Your probation officer is the person at Corrections who manages your sentence from start to finish. In some cases, the probation officer may approve the tracker to be temporarily removed — for example air travel or admission to hospital.
The offender may have zones where they cannot go — these are called exclusion zones. They may also have zones that they must stay in at certain times — these are called inclusion zones.
The Department will know if the offender goes where they should not go, or if they leave places they should not leave. The movements are recorded by a monitoring system, and a monitoring centre in New Zealand is staffed 24 hours a day, seven days a week to monitor the offenders on GPS and respond to any alerts.
The offender location information gathered from GPS monitoring can be used in evidence of the commission of offences and the Department is able to provide this information to the relevant enforcement agency if requested eg, NZ Police. Some studies have found that the efficacy of EM in reducing reoffending after monitoring has concluded is modest or minimal or, in some cases, non-existent or negative Renzema, In contrast, other studies, especially those from continental Europe and Israel, as well as two large-scale studies from the US state of Florida, indicate a positive impact on reoffending in comparison to other types of penal sanctions, such as imprisonment or community service Padgett and colleagues, ; Bales and colleagues, ; Killias and colleagues, ; Shosham and colleagues, ; Andersen and Telle, ; Henneguelle and colleagues, There is moderately strong consensus within international evidence and experience that EM should, in many but not all cases, be used in tandem with supervision and support to maximise opportunities for rehabilitation and desistance from crime Graham and McIvor, ; Hucklesby and colleagues, Without complementary supervision and support, the impact of EM may be limited to its duration, with only modest short-term benefits when monitoring ends.
The Swedish approach to EM is intentionally characterised by a high level of support and a high level of control, with EM used in combination with other forms of supervision, support and surveillance Wennerberg, ; Bassett, EM in Sweden — as an alternative to imprisonment or in the context of early release for those who are eligible — requires monitored people to work and participate in activities relevant to their rehabilitation and reintegration.
Marklund and Holmberg compared the outcomes of those on EM early release from prison with those of a control group, finding that the former had significantly lower rates of reoffending in the three year period following release. However, these results relate to an early release initiative, of which EM is only one component.
The structure of an EM regime may bring a level of routine and increased responsibility for some monitored people in reintegration processes Graham and McIvor, ; De Vos and Gilbert, As a stand-alone measure, however, EM is unlikely to bring about long-term change.
Electronic monitoring technologies have limitations and there are practical and legal boundaries affecting their use Graham and McIvor, Pragmatic awareness of what EM can and cannot do among practitioners, policy makers and the wider public is fundamentally important. Regardless of technology type, an EM tag cannot stop a restricted behaviour, for example, leaving home during curfew or drinking alcohol, nor can it stop the wearer committing a crime.
While its uses may be diverse, EM is not a panacea or universally appropriate tool in criminal justice. Nonetheless, with judicious use, EM has the capacity to enhance public and judicial confidence in community sentences.
Excellent risk assessment practices, including visiting the property, are imperative to ensuring appropriate decision-making about using electronically monitored home curfews, considering the individual, family or other members of the household and, where appropriate, victims of crime. Assessments are usually done by criminal justice social workers. Risks of criminal and harmful behaviour such as domestic abuse are encompassed in these assessments. Not enough is known about the implications of diversity in uses of EM.
There is no one approach fits all policy Graham and McIvor, EM can also be used in gender-responsive ways or as a feature of gender-responsive service provision. More research is needed in this area. Finally, the prospect of expanding uses of EM carry workload and resource implications for community justice workforces. Introducing GPS EM and using it with specific groups of offenders necessitates commensurate capacity to actively monitor large volumes of data, and alert police and other criminal justice professionals to respond swiftly to violations in high risk cases.
Internationally well-regarded uses of EM in the Netherlands and Nordic countries are well resourced, public service-led approaches which involve probation officers devoting significant amounts of time to supervision and support of each monitored person.
Scotland has the opportunity to advance its use of EM to build on existing simple and relatively stable uses, which can be more creative and innovative Scottish Government, a; Graham and McIvor, Parole officers monitor adult offenders on parole and those participating in certain Department of Correction release programs, such as home confinement.
According to Parole Manager Eric Ellison, the parole board may order electronic monitoring for parolees. Officers choose the appropriate type of monitoring based on assessing an individual ' s risks, needs, and convictions.
Parole officers use GPS monitoring for sex offenders and others that pose a more serious risk to the community. Ellison states that officers may also adjust the type of electronic monitoring or the restrictions imposed to enhance their ability to monitor a person who is not complying with his or her conditions of release.
Officers may switch the type of monitoring or reduce restrictions on a parolee who is complying with his or her conditions of release and succeeding in the community. If the device disconnects, the monitored person may be incarcerated. Electronic monitoring has seen a percent increase in just over a decade.
About , devices are in use, with up to 30, of them attached to immigrants on any given day. States with the most prolific use of electronic monitoring include Florida, Texas, California, Massachusetts, and Michigan. Not only does electronic monitoring impose excessive surveillance on people coming home from prison, but it also hinders their ability to successfully transition back into the community.
Additionally, there is no concrete evidence that electronic monitoring reduces crime rates or recidivism. Source: Government Accountability Office. Electronic monitoring devices typically use active or passive GPS tracking, radio frequency monitoring, secure continuous remote alcohol monitoring, or breathalyzer monitoring. Active GPS tracking uses satellites to triangulate and transmit location information at set intervals.
Passive GPS tracking tracks and stores location information for download at a later time. Radio frequency is used for curfew monitoring. A home monitoring unit detects the monitor within a specific range and sends confirmation back to a monitoring center.
A breathalyzer monitor usually has a camera. All 50 states use some form of electronic monitoring. Sometimes it is used pretrial or during trial, for people who have been arrested but have not been convicted of any crime. It can be used post-conviction, either before or after serving a sentence of incarceration. Every state except New Hampshire uses some form of juvenile electronic monitoring. Even though electronic monitoring is a form of custodial detention, not everyone on it receives credit for time served on the monitor.
0コメント