Community Surveillance: Balancing Control and Liberty

1. Chapter 21 Surveillance and Control in the Community

2. community surveillance • surveillance is a fast-growing & potentially troublesome aspect of corrections • caveat: personal liberty is precious; it ought not to be jeopardized by inordinate controls over our autonomy.

3. purposes of surveillance aims of surveillance protection of community enables monitoring of treatment programs “enables” offenders to be held in community (rather than prison)

4. surveillance & control techniques drug controls controls electronic controls programmatic controls human surveillance

5. drug controls thorazine used to control violent or aggressive behavior caused by psychiatric problems antabuse causes nausea when combined with alcohol Rx depo-provera ‘chemical castration’ drug that eliminates sexual response in males prozac decreases negative emotions associated with depression

6. electronic controls electronic ‘fence’ establishes a perimeter beyond which a client may not venture without being shocked electronic monitoring eg, home arrest anklets eg. remote video surveillance without telephone lines (Big Brother?) video screen telephones live interview with client ‘face to face’

7. human surveillance use ‘surprise’ visits; appear un-announced increase number of contacts eg. increase randomness of contacts; avoid ‘routine’ broaden location of contacts

8. programmatic controls • The most widely usedtechnique of surveillance & control are the established elements of treatment programs. • drug testing • urine sampling • hair testing • systems of surveillance and control eg, Vermont’s Relapse Prevention Program • trains (sex) offender to look for signs of relapse • incorporates selected individuals in community, who are also taught to look for same signs

9. problems of control violates privacy change in social priorities stress on family disadvantages increased government control

10. politics of surveillance and community protection • Issue has turned normal “conservative” and “liberal” politics upside down! • conservatives normally OPPOSEgovernment intervention into personal affairs. • but, in interest of SOCIAL CONTROL, they favor intervention here. • liberals normally SUPPORT government intervention in interest of social good. • but, in interest of INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY, they oppose intervention here.

11. constraints on surveillance and control constraints technology requires support & maintenance, which may be lacking in correctional systems human responses many correctional professionals & offenders may resist new controls moral & ethical limits broad controls are inconsistent with American views of freedom & liberty. high price to pay for safety.

12. test of ‘acceptable’ controls • criteria for gauging whether surveillance-control techniques are appropriate • Is it truly being used in lieu of prison? • Is it really necessary to control offender, or is it being used to mollify public? • Would less intrusive method suffice? • Are indirect intrusions into lives of innocent members of community being minimized? • Will surveillance-control be reduced if offender shows self-control?