Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: November 22, 2024 Fri
Time: 11:40 am
Time: 11:40 am
Results for tagging
7 results foundAuthor: Graham, Hannah Title: Scottish and International Review of the Uses of Electronic Monitoring Summary: This Review provides a bounded overview of Scottish and international evidence and experience of the uses, purposes and impact of electronic monitoring (EM). Electronic monitoring, using radio frequency (RF) technology, currently operates at a number of points in the adult criminal justice system in Scotland, which are reviewed in Section 2. EM is most often used with adults as a stand-alone measure without additional criminal justice social work supervision and support from others. Restriction of Liberty Orders (RLOs) and Home Detention Curfews (HDCs) are the two most commonly used electronic monitoring modalities, making up 53% and 45% respectively of all electronically monitored orders in Scotland (G4S, 2015). In terms of children and young people (aged under 16 years), electronically monitored movement restriction conditions are used in a relatively small proportion of cases of those supervised through Intensive Support and Monitoring Service (ISMS) orders in Scotland. Electronic monitoring is significantly cheaper than the cost of incarceration. The average unit cost for electronic monitoring in Scotland in 2013-2014 was L743 (L1,043.73) (a significant reduction from L1,940 (L2,725.21) in 2011-2012) (Scottish Government, 2015; Scottish Government, 2013b). This figure is based on total expenditure across all forms of electronic monitoring, including as part of a Drug Treatment and Testing Order (DTTO) as well as part of Movement Restriction Conditions (MRCs) imposed with children and young people by the Children's Hearings System. In 2013, the average cost per EM order per day in Scotland was estimated at L10.17 (L14.29) (Scottish Government, 2013a: 7). In terms of order completion, approximately 4 out of 5 of those made subject to EM in Scotland complete their period of monitoring (G4S, 2015). There is some evidence that breach rates are higher for those under longer periods of monitoring, among younger people and among those with more extensive criminal histories. Section 3 of this Review provides a circumscribed overview of a range of purposes and uses of electronic monitoring in different international jurisdictions, including: violent crimes; domestic abuse; sexual crimes; alcohol and drug-related crimes; vehicle theft; with people with prolific offence histories and with people suspected or convicted of terrorism. Two types of offenders are highlighted here, in discussions of the international evidence and experience regarding the uses and impact of global positioning system (GPS) tagging and tracking. In relation to sex offenders, this Review establishes the following: - Despite some emergent positive research findings of the impact of this technology during the period of monitoring, there remains a significant lack of empirical evidence to support the positive impact of GPS-based monitoring of sex offenders in terms of increasing compliance, reducing re-offending and enabling desistance and reintegration; - Where research has shown that GPS-based monitoring of sex offenders has been associated with benefits and positive impact, EM is usually integrated with other surveillance, supervision and risk management, and supports; - Where it is used on a mid- to long-term basis, GPS-based monitoring of sex offenders may be less cost-effective and less easily ethically defensible, in that it can cost more than other electronic monitoring technologies such as RF and 'standard' probation supervision, although it remains cheaper than prison, yet it may not realise significant reductions in re-offending and may have unintended consequences in the lives of monitored people. However, findings on the grounds of fiscal efficiency are mixed; some US studies state that GPS monitoring of sex offenders is cost effective. Additionally, Sections 3 and 4 of this Review of the uses, effectiveness and impact of GPS tagging and tracking with domestic abuse defendants and offenders show that: - There has been growth in the use of GPS tagging and tracking in places like the United States, Spain and Portugal, with both criminal justice and civil - in the form of EM restraining orders - pilots and initiatives specifically designed for perpetrators of domestic abuse. A considerable number of these initiatives use GPS EM at the pre-trial stage, to reduce the use of remand (imprisonment) while ensuring surveillance forms a part of tailored risk management within the granting of bail; - Limited available research from the US suggests that pre-trial GPS monitoring of domestic abuse defendants is more effective, in comparison to RF EM, in reducing violations and promoting compliance; - Professional ideology and institutional orientations affect the use and impact of GPS monitoring technology, with motivational and collaborative approaches yielding different results to punitive approaches; - Bilateral EM is becoming a feature of discussions about victim participation in the EM of domestic abuse offenders, and while victims hold a diversity of positions on this, it seems to attract mostly positive responses. The empirical evidence and criminological literature on GPS-based bilateral EM is limited and relatively new, and it is too early to make strong claims about its impact, and comparisons to RF EM, on compliance, reducing re-offending and enabling desistance after their EM order has concluded. Section 4 of this Review highlights a number of other significant findings regarding impact and effectiveness based on international evidence and experience: - Overall, the electronic monitoring programmes and approaches which are shown to reduce reoffending during and/or after the monitored period are mostly those which include other supervision and supportive factors (e.g., employment and education, social capital) associated with desistance. The effective approaches discussed here have developed on the basis of high levels of integration with supervision and support from Probation Officers and other staff and services. In other words, the more effective programmes and approaches, in Europe in particular, are those where EM is not a stand-alone measure. - The effective approaches discussed here use tailored, and in some cases quite restrictive, eligibility criteria to determine who can participate in EM programmes. This affects how the impact of EM on recidivism, desistance and reintegration should be interpreted. - A significant number of the major empirical studies conducted - mostly in North America and the United Kingdom - in the last fifteen years conclude that the efficacy of EM in reducing re-offending after it has concluded is modest or minimal. Whereas research from other countries - especially Scandinavian countries and some European countries - indicates more extensive effectiveness and positive impact. - There is currently only limited empirical literature available which focuses on the perspectives and lived experiences of monitored people regarding issues of compliance (or non-compliance), legitimacy, and desistance from crime. More research is needed. - Flexibility in the use of EM orders and conditions may foster motivation for monitored people to comply. The capacity to incentivise and reduce curfew hours and days (e.g., curfews from 7 days a week down to 5 days a week) as a form of recognition and reward for a monitored person's formal compliance in the initial stages of an order may positively affect their perceptions of the legitimacy of that order. More research on this is needed. Details: Glasgow: Scottish Centre for Crime and Justice Research, 2015. 137p. Source: Internet Resource: SCCJR REPORT No.8/2015: Accessed August 28, 2015 at: http://www.sccjr.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Scottish-and-International-Review-of-the-Uses-of-Electronic-Monitoring-Graham-and-McIvor-2015.pdf Year: 2015 Country: International URL: http://www.sccjr.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Scottish-and-International-Review-of-the-Uses-of-Electronic-Monitoring-Graham-and-McIvor-2015.pdf Shelf Number: 136612 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationDesistanceElectronic MonitoringGlobal Positioning SystemsOffender SupervisioinTagging |
Author: Orr, David Title: Movement Restriction Conditions (MRCs) and youth justice: Learning from the past, challenges in the present and possibilities for the future Summary: This paper draws on qualitative and quantitative data from a survey of youth justice practitioners' and managers' experience of the implementation and use of movement restriction conditions (MRCs) in Scotland. It aims: - to review briefly some of the international literature pertaining to electronic monitoring (EM); - to provide an historical overview of the policy and legal developments that enabled EM to be introduced through the Children's Hearings System (CHS); and, - to consider some of the learning from practice since 2005 from those who have had responsibility for the implementation of EM arrangements and related packages of support for young people under the age of eighteen. In conclusion, the majority view held by respondents to the questionnaire was that MRCs, combined with intensive support, may help to reduce the frequency and seriousness of a child or young person's offending behaviour in addition to helping them to address some of the underlying difficulties they experience while facilitating the process of change. Details: Glasgow: Centre for Youth and Criminal Justice, University of Strathclyde, 2013. 12p. Source: Internet Resource: Briefing paper, No. 2: Accessed March 10, 2016 at: http://www.cycj.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Briefing-Paper-2-David-Orr.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.cycj.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Briefing-Paper-2-David-Orr.pdf Shelf Number: 138170 Keywords: Alternative to IncarcerationElectronic MonitoringTagging |
Author: Joy, Robin Title: Windham County Electronic Monitoring Program: Process Evaluation Summary: In 2013, the Windham County Sheriff proposed a pilot program to the legislature to "determine if electronically monitored home detention can be utilized for pretrial detention and as a post-adjudication option to reduce Department of Corrections costs, reduce corrections bed space demands, maintain or improve public safety, reduce transportation costs, increase detainee access to services, reduce case resolution time and if the program can be replicated statewide". The Windham County Electronic Monitoring Program (hereafter the EM Program) is the first in the state to provide 24 hour active monitoring of defendants through the use of the Global Positioning System (GPS) and cell tower technology. This process evaluation documents the current practices and procedures of the EM Program. Additionally, we determined if the EM Program was implemented as planned, how it was received by the staff and stakeholders, if there were barriers to program implementation and if so identify the barriers, and documents program improvements. The evaluation captures the strengths and weaknesses of the program and identifies areas where policy or procedure may be enhanced to better serve the goals of the project. Details: Montpelier, VT: Crime Research Group, 2016. 12p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 22, 2016 at: http://www.crgvt.org/uploads/5/2/2/2/52222091/windham_process_evaluation_final_process_evaluation_report_~_july_2016.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://www.crgvt.org/uploads/5/2/2/2/52222091/windham_process_evaluation_final_process_evaluation_report_~_july_2016.pdf Shelf Number: 140416 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Costs of Corrections Electronic Monitoring Home Detention Offender Supervision Recidivism Tagging |
Author: Great Britain. House of Commons. Committee of Public Accounts Title: Offender-monitoring tags Summary: Electronic monitoring of prisoners-known informally as 'tagging'-plays an important role in supporting prisoner rehabilitation in the community. In 2011 the Ministry of Justice launched a programme to develop a new, world-leading tag that would incorporate GPS technology. However, a National Audit Office report found that developing the tags has been beset with problems and cost increases as a result of high-risk approach and weak governance. The Ministry planned to procure parts of the service from four providers, with a fifth provider integrating all the parts but contracts for procurement were signed two years later than planned. G4S has now been appointed to complete the work by mid-2019, a total delay of five years. The programme intended to save between $9 million and $30 million, but instead the Ministry has spent an additional $60 million. The tagging service is expected to cost L470 million between 2017 and 2025. The Committee will ask the Ministry of Justice about its attitude to risk, why it contracted the project in the manner they did and why that went wrong, and what it is doing to assure the success of the tagging programme in the years ahead. Details: London: House of Commons, 2018. 50p. Source: Internet Resource: HC 458:Fifteenth report of Session 2017-19: Accessed February 12, 2018 at: https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmpubacc/458/458.pdf Year: 2018 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmpubacc/458/458.pdf Shelf Number: 149093 Keywords: Electronic MonitoringOffender MonitoringOffender SupervisionTagging |
Author: Howard, Flora Fitzalan Title: The experience of electronic monitoring and implications for practice: A qualitative research synthesis Summary: The aims of the study were to understand the experience of electronic monitoring (EM) in the Criminal Justice System (CJS), and how this sanction can be implemented most effectively to achieve best outcomes, including compliance with legal requirements, rehabilitation and desistance. The findings of six qualitative studies of the experience of EM were synthesised using Thematic Synthesis (Thomas and Harden, 2008). Key findings - Six studies of sufficient quality and focus were included, examining the experience of EM in England, Belgium, New Zealand, Canada and the US. EM was used as an alternative sanction, or as part of an early release scheme (none looked at EM for people on bail). The findings may be limited by the small number of primary studies available, and variations in how EM is used in different countries. - EM appeared to offer a range of potential benefits. These included the opportunity for 'headspace', reflection and to disengage from antisocial aspects of life. Additionally, EM could facilitate access to employment and training opportunities, and allow for relationships and social capital to be developed. - Individuals are not guaranteed these benefits. They appeared to be influenced by the individual's circumstances and their response. For some people, EM could lead to a deterioration of relationships, and act as a barrier to employment opportunities. - The nature of EM and the consequences of non-compliance meant that monitored life could be stressful and pressured for some. Individuals' private lives felt intruded on and people living in the same household could be negatively affected. - For many people, EM offered valued freedom, despite life still feeling controlled. For some, autonomy and self-sufficiency improved, but others appeared to experience a lack of control and choice, and may have become overly reliant on others. - From the perspectives of people that are reflected in the research literature, the advantages of EM usually outweighed the disadvantages, and those sentenced to EM tended to readily accept this, particularly if the alternative was to spend time in prison. - People appeared to comply with EM mainly through fear of punishment for non-compliance. Behaviour change may be maintained while EM was active. However, people felt their reoffending and longer-term outcomes may be less affected by EM, and identified additional critical support needed, for example interventions that helped them to think differently or provided them with necessary risk management skills. - From the perspective of monitored people, and the wider evidence base, people's compliance may potentially be enhanced by making EM feel procedurally just. Compliance with EM and rehabilitative outcomes may also be improved by including structured interventions and support to target criminogenic needs (facilitating changes in thinking and skill development), access to employment, hope, self-efficacy and positive relationships. These may also prevent people's future chances of desistance being diminished. Details: London: HM Prison & Probation Service, 2018. 8p. Source: Internet Resource: Analytical Summary 2018: Accessed July 12, 2018 at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/723218/The_experience_of_electronic_monitoring_and_implications_for_practice__a_qualitative_research_synthesis.pdf Year: 2018 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/723218/The_experience_of_electronic_monitoring_and_implications_for_practice__a_qualitative_research_synthesis.pdf Shelf Number: 150832 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationCommunity SupervisionElectronic MonitoringOffender RehabilitationOffender SupervisionRecidivismTagging |
Author: Boone, Miranda Title: Electronic Monitoring in the Netherlands Summary: This report describes in detail the current use of electronic monitoring (EM) in the Netherlands. The research forms part of an EU-funded comparative research study involving five jurisdictions, namely: Belgium, England and Wales, Germany, the Netherlands and Scotland. The research involved a partnership between academics in five universities: University of Leeds (England and Wales), University of Stirling (Scotland), University of Greifswald (Germany), Free University Bruxelles (Belgium) and Utrecht University (the Netherlands). This comparative research focuses on the potential of electronic monitoring to provide a credible and workable alternative to imprisonment. As such, the empirical findings from the five jurisdictions will fill a significant knowledge gap about the capacity of EM to operate as an alternative to imprisonment and inform on best practices to enhance its effectiveness and ensure its legal, ethical and humane use across Europe. The report is based on observations within the organisations involved in the implementation of EM and 36 interviews with practitioners. The structure of this research report and the way in which headings are organized is a replication of a format adopted consistently across the five country reports. Before describing the results of our own research, we start with a short overview of the history of EM in the Netherlands. Van Gestel (1998) describes how the debate on electronic monitoring started in the Netherlands and how eventually the first pilot was initiated. The first Dutch media publication on the use of electronic monitoring in the United States, where it originated, came in 1987. In this period, the Dutch government was looking for solutions to ease prison overcrowding and cell shortage. Against this background, it was no surprise that the possibility of electronic monitoring was quickly picked up by politicians. In 1988, a working group was installed to explore the potential of electronic house arrest for providing an alternative to imprisonment. This working group came to be known as the 'Schalken Committee' (Shalken Committee, 1988). In its report, the committee suggested that electronic house arrest could be valuable in terms of rehabilitation, provided that it would be combined with an intensive support program and 'meaningful activities' such as schooling or work. It also stated that electronic house arrest could have an economizing effect, with the sidenote that this effect could be reduced by effects of 'net-widening', which means including people in the penal system that otherwise would have been kept out. The committee further advised giving judges the exclusive authority for imposing electronic house arrest in order to prevent arbitrariness. Some other concerns were expressed regarding the intrusiveness of the modality and how continuous control may be interpreted as a sign of distrust towards the monitored person. All in all, the committee did not take a clear position but instead pointed at the importance of a broad debate on the desirability of electronic house arrest. This debate started across a wide range of organizations and culminated in a symposium in 1990. The majority of the persons present were not enthusiastic about the implementation of electronic house arrest either in the context of custody, as an alternative to detention or towards the end of a prison sentence (Van Gestel, 1998). Following this symposium, the advice was formulated to refrain from electronic house arrest while other alternatives were being explored. Two years later, however, a new report was published in which electronic monitoring was again presented as a potential economizing instrument. Eventually, in 1994, a newly formed project group sent a recommendation to the Minister of Justice, in which it advised starting a pilot with electronic house arrest in two forms: in combination with a community service order and as an alternative to the last phase of a prison sentence in the context of detention phasing. This plan was approved and in 1995 a two-year experiment started in the north of the Netherlands. From the start, the probation service has been the responsible organization for the implementation of EM, despite the earlier resistance within the organisation (Van Gestel 1998). In 2000, an experiment started with electronic house arrest as an alternative to remand for juvenile offenders. This experiment took place in the Rotterdam region and 23 youngsters participated, which was a lot less than the expected 48. Terlouw and Kamphorst (2002) evaluated the experiment and concluded that the electronic house arrest decreased the youngster's contact with fellow offenders. Other reported benefits were the increased feeling of responsibility and the benefit of being in a trusted environment. On the other hand, the researchers state that the house arrest placed a heavy burden on the household and was labor intensive for the youth probation services (Terlouw and Kamphorst, 2002). In 2003, facing a pressing cell shortage, the modality of electronic detention or 'home detention' was introduced. Electronic detention could be imposed as a means of executing an unconditional prison sentence of up to 90 days for offenders without a 'security risk' who report themselves to the prison without coercion, so-called self reporters. As opposed to the electronic supervision modalities as described above, the sole objective of electronic detention was to reduce the shortage of prison cells. It was announced in the 2000 Green Paper 'Sanction in perspective' as an alternative for short prison sentences that could annually save the Dutch tax-payer 115 million guilders, but that did not have a rehabilitative function. Between 2003 and 2005, 2145 offenders were placed under electronic detention, of which 1998 successfully finished the detention. Contrary to the rehabilitative forms of electronic monitoring, it was not the Dutch Probation Service that was made responsible for the execution of electronic detention, but the Prison Service of the Department of Justice (DJI). The Inspection for Sentencing Implementation was rather positive about the use of the electronic dentention modality. Despite the fact that the offenders involved usually belonged to the medium risk category of offenders, actual recidivism was relatively low. It concluded in its inspection report that electronic detention was an effective alternative for a short prison sentence. However, the implementation could be improved. The Inspection observed considerable differences between the five regions and noted that, contrary to the regulations, home visits and work inspections were not always made (Inspectie voor de sanctietoepassing, 2007). With respect to the experiences of the detainees, one evaluative study found that those who had been in prison before were much more positive about electronic detention than about imprisonment (Post, Tielemans and Woldringh, 2005). Electronic detention was also heavily criticized. The Council for the Administration of Criminal Justice and the Protection of Juveniles (RSJ) emphasized that home detention should always be combined with some form of support or assistance and that the prisoner should have the opportunity to work. Furthermore, the Council stated that the principal goals of home detention in terms of retribution, deterrence and rehabilitation would have to be made explicit (RSJ, 2007). This point is also emphasized by Van Swaaningen and Uit Beijerse, who are concerned that the main rationale behind any form of electronic monitoring simply tends to be cost reduction (Van Swaaningen and Uit Beijerse, 2013). In June 2010, the Minister of Justice decided to end the practice of electronic detention awaiting new legislation that would codify EM as a principal punishment and as a condition to suspend remand (Van Swaaningen and Uit Beijerse 2013: 181). However, this bill never came into force, because the need for home detention as a substitute for prison declined in the context of a cell surplus and the new State Secretary of Security and Justice was personally a strong opponent of EM. In 2013, the master plan of the Dutch Prison Service for 2013-2018 was published. It describes the intended changes in the prison system aimed at reducing the expenditures of the Prison Service with up to 340 million euros in 2018 (DJI, 2013). Electronic detention is presented as one of the important instruments for realizing these cuts and a new Bill on Electronic Detention was proposed in the same period as the Masterplan DJI. Two modalities are mentioned. The first is the 'backdoor modality' to be applied after half of the prison sentence has been served but before conditional release. The second is the 'front-door modality' which is meant to be a substitution for any prison sentence shorter than six months, unless the possibility for electronic detention is explicitly ruled out in the verdict. It is estimated that the implementation of electronic detention will facilitate the reduction of existing prison capacity by 2033 places. For juvenile offenders, the aim is to increase the imposition of electronic monitoring as an alternative to remand (DJI, 2013). The second proposal caused a wave of criticism. In the political arena the dominant opinion was that EM was a far too mild alternative for detention. Therefore EM was not acceptable as an alternative for short prison sentences. Most Advice Committees that commented on the Bill were positive on EM as an alternative for short prison sentences, but only if it would become an autonomous sentence that could be imposed by the judge (courts). More enthusiasm existed for the 'back door modality', although several concerns were expressed in relation to this modality as well, in particular concerning the replacement of the existing system of detention phasing by electronic detention and the exclusion of certain groups of prisoners of electronic detention as a result of contraindications and conditions that would be required (Boone and Van Hattum 2014; RSJ, 2013). In September 2014, the electronic detention bill was rejected by the Upper House. Only the Labour Party (PVDA) and the People's Party for Freedom and Democracy (VVD) supported the bill, which was not sufficient for a majority in the senate. To the senate, abolishing the existing system of detention phasing was unacceptable and electronic detention did not provide a workable and legally substantiated alternative. There were concerns about the risk of recidivism for prisoners who would not qualify for electronic detention. Also, the fact that the judge would not be involved in the allocation of electronic detention was criticized (Reclassering Nederland, 2014). To summarize, EM in the Netherlands has had a bit of a slow start and has not yet been accepted as an autonomous alternative for a prison sentence in the sentencing stage. It is used, however, as an instrument to supervise the requirements added to several conditional sentences and measures, as will be described in the first section below. Details: Utrecht: Utrecht University, 2016. 108p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 12, 2018 at: http://28uzqb445tcn4c24864ahmel.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/files/2016/06/EMEU-Electronic-monitoring-in-the-Netherlands.pdf Year: 2016 Country: Netherlands URL: http://28uzqb445tcn4c24864ahmel.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/files/2016/06/EMEU-Electronic-monitoring-in-the-Netherlands.pdf Shelf Number: 150836 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationCommunity SupervisionElectronic MonitoringHouse ArrestOffender SupervisionTagging |
Author: Dunkel, Frieder Title: Electronic Monitoring in Germany Summary: The German sanctions system distinguishes between criminal sanctions based on the guilt of the offender, and measures for rehabilitation and security based on the dangerousness of the offender on the other. In Germany, electronic monitoring (EM) is not an independent criminal sanction or measure by these means. Nevertheless, there are several legal bases in the German sanctions system for the use of EM: - As a directive for dangerous offenders in the context of the measure of supervision of conduct ("Fuhrungsaufsicht") (see s. 68b (1) No. 12 Criminal Code) - As a directive in combination with a suspended sentence (s. 56c Criminal Code) - As a directive for offenders who are released early (s. 57, 57a Criminal Code) - As a directive for an accused to avoid pre-trial detention (s. 116 Criminal Procedure Act) - During the execution of prison sentences for preparing release from prison by so-called relaxations of the prison regime ("Vollzugslockerungen", prison leaves) or as an alternative form of the execution of prison sentences for fine defaulters. The legislative competence for prison law is held by the sixteen federal states. Although there are several legal bases for its implementation in federal law the German sanction practice is very reluctant towards EM as an option. First of all, these legal possibilities for the use of EM are highly controversial. Furthermore, the modelprojects, in which EM was used as an alternative to imprisonment, in two federal states have been evaluated rather sceptically, especially in regard to "net-widening effects". While prison overcrowding was a driver for the implementation of EM in some European countries. Prison overcrowding both in the past and currently is not a major issue in Germany. The need for EM became "urgent" with the decision of the European Court of Human Rights (M. vs. Germany, no. 19359/04), which stated that the instrument of preventive detention was a violation of the European Convention on Human Rights, with the consequence that several "dangerous" offenders had to be released from preventive detention. 1.2 Types of electronic monitoring and their popularity Overall, electronic monitoring of offenders in Germany can be divided into two fields of application: The only form of EM that is accepted in all German federal states is so-called electronic location monitoring (Elektronische Aufenthaltsuberwachung, EAU). EAU comes into play as a directive in the context of the measure of supervision of conduct. The purpose of EAU is to minimise the risk that offenders, who have committed serious sexual or violent offences (dangerous offenders), reoffend after their release from prison or from a forensic institution. EAU uses GPS-technology and thus allows the location of the person under EM to be continuously monitored. When the total population is taken into account, the highest rate of EAU-monitored persons can be found in Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania. In other federal states with similar population sizes, like Baden-Wurttemberg and Lower Saxony, the use of EAU is limited to only a small handful of cases. EAU is primarily used with offenders who are released from prison after having served their full sentence. Around 75 per cent are sexual offenders, while the remaining 25% are persons who had been sentenced for violent offences. According to our interview partners, EAU has only once been applied in a case involving a female offender. Overall, notwithstanding the observed variations between the different federal states, it is apparent that the EAU-EM directive is used only in select cases in which the offender poses a significant risk. While the EM-directive, applicable in the context of the measure of supervision of conduct, is the only field of application of EM that is explicitly foreseen as an option in federal law, with fewer than 100 cases nationwide, EAU plays only a peripheral role in German sentencing practice. EAU is not the only manifestation of EM in Germany. In the federal state of Hessen, a pilot project has been underway since the year 2000 involving so-called electronic presence monitoring (Elektronische Prasenzkontrolle, EPK). EAÜ and EPK are vastly different from one another, as shall be discussed in closer detail in the course of this report. Unlike EAU, the use of EPK in this pilot is not limited to one particular field of application (EAÜ: as a directive attached to supervision of conduct). Instead, EPK can be applied in a number of different contexts and thus latches onto a number of different statutory provisions. Specifically, EM can be used as a directive in combination with a suspended sentence (probation support), as a means for avoiding pretrial detention/custodial remands, as a directive in combination with a pardon or as a directive in the context of prison-regime "relaxations" used as means for release preparation. EPK thus primarily serves as a means for keeping people out of detention and imprisonment. In contrast to EAU, the target group that EPK caters to is not restricted to serious violent and sexual offenders who have been released from prison after having served their sentence in full. Instead, EPK focuses on offenders who are on the threshold between custody and probation (or between pre-trial detention and alternative (non-)remand options), and who also show a lack of discipline. The EM-directive is intended to monitor the offender's compliance with any court orders, conditions and directives to which he/she has been subjected, thus supporting him/her in finding and adhering to structured daily routines. This form of EM uses radio frequency technology to monitor whether or not the monitored person is at home. Unlike EAU, EPK does not allow for the location of the offender to be precisely pinpointed at any time. On 3rd April 2013 a total of 83 persons were subject to EPK-EM - 41 in the context of probationary directives, the remaining 42 under directives for avoiding pre-trial detention. From the initiation of the pilot project up until that date, EPK was applied in a total of 1,141 cases (up until 31st March 2015: 1,310). That amounts to an average of roughly 80-90 cases per year. In comparison with the total number of 15,977 probationers in Hessen for the year 2014 the practical significance of this instrument becomes clear (even more clearly in comparison with the total number of about 180,000 probationers in whole of Germany). The supervising authorities have reported a significant reduction in the use of EPK in practice over last two years in particular, with a current caseload of only 48. About two thirds of these cases involved directives made in the context of probation or conditional release, while one third were directives for avoiding pre-trial detention. The law also allows for radio frequency monitoring to be applied as a means of "sentence relaxation" in prisons, especially youth prisons. This alternative has not been met with much approval from prison administrators, and accordingly there have only ever been two such cases Details: Greifswald: University of Greifswald, Germany, 2016. 54p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 12, 2018 at: http://28uzqb445tcn4c24864ahmel.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/files/2016/06/EMEU-Electronic-monitoring-in-Germany.pdf Year: 2016 Country: Germany URL: http://28uzqb445tcn4c24864ahmel.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/files/2016/06/EMEU-Electronic-monitoring-in-Germany.pdf Shelf Number: 150837 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationCommunity SupervisionElectronic MonitoringOffender SupervisionTagging |