According to new research, electronic monitoring is one of the most restrictive forms of control. This comes as a mere second to prison and considered as a form of incarceration that occurs outside of its walls.
The coronavirus pandemic has led the judicial system to come up with a new form of monitoring inmates. They have turned more to electronic monitoring, such as those attached to ankles. This confirms the long-standing arguments of activists and advocates alike: electronic monitoring is oppressively burdensome. They see it as subjecting inmates to vague rules and seemingly branding them as people with “disreputable character.”
Ankle Monitor Manufacturers
The same research also tells us that only four ankle monitor manufacturers dominate the industry. They believe that this will drive more people to go back to prison. These profit-seeking companies make millions in dollars annually for a whopping 64% of the contracts included in the study.
This comes from the new and complete compilation of numerous electronic monitoring-related rules and policies, and contracts. All were gathered from public records and requests from 44 states. According to the report, the companies are:
- Attenti
- BI Inc.
- Satellite Tracking of People LLC
- Sentinel Offender Services LLC
Privacy and Security Issues Related to Electric Monitoring
The study also found that location data was kept indefinitely after monitoring, although all within the law. Governments ask family members and employers to act as their agents to report potential violations. This may seem awkward as they will have the task of being in a supporting role as well as supervisory.
It is of utmost importance that inmates who wear the ankle monitors pay one-time and ongoing fees for these monitors. Said amount can be anywhere from $25 up to $8,000 each year. The research sees these as costs that undermine financial security “when it is needed most.”
On the other hand, the Justice Department’s Bureau of Prisons claimed that in 2018, it only costs under $100 per day or over $36,000 per year to detain a federal inmate. California, particularly the Los Angeles and Sacramento counties pay $22 each day. This is due to the fact that these counties impose the highest costs yearly.
Kate Weisburd, associate professor of law at George Washington University, has this to say about this:
“This is a form of incarceration that happens outside of prison walls.” Weisburd was the team lead of a group of 10 law students who analyzed and filed the documents. She added, “It’s always intended to be a positive alternative to incarceration. But based on what we found, it’s doing the opposite. More rules and more surveillance generally leads to higher incarceration.”
Compliance and Violations
The report also tells us that electronic monitoring follows hundreds of government rules that make compliance even more difficult. Add to that the vague rules that make it even harder. An excellent example of this is the Alabama Bureau of Pardons and Parole’s mandate that wearers “shall abandon evil associates and ways.”
According to Weisburd’s study, the results are open to interpretation, making the wearers vulnerable to technical violations of the rules. Wearers may face punishment for infractions that were once ignored and unseen.
Most cases of electronic monitoring, though, have uses in house arrests. This means that wearers must remain in or near their homes for a specific period. Weisburd’s team gathered that many agencies fail to explain clearly the permissions that they require.
Weisburd also proceeded to state that every record they looked into had a negative impact. These undermine people’s capability of surviving outside of prison. It has become more difficult with rules to follow that are vague and broad.
For other stories, check out more here on Owner’s Mag.
