Evidence Offenders

    • Risk Assessment

      • Officers will need to be effectively trained to determine risk


    Implications of current legislation and evidence3
    Implications of Current Legislation and Evidence Offenders

    • Punitive Nature of the Policies

      • Probation is generally seen as rehabilitative and treatment oriented

      • GPS may be most punitive form of probation


    Implications of current legislation and evidence4
    Implications of Current Legislation and Evidence Offenders

    • Evaluation of Policies

      • Officers must be trained to gather appropriate data that will effectively assess the utility of policies

      • Empowerment approach to evaluate policies


    Implications of current legislation and evidence5
    Implications of Current Legislation and Evidence Offenders

    • Reliance on Offender Fees

      • Officers need to make sure offenders are paying for the monitoring

      • Officer will need to work with offenders to make sure they are paying bills

      • Officers must recognize that fees alone will not be enough to pay for GPS


    Implications of current legislation and evidence6
    Implications of Current Legislation and Evidence Offenders

    • Breadth of Offenders

      • Officers will need to be able to deal with a variety of offenders

        • Child perpetrators

        • Young offenders

        • Repeat offenders


    Implications of current legislation and evidence7
    Implications of Current Legislation and Evidence Offenders

    • Implied Causality

      • Narrowly defining cause of sexual abuse may place individuals at risk and be an ineffective use of resources

        • Laws: sex offending is caused by opportunity and availability

        • Research: histories of violence and other factors contribute to sex offenders’ motivations


    Implications current legislation and evidence
    Implications Current Legislation and Evidence Offenders

    • Consider workload

      • Repairs and malfunctions

      • Responding to alerts

    • Consider liability

      • Active GPS

      • Constant information

      • Must process information


    Implications current legislation and evidence1
    Implications Current Legislation and Evidence Offenders

    • Consider offender type

      • Location tracking = high-risk sex offender

      • Curfew monitoring = lower-risk offenders


    Implications current legislation and evidence2
    Implications Current Legislation and Evidence Offenders

    • Improve performance

      • Short-term management

      • Treatment completion

    • No behavior change

      • Lack long-term

      • Lack cognitive-behavioral adjustment


    Implications current legislation and evidence3
    Implications Current Legislation and Evidence Offenders

    • Integrate TOOLS

      • Not a panacea

      • Highly structured = external control

        • Containment of offender’s life

      • Overall strategy of ACCOUNTABILITY

    • Legislation

      • Mandating active GPS


    Recommendations for probation and parole officers
    Recommendations for Probation and Parole Officers Offenders

    • Must recognize the diverse nature of offenders

      • Each type of offender poses varying levels of risk and different criminogenic needs

      • Treatment and interventions must be individualized


    Recommendations for probation and parole officers1
    Recommendations for Probation and Parole Officers Offenders

    • Must be adequately trained to use electronic monitoring strategies to supervise offenders


    Recommendations for probation and parole officers2
    Recommendations for Probation and Parole Officers Offenders

    • Must be a part of a supportive environment that will help overcome the consequences of isolation

    • Must pay attention to potential for burnout


    Recommendations for probation and parole officers3
    Recommendations for Probation and Parole Officers Offenders

    • Must work with researchers to validate that response strategies are evidence based

    • Need to utilize strategies that are Proven effective

    • Must have clear expectations for the technology


    Contact information

    Matthew DeMichele Offenders

    American Probation and Parole Association

    (859) 244-8123

    mdemichele@csg.org

    Brian Payne

    Old Dominion University

    bpayne@odu.edu

    Deeanna Button

    Old Dominion University

    dbutton@yahoo.com

    Contact Information


    ad
  • Login