In crime prevention, I will like to bring up the use of Electronic Monitoring offers an amount of public safety and regulation that is not possible in typical probation supervision, therefore, total control is not possible. Electronic monitoring does not reduce additional offenses. A moderate to high risk offender who is determined to commit a crime, can just cut the ankle monitor off. Even if the alarm is set off, the offender can commit a crime before the probation officer arrives (Bulow, 2014, p.508). Another risk factor is if the battery runs low, and the electronic monitor sends out false alarms to the probation officer, this can cause extra time with unnecessary trips, to check on the offender. According to Bulman (2013) Global positioning
…show more content…
For example, on occasion a monitored offender “vanishes” merely because the offender is in an underground location, or neglects to recharge the battery, or they may sleep under an electric blanket that interrupts the GPS signal. In these incidences, an alert even though no criminal activity was taking place, would be sent by the GPS (Bulman, 2013, para.16). Another interesting fact that has been studied is that those offenders who escaped from electronic monitoring, reoffended with harsher crimes (Di Tella & Schargrodsky, 2013, p.63).
In Bulow (2014) According to Payne and Gainey (2000) it has been argued that Electronic Monitoring fails to protect the public, because high risk offenders are allowed to roam the streets (Bulow, 2014, p. 508). Bulow goes on to state that there is still another problem with high risk offenders who are on electronic monitoring, specifically, the possible risk of harm to the offender. The offender’s victim(s) who wants to address their personal desire for retaliation might be motivated to do so if the offender is out and on an Electronic Monitor. However, if the offender is in prison, this will probably protect the offender from the potential retaliator (Bulow, 2014,
For example, on occasion a monitored offender “vanishes” merely because the offender is in an underground location, or neglects to recharge the battery, or they may sleep under an electric blanket that interrupts the GPS signal. In these incidences, an alert even though no criminal activity was taking place, would be sent by the GPS (Bulman, 2013, para.16). Another interesting fact that has been studied is that those offenders who escaped from electronic monitoring, reoffended with harsher crimes (Di Tella & Schargrodsky, 2013, p.63).
In Bulow (2014) According to Payne and Gainey (2000) it has been argued that Electronic Monitoring fails to protect the public, because high risk offenders are allowed to roam the streets (Bulow, 2014, p. 508). Bulow goes on to state that there is still another problem with high risk offenders who are on electronic monitoring, specifically, the possible risk of harm to the offender. The offender’s victim(s) who wants to address their personal desire for retaliation might be motivated to do so if the offender is out and on an Electronic Monitor. However, if the offender is in prison, this will probably protect the offender from the potential retaliator (Bulow, 2014,