superior law enforcement technologies trac - ristretti · throughout the u.s., europe, pacific rim...

Elmo-Tech’s TRaCE is a comprehensive inmate tracking system, supporting correctional facility operations

by performing real-time location supervision, tightening inmate control and enhancing the security of

staff members. TRaCE enables the reduction of routine activities, freeing resources to efficiently run

and operate the facility.

TRaCE wirelessly monitors groups or individuals, both inmates and staff members, in various buildings

and their surroundings depicting their location within the facility. Its minimal and flexible installation

requirements and modular RF components make it highly cost effective and an ideal retrofit solution.

Inmate Tracking, Officer Safety, Location Management System

Reliable Inmate Supervision

TRaCE can be installed in various types of indoor or outdoor settings of varying sizes and shapes. The

system’s uniquely designed wireless network bypasses physical obstacles, creating virtual coverage

across facilities. Monitoring resolution can be flexibly configured to accommodate specific needs.

Tracking, Reporting and ControlTR Ca

Wireless infrastructure

Superior Law Enforcement Technologies

Real-time, inmate and staff location tracking

Officer duress, man-down capabilities

Wireless infrastructure

Simple installation in new or existing facilities

TR CaTracking, Reporting and Control

Real-Time Event Notification:

Automatic headcounts

Inmate and officer locations within facility

Identity and location of inmates and staff members

at vicinity of incident

Officer/Staff Safety :

Real-time officer tracking - name and location

Duress and man-down capabilities

Ability to receive real-time update messages anywhere

on-site

TRaCE Features Include:

Effective Inmate ManagementLocation and schedule based inmate tracking

Notification of noncompliance to pre-defined schedule

Proximity alerts between groups or individuals

Ingress/Egress notifications

Escape NotificationsTransmitter removal notification

Immediate notification of escapes

Last known location indication

Data ArchiveIndefinite data storage of all individuals’ movements

Playback mechanism to replay all individuals’

movements

Built in report wizard for event examination

Incorporates interactive map of facility

Interface capabilities with other facilitymanagement & security tools including jailsoftware management, CCTV, door locks etc.

Multi-lingual

Central Monitoring Station (CMS)

Simple, one step installation

Highly durable, waterproof, secured,triple-tamper mechanism

Up to 36 month battery operation

Highly Reliable Inmate Transmitters

Cost effective installation

Internal battery back up forcontinuous operation

Anti-tamper alert messages

High Resolution Wireless Network

Simple, Efficient Operation

Inmate and officer transmitters send essential information over the wireless network, in real-time, to the control center. The

control center automatically processes the information and displays the location of each inmate and staff member within a

geographical map of the facility. Pre-defined incident alerts are immediately and simultaneously distributed to staff pagers,

central monitoring stations and designated remote locations. The inmates’ movements and violations are recorded and data

logs are available for accountability and administrative purposes.

O f f i c e r D u r e s s & S e c u r i t y T o o l s

Officer Duress and Location Transmitter

Real-time tracking

Officer activated duress alarm button

Officer activated lanyard

Man-down notification

Clip-On Pagers for ImmediateOn-Site Notifications

Automatic incoming text messagesreporting on inmates, fellow officersand facility events

Direct communication betweenmonitoring center and officers

An Industry Leader

www.electronicmonitoring.com

Elmo-Tech Ltd. is a global provider of leading presence and location verification technologies, designed

for monitoring individuals in the law enforcement and corrections and security markets. The integration

of Elmo-Tech’s systems in a variety of law enforcement applications is proven to be cost effective and

reliable. The Company’s strategy is to focus on the provision of superior technology solutions whilst

collaborating with prominent local business partners to ensure the optimized distribution and service of

its systems worldwide. Elmo-Tech systems are employed by private operators and government agencies

throughout the U.S., Europe, Pacific Rim and Latin America. Elmo-Tech was established in 1994 as a wholly

owned subsidiary of the London Stock Exchange listed Dmatek (DTK.L.)

International Headquarters:Elmo-Tech Ltd.2 Habarzel St., P.O.Box 13236,Tel Aviv 61131, IsraelTel: 972-3-7671800 Fax: 972-3-7671801E-mail: [email protected]

USA Headquarters:Elmo-Tech Inc.770 N. Church Rd., Suite C,Elmhurst, IL 60126Tel: (630) 832-0271 Toll-Free: 1-800-313-1483E-mail: [email protected]

Complementary Off-Site Monitoring Option

The Group Tracer is a portable real-time group

monitoring system. It is designed to effectively

monitor multiple offenders in corrections

settings that do not accommodate a fixed

installation of monitoring systems, such as

transport to and from the facility or off-site

work crews. The Group Tracer enables safer

outings from correctional facilities requiring

fewer oversight personnel, enhancing officer

safety and their ability to effectively supervise

the group.

TRaCE was developed on the basis of Elmo-Tech’s proven RF monitoring technology, successfully used

worldwide. TRaCE utilizes the same proven set of uniquely designed field units which are used in

Elmo-Tech’s home detention systems: a variety of transmitter models, officers’ electronic keys, and

integrated officers’ call buttons. Full compatibility enables flexible implementation of any correctional

program, which requires continuous monitoring inside or outside the facility, in offender’s place of

residence or work. Additionally, groups of offenders can be monitored on the move by Elmo-Tech’s

Group Tracer.

One Tag Fits All - Full Compatibility with Elmo-Tech’s Monitoring Systems

Developments in the Developments in the United StatesUnited States

Electronic Supervision Electronic Supervision TechnologiesTechnologies

20072007

May 12, 2007May 12, 2007 Developments in the US: 2007Developments in the US: 2007

Developments in the USDevelopments in the US

Use of Tracking TechnologiesUse of Tracking Technologies•• How Much is it UsedHow Much is it Used•• How is it UsedHow is it Used•• Why is it UsedWhy is it Used

ProgramsPrograms


Tracking: How much is it used?Tracking: How much is it used?

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

#Tra

cked US Market

Florida DOCLinear (Florida DO


Use of Tracking TechnologiesUse of Tracking Technologies

Introduced 1997Introduced 1997Average growth 100% per yearAverage growth 100% per year18,000 18,000 –– 20,000 GPS Units YE 200620,000 GPS Units YE 200636,000 36,000 –– 40,000 GPS Units YE 200740,000 GPS Units YE 200755,000 55,000 –– 70,000 by YE 2008 (est.) 70,000 by YE 2008 (est.)

Data Source: Database of EM programs maintained by Peggy Conway Data Source: Database of EM programs maintained by Peggy Conway and and gathered by Telephone interviews, published program information,gathered by Telephone interviews, published program information, and and responses to surveys.responses to surveys.


Interstate Commission for Adult Offender Interstate Commission for Adult Offender Supervision (ICAOS)Supervision (ICAOS)

168% Increase in GPS Use Among 25 States168% Increase in GPS Use Among 25 StatesState 4/2006 4/2007Arizona 0 15

California 352 1100

District of Columbia 100 251

Florida 750 1100

Georgia 200 170

Idaho 60 30

Illinois 120 120

Iowa 5 454

Louisiana 0 100

Maine 0 3

Massachusetts 67 287

Michigan 0 80

Nebraska 6 10

State 4/2006 4/2007Nevada 7 0

New Jersey 30 142

New Mexico 200 400

North Carolina 0 50

North Dakota 6 20

Pennsylvania 10 40

South Carolina 10 30

Tennessee 380 386

Texas 25 1500

Utah 0 25

Virginia 26 50

Wisconsin 30 30

TOTAL 2384 6393


Interstate Commission for Adult Offender Interstate Commission for Adult Offender Supervision (ICAOS) Supervision (ICAOS)

168% Increase in GPS Use Among 25 States168% Increase in GPS Use Among 25 StatesState 4/2006 4/2007Arizona 0 15

California 352 1100District of Columbia 100 251

Florida 750 1100Georgia 200 170

Idaho 60 30

Illinois 120 120

Iowa 5 454Louisiana 0 100

Maine 0 3

Massachusetts 67 287Michigan 0 80

Nebraska 6 10

State 4/2006 4/2007Nevada 7 0

New Jersey 30 142New Mexico 200 400North Carolina 0 50

North Dakota 6 20

Pennsylvania 10 40

South Carolina 10 30

Tennessee 380 386Texas 25 1500Utah 0 25

Virginia 26 50

Wisconsin 30 30

TOTAL 2384 6393

Kansas 120 334


Interstate Commission for Adult Offender Interstate Commission for Adult Offender SupervisionSupervision

172% Increase in GPS Use Among 9 States172% Increase in GPS Use Among 9 StatesState 2006 2007 2008

Arizona 0 15 340

California 352 1100 3000

Florida 750 1100 2700

Illinois 120 120 700

Michigan 0 80 425

Nebraska 6 10 75

North Carolina 0 50 300

South Carolina 10 30 300

Texas 25 1500 1500

TOTAL 1263 4005 9340


State’s Use of Tracking State’s Use of Tracking Technologies (ICOAS)Technologies (ICOAS)

Post PrisonPrison

Alternative Probation Sex off

California All MostSex Offenders, pilot

gang members

Florida 10% 40% 50% > 55%Sex offenders, Violent,

Property, Drug

Iowa Y Y All High risk sex offenders

Massachusetts Y Y Most

Sex offenders, also witness protection, domestic violence

New Jersey Y YMost or All

Released civilly committed,

New Mexico Y Y

Tennessee All All

Texas AllOffense and behavior

– public safety risk


Arizona’s Use of TrackingArizona’s Use of TrackingCivilly Committed Sex offendersCivilly Committed Sex offenders

Since 1999Since 1999Arizona State Hospital Arizona State Hospital –– Dept of Dept of HealthHealth•• Civilly Committed Sex OffendersCivilly Committed Sex Offenders

Mental DisorderMental DisorderLikely to Commit Sexually Violent CrimeLikely to Commit Sexually Violent CrimeLifetime Commitment with AppealsLifetime Commitment with Appeals

•• Started GPS Tracking 1999Started GPS Tracking 1999•• Approx. 125 on GPS Tracking TodayApprox. 125 on GPS Tracking Today

NJ, TX, CA …othersNJ, TX, CA …others


Interstate Commission for Adult Interstate Commission for Adult Offender SupervisionOffender Supervision

Types of TrackingTypes of Tracking•• Active: 8 Active: 8 •• Passive: 4 Passive: 4 •• Both: 22Both: 22

TwoTwo--Piece: 24 Programs, 4 VendorsPiece: 24 Programs, 4 Vendors•• Pro Tech: > 3,500Pro Tech: > 3,500

OneOne--Piece: 4 Programs, 2 Vendors Piece: 4 Programs, 2 Vendors •• STOP: > 1,350 unitsSTOP: > 1,350 units



Staff Adjustment Time

Time to Become Confident in Alert Responses

< 3 Months 3 2

Up to 6 Months 14 14

6 Months - 1 Year 6 4

> 1 Year 3 2



Improves Quality of Supervision?Improves Quality of Supervision?•• Still evaluating: 26Still evaluating: 26•• Yes, Still evaluating: 1Yes, Still evaluating: 1•• Yes: 7Yes: 7

Hire Additional Staff?Hire Additional Staff?•• Yes: 10Yes: 10•• No: 21No: 21


No additional Staff: 21No additional Staff: 21

3 Already have caseloads 1:<253 Already have caseloads 1:<25•• FL (1:25),FL (1:25),•• GA (1:17),GA (1:17),•• IL (1: 15 or 18)IL (1: 15 or 18)

2 Report need for additional staff2 Report need for additional staff•• MN MN •• TNTN

12 Program size < 100 12 Program size < 100



Time for officers adjust to system?Time for officers adjust to system?

Time to become confident in Time to become confident in response to alerts?response to alerts?


Tracking: How is it UsedTracking: How is it UsedTypes of OffendersTypes of Offenders

•• Sex offenders, Sex offenders, •• Domestic violence/stalking; Domestic violence/stalking; •• Gang MembersGang Members•• Violent offenders; Violent offenders; •• Car Thieves Car Thieves •• Child Support Child Support


Tracking: Why is it UsedTracking: Why is it Used

Massachusetts and New JerseyMassachusetts and New Jersey•• Witness ProtectionWitness Protection•• Domestic ViolenceDomestic Violence


IssuesIssues

Officer Caseload SizeOfficer Caseload SizeOfficer WorkloadOfficer Workload


Public, Politics, and EthicsPublic, Politics, and Ethics


Washington StateWashington StateHouse of RepresentativesHouse of Representatives

Office of Program Research HB 1133Office of Program Research HB 1133

The Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police The Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs shall conduct a study on using RFID or Chiefs shall conduct a study on using RFID or other similar technology to electronically monitor other similar technology to electronically monitor sex offenders and shall report its findings to the sex offenders and shall report its findings to the Legislature by December 31, 2007.Legislature by December 31, 2007.

The study must include: An evaluation of the The study must include: An evaluation of the current state of RFID technology, including the current state of RFID technology, including the capabilities and limitations of subcutaneous capabilities and limitations of subcutaneous (under the skin)(under the skin) RFID tags;RFID tags;

11 May 200711 May 2007 CEP/Egmond aan ZeeCEP/Egmond aan Zee 11

Strategies for the evaluation of Strategies for the evaluation of impact of GPS on high risk impact of GPS on high risk

offenders in the USAoffenders in the USA

Marc RenzemaMarc RenzemaKutztown UniversityKutztown University

[email protected]@kutztown.edu


Interesting coincidenceInteresting coincidence

Marc Renzema & Evan MayoMarc Renzema & Evan Mayo--Wilson, Wilson, “Can electronic monitoring reduce crime “Can electronic monitoring reduce crime for for moderate to high risk offendersmoderate to high risk offenders?” J. ?” J. Exp. Crim., July 2005, V1, N2Exp. Crim., July 2005, V1, N2

National Institute of Justice RFP 2/07: National Institute of Justice RFP 2/07: “Evaluating the effectiveness of electronic “Evaluating the effectiveness of electronic monitoring for monitoring for moderate to highmoderate to high--risk risk offendersoffenders under supervision”under supervision”


Inclusion Inclusion criteriacriteria

Allowed Allowed characteristicscharacteristics

Comparison Comparison groupsgroups

Probation, Probation, parole, ISP, parole, ISP, prison, otherprison, other

Group Group assignmentassignment

Random, Random, matching, matching, historicalhistorical

Outcome Outcome measuresmeasures

Incarceration, Incarceration, arrest, arrest, conviction, conviction, moremore


Chronic problems Chronic problems in the “good” studiesin the “good” studies

Lack of treatment integrityLack of treatment integrity

Failed randomizationFailed randomization•• Other selection issuesOther selection issues•• Comparing those who received EM to Comparing those who received EM to

those “left behind”those “left behind”

Different periods at riskDifferent periods at risk


More problemsMore problems

Failure to delineate experimental and Failure to delineate experimental and control conditionscontrol conditions

Treatment group contaminationTreatment group contamination•• Florida DOCFlorida DOC


10 Years of EM Research USA10 Years of EM Research USA

1997: $474K domestic violence EM; 1997: $474K domestic violence EM; $50K technology development$50K technology development1998: feasibility study in wide1998: feasibility study in wide--area area nonnon--GPS monitoringGPS monitoring1999: “best practices” manual, 1999: “best practices” manual, $108K$108K2006: update of manual, $50K2006: update of manual, $50K2007: $1,000K RFP2007: $1,000K RFP


Significant features of RFPSignificant features of RFP

Does not see EM as a “program”Does not see EM as a “program”

Preference for experimental studiesPreference for experimental studies

Focus on riskier offendersFocus on riskier offenders

Looks at recidivism during and after Looks at recidivism during and after EMEM


MidMid--March review lessonsMarch review lessons

20% of proposals completely adequate in 20% of proposals completely adequate in generation of compared groupsgeneration of compared groupsMost proposals inadequate in treatment Most proposals inadequate in treatment delineation & costdelineation & cost--benefit analysisbenefit analysis

LESSON #1LESSON #1: Even a million dollars will : Even a million dollars will not buy definitive research in the USAnot buy definitive research in the USA


LessonsLessons

Lesson #2Lesson #2: High costs : High costs Coders and programmersCoders and programmers

Shortage of offenders multiple sitesShortage of offenders multiple sites

Treatment delineation expensiveTreatment delineation expensive

Totals roughly: $250Totals roughly: $250--$1000/subject$1000/subject•• 300 E, 300C = $150300 E, 300C = $150--$600,000$600,000


Lessons: posttest onlyLessons: posttest only


Lessons: static group Lessons: static group (oversimplified)(oversimplified)


Lessons: matchingLessons: matching

..


LessonsLessons

Lesson #3Lesson #3: Even a million dollar : Even a million dollar bribe won’t get you random bribe won’t get you random allocation in the USAallocation in the USA

Lesson #4Lesson #4: even smart people don’t : even smart people don’t always do power analysisalways do power analysis


LessonsLessons

Lesson #5Lesson #5: subjects may be in short : subjects may be in short supplysupply

Not enough carefully classified offendersNot enough carefully classified offendersNot enough equipmentNot enough equipmentParticularly troublesome with domestic Particularly troublesome with domestic violenceviolence

Lesson #6Lesson #6: beware of evaluation of : beware of evaluation of startstart--up programsup programs


LessonsLessons

Lesson #7Lesson #7: Social researchers : Social researchers equipped to evaluate program equipped to evaluate program process and outcomes seem not to process and outcomes seem not to have costhave cost--benefit analysis skills.benefit analysis skills.

They also do not think like geographers or They also do not think like geographers or crimecrime--mappers.mappers.

Lesson #8Lesson #8: Process evaluation has : Process evaluation has not “caught on”not “caught on”


Roads not takenRoads not taken

Can monitoring data be used to Can monitoring data be used to predict recidivism?predict recidivism?Does EM enhance program Does EM enhance program attendance?attendance?Is there a rebound effect?Is there a rebound effect?Is “stepping” down more effective Is “stepping” down more effective than “cold turkey”?than “cold turkey”?


More roads not takenMore roads not taken

Can EM be used to enhance child Can EM be used to enhance child support payments?support payments?Can EM be used to undermine social Can EM be used to undermine social networks that support criminal networks that support criminal behavior?behavior?Does EM have different impact on Does EM have different impact on the mentally retarded and FAS?the mentally retarded and FAS?Does family function affect EM Does family function affect EM outcome?outcome?


Still more roads not takenStill more roads not taken

Can GPS be used to minimize crime Can GPS be used to minimize crime contagion for offenders residing in contagion for offenders residing in highhigh--crime areas?crime areas?Can GPS exclusion zones drawn Can GPS exclusion zones drawn explicitly to reduce target visibility be explicitly to reduce target visibility be more effective than generalized more effective than generalized limits?limits?Of the 4 GPS varieties, what works Of the 4 GPS varieties, what works best with what kinds of offenders?best with what kinds of offenders?


..

Now, finally, maybe Now, finally, maybe EM research is EM research is maturing. The maturing. The price has, however, price has, however, been high.been high.

John E. Couey, FDOC picture

GPS Tracking GPS Tracking ProgramProgram

Status and DevelopmentsStatus and Developments

Presented to:Presented to:

Steve ChapinSteve ChapinChief Executive Officer and PresidentChief Executive Officer and President

Pro Tech MonitoringPro Tech Monitoring

Pro Tech Monitoring, Inc.Pro Tech Monitoring, Inc.

Pro Tech OverviewPro Tech Overview

• Pro Tech is the World’s leading provider of GPS tracking for criminal justice customers

• Purchased by Dmatek in January 2007• Headquarters in Tampa, Florida

71 employees

• Tracked more than 100,000 offenders using GPS since 1998

• Currently have more than 10,000 Pro Tech active and passive GPS devices deployed in 43 states and Canada

Pro Tech Smart SystemPro Tech Smart System

First Active Tracking Device developed in 1998

Believe it or not…still in limited use today

Pro Tech Smart SystemPro Tech Smart System

SMARTSMART®®

RF Curfew Monitoring

SMARTSMART®®

Passive GPS Tracking

SMARTSMART®®

Hybrid GPS Tracking

Multiple Levels of Supervision with a Single Hardware and Software Interface

SMARTSMART®®

Active GPS Tracking

The Total SolutionThe Total Solution

• There is MUCH more to GPS tracking than the size, shape and configuration of the device

Must provide secure and reliable tracking Tracking devices are data collection tools

• Software interface must be responsive and reliableVendor hosted maps versus On-line maps – increased speed and availabilityClient based vs. Browser based – Increased speed and securityLocal servers vs. centralized serversReports – wide variety of on-line and custom reportsIntegrated Case Management capability

• Redundancy is a must• Vendor must be “Fluent” in GPS

Strong technical knowledge of GPS and wireless CommAccess to technical support

Two Piece vs. One Piece GPSTwo Piece vs. One Piece GPS

Tracking Capability

Bigger antenna = better trackingBigger Unit = more difficult to put in hard to track placesGPS turns off when not in motion

Always in motion, always tracking

Spoofing Motion detector provides most effective means of determining when unit is being moved without GPS.Can be scheduled, eliminates false alibi

“layered location technology” is a buzz word. Not as effective as motion detector. Can be masked. Cellular assisted tracking is not universally available and requires connectivity.

Battery Life 48 hours, 50 meter tether while charging <24 hours, limited mobility while charging

Convenience 70 gram Tag. Tracking device may be carried in a hand bag, back pack, etc.

230 gram Tag. Much larger than a conventional tag

Loss Stolen Offenders lose less than 1% of our tracking devices, most is intentional loss

Tag Leave Less than one violation/offender /day With RF link: Same IssueWithout RF Link: May go undetected

Communicationwith subject

Text Messaging with the subject with acknowledgement of receipt

No Communication

Pro Tech Client Enrollment Software (PCE)Pro Tech Client Enrollment Software (PCE)

…from the Vendor’s Perspective• Gov’t Personnel Committed to the GPS program

Recurrent training commitmentFull time users of the system Trust in the equipment

• Established GPS proceduresNot modified RF procedures

• Match the supervision level to suspect• Established consequences for the suspect

Rule violationMistreatment of the equipment

Keys to a Successful GPS ProgramKeys to a Successful GPS Program

Projections from 2005 CEP PresentationProjections from 2005 CEP Presentation

Update from 2005 CEP PresentationUpdate from 2005 CEP Presentation

• GPS is widely accepted as a tool for sex offender management

• Jessica Lunsford Law’s are increasing GPS utilization

• Heightened public awareness• Effectively utilized as an alternative

to incarceration for certain subjectsJail overcrowdingPre Trial

• Offender pay programs on the rise• Crime scene correlation in

increasing becoming a tender requirement

Sex Offender Law WA

OR

CA

NV

ID

MT

WY

UTCO

AZNM

TX

OK

KS

NE

SD

ND

AK

HI

MN

IA

MO

AR

LA

WI

IL

MS

IN

MI

TN

AL GA

FL

SC

NCKY

WVVA

OHPA

NY

ME

VTNH

MACT

NJ

DEMD

Pending Legislation

RINo Legislation

Sex Offender Legislation Requiring GPSSex Offender Legislation Requiring GPS

GPS TrendsGPS Trends

• Price of GPS has come down but is stabilizedLower communication costsHardware cost reductionsEconomies of scale

• More and more GPS is used as part of an integrated monitoring system

• Law makers and the press do not fully understand the capabilities and limitations of GPS

No Heinous crimes committed by an offender while on Pro Tech GPS

• Not just for large agenciesMany Local agencies have successful GPS programs

• Jail diversion and pre-trial programs have been high growth areas

Facts

• Fewer than 1 violation per offender per day in U.S. • Tag gone/curfew violations account for 36% of

violations94% of tag gone/curfew violations clear within 2 minutes

Alert grace period may be established to reduce the number of real time alertsT.G. violations of short duration are not false alerts, they are indicators of subject behavior

• Equipment loss rate is less than 2% (tracking devices) per year based on total utilization

Offenders lose less than 1% of our equipment per yearOfficers lose 2.5% of our equipment per year

Summary• GPS is technology for offender tracking is proven and

has been embraced by many agencies

• Not all GPS products are alike or are suitable for the Corrections Market

Test multiple products – the technology is proven and soundUnderstand the capabilities and limitations

• Take advantage of those that have gone before youMany U.S. agencies will share their operational procedures, experiences, facts and opinions

A U S T R A L I A N I N S T I T U T EO F C R I M I N O L O G Y

t r e n d s&i s s u e s

No. 254Electronic Monitoring in theCriminal Justice SystemMatt Black and Russell G. Smith

in crime and criminal justice

May 2003

ISSN 0817-8542ISBN 0 642 53801 8

Australian Instituteof CriminologyGPO Box 2944Canberra ACT 2601Australia

Tel: 02 6260 9221Fax: 02 6260 9201

For a complete list and the full text of thepapers in the Trends and Issues inCrime and Criminal Justice series, visitthe AIC web site at:

http://www.aic.gov.au

Disclaimer: This research paper does notnecessarily reflect the policy position of theCommonwealth Government.

Adam GraycarDirector

Sometimes criminal justice authorities may wish to control or to monitor thelocation of an individual without resorting to imprisonment. For example,before a criminal trial, police may want to ensure that the defendant stays intown or stays away from the complainant. After conviction, a judge may wishto place limits on an offender’s freedom while not employing a full-timecustodial sanction. Upon release from prison, a parole board may want toimpose restrictions on an offender.

Community-based programs aim to meet these goals through releaseconditions such as reporting to officials or complying with a curfew. Electronicmonitoring is a technological means of enforcing such conditions. Usingtracking systems, criminal justice agencies can monitor an individual’slocation and be alerted to any unauthorised movements. Technology, thus, canbe useful in detention, restriction and surveillance.

However, constant surveillance of people, particularly through the use ofdevices fixed to their body, or even implanted beneath the skin, raises seriouscivil liberty and ethical concerns. This paper reviews developments inelectronic monitoring in criminal justice settings in Australia and identifiesthe arguments for and against their use at a time when technology can providesolutions that previously were impractical.

The technologies of electronic monitoring have their roots in thework of Dr Ralph Schwitzgebel of the Science Committee on

Psychological Experimentation at Harvard University (1968). In1964, he developed a one-kilogram Radio Telemetry Device thatcould be worn by a person. The device transmitted signals to amodified missile-tracking unit up to 400 metres away, whichdetermined the wearer’s location on a screen.

In the early 1980s an American judge, supposedly inspired by aSpiderman comic, persuaded a company to develop a monitoringbracelet suitable for offenders to wear (Rondinelli 1998). In 1983, thefirst order was made requiring an offender who had breachedparole to wear an anklet to monitor his future behaviour (Liverani1998). This use of electronic monitoring devices became commonlyknown as “tagging”.

These developments took place at a time when community-based sanctions were becoming more prevalent and of greatersignificance in reducing prison populations (Richardson 1999).

Against a background of stubbornly high prison populations andrapidly developing technology, governments are now reaching acritical point in the use of electronic monitoring as a means of reducingcosts and improving the effectiveness of corrections. The aggressivemarketing of private companies has been instrumental in the growthof electronic monitoring (Maxfield & Baumer 1990; Liverani 1998).

There are three main rationales behind the use of electronicmonitoring:• Detention

Electronic monitoring can be used to ensure that the individualremains in a designated place. For example, home detentionschemes typically require offenders to be at home duringestablished curfew hours. This was one the first uses of electronic

Australian Institute of Criminology

2

monitoring and remains themost popular (Mukherjee 1999;Crowe 2002).

• RestrictionAlternatively, electronicmonitoring can be used toensure that an individual doesnot enter proscribed areas, orapproach particular people, suchas complainants, potentialvictims or even co-offenders(Marien 2002; The Economist,15 August 2002).

• SurveillanceFinally, electronic monitoringmay be used so that authoritiescan continuously track a person,without actually restricting theirmovements.

Electronic MonitoringTechnologies

There are a number of technologiesavailable that can aid with thedetention, restriction orsurveillance of individuals withinthe criminal justice system. Mostinvolve some kind of device thatis locked onto the subject’s wristor ankle with tamper-proofelements to prevent removal.

Passive SystemsIn these systems, wearers areperiodically contacted bytelephone to ensure that they arewhere they are supposed to be(Crowe 2002). The individual’sidentity may be verified by suchmeans as a password, a devicethat the subject wears or abiometric such as a fingerprint orretinal scan (Mukherjee 1999).Passive systems are only effectivefor detention purposes.

Active SystemsThese systems utilise a deviceworn by the individual thatcontinuously emits a signal(Rondinelli 1998). A correspondingdevice in the person’s home relaysthe signal to a monitoring station.If the wearer strays too far fromhome or breaks the device, theauthorities are alerted.

A variation of this systemutilises mobile equipment that candetect the presence of theindividual’s device. A correctionsofficer can drive past a designatedplace to ensure that the wearer isthere (Mukherjee 1999). Active

systems primarily seek to enforcedetention, although they may beextended to achieve some restrictionand surveillance as well.

Active systems imposerestrictions through the installationof monitoring devices in placeswhere the person is not permittedto go. If the wearer goes into thoseareas, an alert can be sounded andaction taken (The Economist,15 August 2002). Active systemscan also be used to restrict anindividual’s access to other peopleif those people (for example,victims) are given a device thatdetects if the person undersurveillance comes too close. Thesurveillance purpose can beachieved to some degree byplacing monitoring devices at busstops and train stations so that theindividual can be tracked to andfrom work (for example, Johnson1999).

Global Positioning SystemsGlobal Positioning Systems (GPS)consist of three components:satellites, a network of groundstations, and mobile user devices(Aerospace Corporation 1997).Measuring the user’s distancefrom three different satellitesidentifies the user’s location.

GPS is used in militaryoperations, search and rescue,police surveillance and private-sector vehicle tracking (AerospaceCorporation 1997; Dotinga 2003).In the criminal justice system, GPScan be used for detention, restrictionand surveillance purposes. Thetechnology eliminates the need fora device to be installed in thewearer’s home and is currentlybeing used or introduced in anumber of jurisdictions in theUnited States (Jarred 2000).

Detention with GPS is achievedin the same way as with an activesystem. The person is monitoredto ensure curfew hours are kept.Place-restriction is enforcedthrough an alert that is triggered ifthe person goes into prohibitedareas. The person’s proximity toother people can be controlled ifthose people also carry GPSdevices, or are regularly informedof the wearer’s location.Surveillance is achieved by

continuously monitoring theperson’s location.

Miniature tracking devices arealso currently being developedand tested (The Economist,15 August 2002). These can beimplanted beneath the skin andcan track an individual’s locationas well as monitor physiologicalsigns. Although these may beremoved using a simple surgicalprocedure, the potential for civilaction for any adverse consequencesof the surgery or the implant itselfdemands serious considerationbefore any such developmentstake place. Professional ethicalissues also arise for doctorsinvolved in the implantation andremoval procedures. In the UnitedKingdom, there have beenindications that the governmentmay consider the use of surgicallyimplanted devices for convictedpaedophiles (Bright 2002).

An even more sophisticateddevice includes a miniature videocamera that enables officials toobserve the wearer’s location andactivities (Fabelo 2001), whileother devices can measurebiochemical characteristics such asthe wearer’s blood-alcohol level.

Applications

There are three stages at whichelectronic monitoring may beused in the criminal justicesystem: pre-trial, at sentencingand post-prison.

Pre-trialElectronic monitoring may be acondition upon which a defendantis released on bail. Bail conditionsare normally required to be nomore onerous than is necessary toensure that the defendant appearsfor trial and does not commitfurther offences. Punishment, atthis stage, is not relevant (Maxfield& Baumer 1990). Electronicmonitoring should, therefore, beconfined to surveillance unlessrestrictions and detention areabsolutely essential.

Trials of electronic monitoringin the bail process began in 1989in the United Kingdom with 50accused persons being subject tosurveillance (Richardson 1999).


3

Such programs continue to operatein the United Kingdom today(Home Office 2002a). For example,one program allows defendantsaged 12 to 16 to be released withcurfew conditions enforcedthrough electronic monitoring(Nacro Youth Crime 2002).

Electronic monitoring has beenused as a pre-trial requirement inthe United States. In one program,electronic monitoring wasavailable for those who could notafford to pay the required bailamount (Maxfield & Baumer1990). The program used a passivesystem and if the accused had notgone to trial after 90 days, theelectronic monitoring conditionwas lifted as the accused was thenconsidered a low risk.

In Canada, there are nospecific legislative provisions forelectronically monitored bail.However, the courts do use theirgeneral powers to order electronicmonitoring in conjunction withhome detention requirements forsome defendants (R v S (A.R.)2001 SKQB 47).

There are two other possibleapplications similar to pre-trialusage. The first concerns themonitoring of asylum-seekerswhile their applications are beingprocessed. At present most suchapplicants are held in detention(Brennan 2002). The HumanRights Council of Australia (Sidoti2002) has suggested electronicmonitoring as an alternative todetention. The second contextconcerns restraining orders, whicha court may impose to prevent apotential offender fromapproaching a complainant (LegalAid NSW 2003). Electronicmonitoring is not currently usedin either of these settings inAustralia, although modernrestriction and surveillancecapabilities may raise thepossibility for consideration.

Primary SentencingElectronic monitoring can be usedas a primary sentencing option toenforce certain restrictions on theliberty of an offender. For example,home detention schemes generallyuse electronic monitoring to keepthe offender confined to his or herhome during curfew hours.

Unlike pre-trial arrangements,the use of electronic monitoring inthis context entails a sentencingcourt seeking to punish anoffender. This suggests a muchlarger role for detention. Restrictionand surveillance can also be usedto reduce the likelihood of theindividual re-offending, particularlyagainst the original victim.

Electronic monitoring iscurrently available as a primarysentence in the United States andis generally considered to besomewhat more lenient thanprison, but harsher than probation.Figures from the Bureau of JusticeStatistics show that in 1998 therewere 19,677 people on electronicallymonitored probation in the UnitedStates (Bonczar & Glaze 1999).

The Northern Territory’selectronic monitoring program is a“direct alternative to imprisonment”(NT Department of Justice 2002).The court first sentences anoffender to imprisonment andthen, if the offender consents andis assessed as suitable, the termmay be served through monitoredhome detention.

A similar situation exists inNew South Wales, where a homedetention scheme enforced withelectronic monitoring exists(Studerus 1999). However, anoffender can only be consideredfor such an option after beingsentenced to imprisonment(Jarred 2000).

Post-prisonThe post-prison stage mayincorporate electronic monitoringin the early release of a prisonerinto the community. For example,it is used in the United Kingdom“towards the end of a custodialsentence, as a form of transitionfrom prison back into thecommunity” (Home Office 2002b).Similarly in New Zealand, earlyrelease of specified prisoners withelectronic monitoring has beenavailable since 1999 and has beenfound to work well, apart fromminor technological problems andsome negative impacts on familiesand sponsors of offenders subjectto monitoring (Gibbs & King 2003).

In South Australia, electronicmonitoring is available in the final

six months of a prison sentence(Jarred 2000). The prisoner isreleased into the community withan electronic monitoring conditionand will then either progress to atraditional parole order or finishthe sentence. Queensland operatesa similar program. Towards theend of their prison sentences,prisoners may be released tohome detention with electronicmonitoring. They spend three tofour months on the programbefore finishing their sentence onparole (Corrections News 2001).

The Australian LegislativeFramework

Pre-trialOnly Western Australia specificallyprovides for electronic monitoringat the pre-trial stage. The Bail Act1982 (WA) allows home detentionto be imposed on an accusedperson aged over 17, but only by ajudicial officer. A suitability reportmust first be obtained from acorrections officer and then theaccused person may be requiredto wear a device or to permit theinstallation of a device in the placewhere the person is required toremain.

In most jurisdictions,electronic monitoring may bepossible under the generallybroad discretion available whenimposing bail conditions (NacroYouth Crime 2002). For example,section 11(2) of the SouthAustralian Bail Act 1985 allows thebail authority to impose acondition requiring an accusedperson to remain at his or herresidence except for authorisedactivities such as employment.Although there is no specificmention of electronic monitoring,the Supreme Court of SouthAustralia has interpreted this asauthority to order electronicallymonitored bail, at least where theapplicant is willing (R v Blayney[2002] SASC 184).

Primary SentencingTwo Australian jurisdictions havespecific legislative authority forhome detention with electronicmonitoring as a primarysentencing option. The Northern


4

Territory’s Sentencing Act 1995provides that a “court whichsentences an offender to a term ofimprisonment may make an ordersuspending the sentence on theoffender entering into a homedetention order”. Offenders on ahome detention order may berequired to “wear or haveattached a monitoring device”.

In Western Australia, theSentencing Act 1995 provides thata court may impose an intensivesupervision order with a curfewrequirement. This requires theoffender to “submit tosurveillance or monitoring asordered” and to wear a device orhave a device installed in his orher home. Electronic monitoring“may only be imposed for a termof six months or less”.

New South Wales law doesnot specifically authoriseelectronic monitoring, howeverthe Crimes (Sentencing Procedure)Act 1999 (NSW) gives the courtthe power to sentence certainoffenders to home detention with“such conditions as it considersappropriate”. In practice,electronic monitoring is used toenforce these home detentionorders (Keay 2000).

Electronic monitoring mayalso be possible under generalpowers of courts in otherjurisdictions. For example, theTasmanian Sentencing Act 1997provides that an “order of a courtsuspending the whole or a part ofa sentence of imprisonment maybe made subject to suchconditions as the court considersnecessary or expedient.”

Post-prisonLegislation in two jurisdictionscontemplates the use of electronicmonitoring in post-prisonadministration of sentences. InWestern Australia, the SentenceAdministration Act 1995 allowscertain prisoners to be released onhome detention. These offendersmay be required to wear amonitoring device or to have adevice installed in the place wherethey are required to live. Similarly,the Queensland Corrective ServicesAct 2000 provides that offendersreleased on community-basedrelease orders (including parole

and home detention) may berequired to wear a device thatmonitors the offender’s location.

Again, electronic monitoringafter prison release may bepossible under more generalpowers. The New South WalesCrimes (Administration of Sentences)Act 1999 gives the parole boardgeneral powers to impose conditionson home detention and parole.The board in the AustralianCapital Territory has similarpowers under the Rehabilitation ofOffenders (Interim) Act 2001.

Advantages and Disadvantages

There is a range of potentialadvantages associated with theuse of electronic monitoring. Oneof the major advantages is thepossibility of reduced prisonpopulations. This is most likelywhere monitoring is used as analternative to prison, rather thanto enhance existing non-custodialorders. Major cost savings may beachieved through building fewerprisons as well as reducing thecost of administering custodialsentences.

Another suggested advantageis the possibility of improvingrehabilitation and reintegration ofoffenders. Electronic monitoringmay allow more offenders tomaintain employment and contactwith their families. It also avoidsany negative psychological effectsof incarceration, although ofcourse the wearing of a devicecarries its own psychologicalpressures.

A disadvantage of electronicmonitoring is the lack ofincapacitation. Electronicmonitoring does not physicallyrestrain a person and dangerousoffenders are still able to offendbefore authorities can intervene.Also, the less onerous conditionsof home detention with electronicmonitoring may result in somevictims and the public perceivingsome offenders as being dealtwith too leniently.

There have also been concernsthat electronic monitoring as aprimary sentence may actuallyincrease the severity of somesentences (Jarred 2000). For

example, it is possible thatelectronic monitoring may beused where mere suspension orprobation would have been usedpreviously. This may lead to “botha widening of the net of socialcontrol and an unwarrantedescalation of penalties” (Fox 1987).

Ethical, Legal andPractical Issues

The use of electronic monitoringin the criminal justice systemraises a number of ethical, legaland practical issues.

As monitoring is predominantlyapplicable in correctional contexts,so the question of punishmentarises because of the power ofmodern monitoring technologiesto facilitate restriction andsurveillance. Although not apunishment in itself, electronicmonitoring has the potential toenforce restrictions upon aperson’s liberty in connection witha judicially imposed punishmentsuch as home detention.

A view expressed by some isthat home detention is simplyanother way in which to serve aprison term, albeit in a lessrestrictive environment (Keay2000). In New Zealand, forexample, one of the few recentevaluations of electronicallymonitored home detention foundthat detainees were generallyhappy with the system (Gibbs &King 2003), and clearly it avoidsthe “violence, intimidation anddegrading punishment” of someprison experiences (Keay 2000).

Electronic monitoring isundoubtedly an invasivetechnology that involves thephysical attachment of a device to,or in, a person. Moderntechnologies are also psychologicallyinvasive in the sense that theperson’s every move can be tracked,other than when the device isprogrammed to be off. Fox (1987)reported that:

...those who have experiencedthe regime of [electronically]monitored home detentionindicate that it is psychologicallywearing and more onerous interms of self-discipline than theworld of prison.


5

Complex questions arise concerningthe scope and practical applicationof electronic monitoring. Is the useof force acceptable when attachinga device? Should surgicallyimplanted devices ever beappropriate? If the offender issubject to a curfew, shouldauthorities have any right to trackhis or her movements outsidecurfew hours? To what usesshould information about theoffender’s movements be put?One system in the United States,for example, correlates thewearer’s movements with crimereports and alerts authorities if heor she appears to have beenpresent at the scene of a crime(Scheeres 2002).

Industry has played a pivotalrole in the growth of electronicmonitoring (Maxfield & Baumer1990). In some jurisdictions,private sector firms operatesystems and even attach thedevice to the offender (Richardson1999). This raises many of thecontentious issues surroundingthe role of the private sector inprison management, includingaccountability, training andservice quality (Harding 1998).

Financial considerations alsoarise. Some offenders involved inmonitoring programs are requiredto pay a fee towards the cost ofthe equipment and the monitoring(Maxfield & Baumer 1990;Scheeres 2002). This is partiallyjustified by the argument thatoffenders who remain in thecommunity can continue inemployment (if they are able tofind suitable work). The logicalextension is, however, that alloffenders on community-basedprograms should be required tocontribute to correctional costs.This could place hardship onthose with low incomes and highfamily maintenance costs.

Electronic monitoring alsoraises the important legal questionof whether specific legislativeprovisions should be enacted toauthorise such an invasive program.In other words, should the generallegal power to impose conditionsbe interpreted as authority toorder electronic monitoring? Thisis currently the position in some

Australian jurisdictions whereelectronic monitoring is used underthe court’s general power to imposeconditions on an individual. Ifthat power is sufficient to requirea person to wear a monitoringdevice, does it also authorise a courtto compel an individual to submitto a surgically implanted device?

The Corrective ServicesMinisters’ Conference (1996) haspublished guidelines for theimplementation of home detentionand electronic monitoring. It statesthat home detainees should besubject to the minimum level ofsupervision necessary and that theuse of monitoring devices shouldbe unobtrusive and clearlyexplained to offenders. Whilethese standards are a positivemove, there is a strong case for theimplementation of legislation togovern the use of electronicmonitoring. It may be possible forthe Commonwealth to do thisunder its constitutional powersover “telegraphic, telephonic, andother like services” (s. 51(v) of theAustralian Constitution).

Questions also arise about theeffectiveness of electronicmonitoring and whether or not itreduces costs and prisonpopulations. If electronicmonitoring results in increasedbreach rates, then the result mightbe an overall increase in prisonadmissions.

Finally, the question arises asto whether electronic monitoringcan assist with the reintegration ofoffenders into the communitybetter than conventional parole orprison programs. One argument isthat electronic monitoring providesgreat potential for improvedrehabilitation of offenders (Liverani1998). It allows offenders tomaintain employment and enjoycloser relationships with theirfamilies. This environment maybe more conducive to behaviouralchange than a prison setting.Problems can arise, however, ifthere are no constructive activitiesfor home detainees and whereother family members remain athome with the offender forprotracted periods of time (Jarred2000; Gibbs & King 2003). Furtherresearch is needed to assess the

effectiveness of monitoring toreduce recidivism and to enhancerehabilitation.

There appears to be noconsensus as to the ability ofelectronic monitoring to reduceprison numbers. It depends uponwhether monitoring is used toenhance existing community-based sentences or as an alternativeto prison. The Northern Territoryclaimed an almost immediatepositive impact after theintroduction of home detentionwith electronic monitoring(Owston 1990) and reductions ofapproximately 10 to 30 per centwere reported in Sweden (Jarred2000). In the United States,however, electronic monitoringhas generally not reduced prisonovercrowding (Rondinelli 1998).

Electronic monitoring can,however, contribute to substantialcost savings (Richardson 1999).This has been the experience in avariety of jurisdictions includingNew Zealand, New South Wales,the United States and the UnitedKingdom (Maxfield & Baumer1990; Richardson 1999; Jarred2000). Cost savings are obviouslyenhanced even further if a user-pays system is utilised.

Many jurisdictions have alsofound high rates of successfulcompletion of electronicallymonitored sentences. For example,rates of 80 per cent compliance inthe United Kingdom and 90 percent compliance in Sweden havebeen reported (Jarred 2000). InNew Zealand, completion rateswere also high and recidivismrates low (Gibbs & King 2003).However, these figures have notbeen compared with controlgroups, making conclusions lesscertain. At the very least, modernforms of electronic monitoringmake non-compliance easier andquicker to detect.

Conclusion

The use of electronic monitoringhas the potential to improve thecost-effectiveness of correctionalprograms, provide enhancedopportunities for offenderrehabilitation and extend therange of sentences available to the


6

General Editor, Trends and Issues inCrime and Criminal Justice series:Dr Adam Graycar, DirectorAustralian Institute of CriminologyGPO Box 2944Canberra ACT 2601 AustraliaNote: Trends and Issues in Crime andCriminal Justice are refereed papers.

At the time of writing, Matt Blackwas an intern at the Australian

Institute of Criminology.Dr Russell G. Smith is Deputy

Director of Research at the AIC.

courts. Despite the fact thatelectronic monitoring has been inuse for at least two decades, thereare still many legal, ethical andpractical issues to resolve.Although the latest technologiesare more efficient than in the past,their surveillance potential createsconcerns of over-regulation andinfringement of human rights. Anawareness of these developmentsis important, as is the creation ofpolicies to ensure that if suchtechnologies are adopted they areused in the most productive andethical ways. In particular, thenecessity for ensuring informedconsent of those chosen to besubject to monitoring should beguaranteed and effectiveprocedures established to dealwith unethical or illegal practices.

AcknowledgmentsAdditional research for this paper wasconducted by Dr Gregor Urbas and

Mr Peter Marshall, both former ResearchAnalysts at the AIC.

References

Aerospace Corporation 1997, The GlobalPositioning System, The AerospaceCorporation, Los Angeles, http://www.aero.org/publications/GPSPRIMER/GPS-Primer.pdf (viewed4 February 2003).

Bonczar, T. & Glaze, L.E. 1999, CorrectionalPopulations in the United States, 1998,Bureau of Justice Statistics, USDepartment of Justice,Washington DC, http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/cpus98.pdf(viewed 4 February 2003).

Brennan, F. 2002, Australia’s Refugee Policy:Facts, Needs and Limits, Jesuit SocialJustice Centre, Sydney, http://www.ceo.parra.catholic.edu.au/pdf/sjustice/fb_paper.pdf (viewed6 February 2003).

Bright, M. 2002, “Surgical tags plan for sexoffenders”, The Observer, 17 November2002, http://society.guardian.co.uk/children/story/0,1074,842393,00.html(viewed 17 November 2002).

Corrections News 2001, “Electronicmonitoring team meets to gaugeprogress”, Corrections News,14 November, p. 3.

Corrective Services Ministers’ Conference1996, Standard Guidelines for Correctionsin Australia—1996, GovernmentPrinter, Brisbane.

Criminal Lawyers’ Association 1997, “R. vRohan Thomas, bail review (electronicmonitoring)”, Criminal Lawyers’Association Newsletter, vol. 18, no. 5,http://www.criminal lawyers.ca/newslett/18-5/thomas. htm (viewed3 February 2003).

Crowe, A.H. 2002, “Electronic supervision:From decision-making toimplementation”, Corrections Today,vol. 64, no. 5, pp. 130–3.

Dotinga, R. 2003, “Spying on snookums withGPS”, Wired News, 3 January, http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,56537,00.html? tw=wn_ascii(viewed 3 January 2003).

Fabelo, T. 2001, “‘Technocorrections’:Promises and uncertain threats”, Crime& Justice International, March, pp. 11–12, 30–32.

Fox, R.G. 1987, “Dr Schwitzgebel’s machinerevisited: Electronic monitoring ofoffenders”, Australian and New ZealandJournal of Criminology, vol. 20, no. 3,pp. 131–47.

Gibbs, A. & King, D. 2003, “The electronicball and chain? The operation andimpact of home detention withelectronic monitoring in NewZealand”, Australian and New ZealandJournal of Criminology, vol. 36, no. 1,pp. 1–17.

Harding, R. 1998, “Private prisons inAustralia: The second phase”, Trendsand Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice,no. 84, Australian Institute ofCriminology, Canberra.

Home Office 2002a, Guidance for Tagging onBail, Home Office, London, http://www.youth-justice-board.gov.uk/PractitionersPortal/Disposals/ISSPMicrosite/OperationalGuidance/LegislativeGuidance.htm (viewed4 February 2003).

——— 2002b, Probation: Electronic Tagging,Home Office, London, http://www.cjsonline.gov.uk/access/working/homeoffice/probation_tagging.html(viewed 4 February 2003).

Jarred, W. 2000, “Electronic monitoring:Corrective Services Bill 2000”,Legislation Brief 11/00, QueenslandParliamentary Library, Brisbane.

Johnson, T. 1999, “Monitoring device trialhailed a success”, The CorrectiveServices Bulletin, 21 October, p. 6.

Keay, N. 2000, “Home detention: Analternative to prison?” Current Issues inCriminal Justice, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 98–105.

Legal Aid NSW 2003, Apprehended ViolenceOrders, http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lac/lac.nsf/pages/avoapply (viewed5 February 2003).

Liverani, M.R. 1998, “Slow take-up for homedetention: Magistrates cool, manylawyers unaware of the option”, LawSociety Journal, February, pp. 42–8.

Marien, M. 2002, Recent Developments inCriminal Law Legislation in New SouthWales, NSW Attorney-General’sDepartment, Sydney, http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/clrd1.nsf/pages/Recent%20Developments%20Speech (viewed 5 February 2003).

Maxfield, M.G. & Baumer, T.L. 1990, “Homedetention with electronic monitoring:Comparing pre-trial and post-conviction programs”, Crime &Delinquency, vol. 36, no. 4, pp. 521–36.

McConnell, B. 1990, “Tag partners”, NewLaw Journal, vol. 140, p. 792.

Mukherjee, S. 1999, “Intermediate sanctions:Electronic monitoring and housearrest”, in G. Newman (ed.), Global

Report on Crime and Justice, OxfordUniversity Press, New York.

Nacro Youth Crime 2002, “Electronicmonitoring of children remanded onbail or to local authorityaccommodation”, Youth Crime Briefing,June, http://www.nacro. org.uk/data/briefings/nacro-2002060300-ycs.pdf(viewed 4 February 2003).

NT Department of Justice 2002, HomeDetention Program, CorrectionalServices, NT Department of Justice,Darwin, http://www.nt.gov.au/justice/textpages/corrservs/commcorr/homedet.shtml (viewed 3 February2003).

Owston, D. 1990, “Declining NorthernTerritory prison population: How thiswas brought about by effectivecommunity-based programs”, KeepingPeople Out of Prisons, ConferenceProceedings series, no. 11, AustralianInstitute of Criminology, Canberra,http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/proceedings/11/owston.pdf (viewed6 February 2003).

Richardson, R. 1999, “Electronic tagging ofoffenders: Trials in England”, TheHoward Journal, vol. 38, no. 2, pp. 158–72.

Rondinelli, V. 1997, “Tracking humans: Theelectronic bracelet in a modern world”,Criminal Lawyers’ Association Newsletter,August, http://www.criminallawyers.ca/newslett/aug97/rondinelli.htm(viewed 3 February 2003).

Scheeres, J. 2002, “GPS: Keeping cons out ofjail”, Wired News, 15 October, http://www.wired.com/news/privacy/0,1848,55740,00.html (viewed15 October 2002).

Schwitzgebel, R. 1968, “Electronicallymonitored parole”, Prison Journal,vol. 48, no. 2, pp. 34–5.

Sidoti, C. 2002, “Refugee policy: Is there away out of this mess?” paperpresented at Racial Respect Forum,21 February, Canberra.

Studerus, K. 1999, “Home detention: Twoyears on”, Corrective Services Bulletin,no. 454, p. 4.

The Economist 2002, “Something to watchover you”, The Economist, 15 August,http://www.economist.com (viewed30 April 2003).

superior law enforcement technologies trac - ristretti · throughout the u.s., europe, pacific rim...

Documents