Sexual Assault
Download
Report
Transcript Sexual Assault
Evidence-Based
Electronic Monitoring:
The Legal Landscape
and (Inconsistent)
Evidence
Brian K. Payne, Georgia State University
Deeanna Button, University of Delaware
Matthew DeMichele, American Probation &
Parole Association
Objectives
1.Discuss how laws effecting the use of electronic
monitoring tools have shifted, especially to
incorporate location tracking with GPS.
2.Discuss how these legislative changes have
implications for the way community corrections
officers supervise offenders.
3.Provide information about the effectiveness of
electronic monitoring tools.
Evidence-Based Electronic
Monitoring of Sex Offenders
[cont.]
Technology
Rapidly evolving
Legislation = active GPS
Technology is one more tool
Combined with others
Means to end = structured containment
Not the end
Provides WINDOW into offender’s life
Evidence-Based Electronic
Monitoring of Sex Offenders
[cont.]
Many electronic tools to supervise offenders
Technology
Radio frequency
Location tracking
Computer monitoring and forensics
Crime and GPS data integration
Polygraph
Others
Radio Frequency: Martha
Stewart’s Model
Radio Frequency
Radio Frequency
[cont.]
Home arrest
Curfew monitoring
Judge Love (Albuquerque, NM)
1983
By 1990 in 50 states
Several countries
Repairs
False positives of violations
Radio Frequency
[cont.]
Drive-by units
Random calling
Identity verification
Slow scan photos
Electronic voice analysis
Remote alcohol detection (late 1980s)
Location Tracking
Location Tracking
Late 1990s
Cellular
Technology
24 Satellites
U.S. Department
of Defense
[cont.]
Location Tracking
Active and Passive
Exclusion Zones
Workload Differences
Liability
Legislation
[cont.]
Benefits of Using GPS
Flexibility
Reintegration
Control
Retribution
Benefits of Using GPS
Flexible
Can be applied to different types of
offenders
Sex offenders
Burglars
Domestic violence offenders
Gang members
Benefits of Using GPS
Reintegration
Offenders are able to live at home
Maintain employment
Avoid criminogenic conditions related to
incarceration
Benefits of Using GPS
Control
Capacity to effectively control offenders via:
Inclusion and exclusion zones
Curfews
Data points show offender’s daily movements
Is he/she spending time at McDonald’s (playground)?
Or why is he/she spending so much time at the Mall
(kid’s stores)?
Benefits of Using GPS
Retribution
Deprivation of autonomy
Deprivation of goods and
services
Deprivation of liberty
Deprivation of intimate
relations
Monetary costs
Family effects
Watching others
Bracelet effects
Cost of Using GPS
Seemingly cost effective
GPS: $10 per day
Incarceration: $60 per day
Civil confinement: $110,000 per year
Cost of Using GPS
Incarcerated
populations remain
the same
Community
corrections
populations
continues to grow
GPS is an additional
cost
Cost of Using GPS
Estimated GPS cost
$9,000 a year per sex offender
Actual cost:
Tennessee: $2.5 million a year for 650
offenders
Iowa: $2.4 million a year for 500 offenders
Fees pay for technology
Fees do NOT pay for the workload
Legislation
Political Fears
Stems from media
driven frenzy
Agenda driven
politicians
Frightened and
concerned citizens
Unanticipated Effects
Fails to consider
legislation’s impact on
criminal justice
administrators and
practitioners
Legislation for Effective
Community Corrections Policy
47 states have EM legislation
14 states have legislation describing
GPS for sex offenders
7 states use either active or passive
systems
8 states require the use of active
electronic monitoring
Legislation for Effective
Community Corrections Policy
18 states clearly define use of EM
29 states require offenders to pay at least
a portion of EM fees
17 states regulate the amount of time
offenders spend on EM
11 of these states stipulate time limits for
general EM devices
7 of these states place specific time limits for
GPS supervision
Legislation for Effective
Community Corrections
27 states have specific policies for
monitoring sex offenders
19 states require EM for sex offenders
Only three states mention EM use for
domestic violence offenders
Four states use EM for convicted drug
and alcohol offenders
Legislative Typologies
General vs. Specific
Sentence Integration
Risk Assessment
Punitive
Evaluation
Offender Fees
Child Abuse
Repeat Offenders
General vs. Specific
Policies
General Policies
Lack precise definition of EM expectations
Neglect to mention
Type of offender
Length of time to be monitored
Mandatory technological capabilities
General vs. Specific
Policies
General Policies (examples)
Pennsylvania: Individuals eligible for house
arrest involving EM shall be determined by
administrative staff
Utah: In determining its sentence the
court…may require the defendant to
participate in an EM program
General vs. Specific
Policies
Specific Policies
More specific in policy stipulations
More likely to mention
Type of offender
Length of time to be monitored
Mandatory technological capabilities
General vs. Specific
Policies
Specific Policies
Florida: Requires that offenders who are designated
sexual predators must upon release and for the rest
of their life be subject to GPS
Indiana: Requires a sexually violent predator be
placed on lifetime parole to be monitored via GPS
device. Amends definition of “monitoring devices” to
include those that provide 24 hour information on an
offender’s location, and capable of notifying
appropriate officials of offender’s violation
Sentence Integration
Integrate EM into the offender’s sentence
Kansas, Louisiana, and Maine: Mandatory
prison sentences in addition to required
lifetime electronic monitoring
Michigan: Requires a term of 25 years
without possibility of parole [and] requires
lifetime electronic monitoring…”
Risk Assessment
Risk assessments to determine the
probability of offender recidivism
Provisions of sexually dangerous:
Seriousness of the assault
Age of the victim
Number of prior offenses
Risk Assessment
Review boards used to assess sexual
dangerousness of offender
Louisiana, New Mexico, and Connecticut
Georgia: requires GPS monitoring if Sexual
Offender Registration Review Board deems
and offender “sexually dangerous”
Risk Assessment
EM utilized according to risk
Categorized to one of three levels
Risk of repeat offense
Risk to public safety
Violent predator status
Montana: GPS monitoring must be imposed upon “level 3
sex offenders”
Illinois: requires those convicted of an offense that would
qualify the accused as a sexual predator be subject to EM
Punitive Nature of Policies
Used as Additional
form of long term
punishment
Florida:
Sexual offenders
Upon release and for
the rest of their life
Subjected to GPS
“active electronic
monitoring”
South Carolina:
Electronic
geographical location
monitoring
Offenders who violate
terms of community
supervision
Used as additional
punitive sanction
Evaluation of Policies
Data collection required to evaluate sex
offender electronic monitoring legislation
Illinois and Kansas: statistical information on
numbers of offenders required to register
who are subject to electronic monitoring
Indiana: mandates reports on cost and
implementation issues of GPS monitoring,
including feasibility of recovering expense of
GPS from offenders
Reliance on Offender Fees
Offenders must pay
for monitoring
Or a portion of fees
Georgia, Michigan,
Oklahoma,
Tennessee…
Exceptions
mentioned
Louisiana and Alaska
Unanticipated
Consequences
Realistic
Workload
Child Abusers
Victim age
Specific vs. General
“crimes against children under age 14”
“particularly those against children”
Mandatory terms
Mandatory sentence length
Mandatory conditions
Child Abusers
Georgia:
Minimum sentence 25-50 years or life
Particularly for forcible crimes against children under age
14
Florida:
sex crimes
particularly those against children
upon release and for the rest of their life be subject to GPS
Wisconsin:
lifetime GPS tracking
probation for committing a serious child sex offense
Repeat Offenders
Severe sentences for repeat offenders
Kansas
First-time offenders: minimum 25 year sentence without
parole
Second-time offenders: minimum 40 year sentence without
parole
Third-time offenders: life without parole
Michigan and Iowa
Second-time offenders: life without parole
South Carolina
Second-time offenders: death penalty for sex crimes
against a child less than 11 years of age
Legislation and Electronic
Monitoring
The use of GPS to monitor sex offenders
represents perhaps the most
comprehensive form of legislation that
has been passed
Legislation and EM:
Unanticipated Consequences
EM of sex offenders
is recent legislative
concern
Policymaking
community blurring
issues of electronic
monitoring and sex
offenders
The use of these
policies to control
sex offenders
continues to increase
despite the lack of
empirical research
supporting such
growth
One more Tool (not
the only tool)
Legislation and Electronic
Monitoring
Electronic monitoring of sex offenders
result of:
Growing political and public concern about
sex offenders
Technological shifts
Evolving template of state sex offender laws
Expectations of
Community Corrections
Rehabilitate and punish
offenders
Free up jail and prison
space
Reduce Cost
Ensure offender
compliance through
Treatment
Enforcement
Surveillance
Expectations are difficult
to fulfill
EM is not a program, but
a tool
EM contributes to
information gathering
Information about the
offender
EM does not reduce the
human component
Where’s the Evidence?
Does electronic monitoring work?
Does electronic monitoring reduce recidivism?
Does electronic monitoring improve case
management?
How do we know?
Where’s the Evidence?
[cont.]
Little research - weak methodologies
Mixed results
Better for some populations
Differences across types of offenders
What is purpose of electronic
monitoring?
Punishment?
Accountability?
Behavior change?
Where’s the Evidence?
[cont.]
Not a FIX
Electronic Monitoring does not replace OFFICER
ONE Tool
Incorporated with other TOOLS
Create highly structured CONTAINMENT
Evidence
[cont.]
Finn and Muirhead Steves (2002)
High-risk male parolees
Electronic monitoring showed no impact
after four years
Sex offenders on electronic monitoring
Less likely to return to prison
Longer survival in community
Evidence
[cont.]
Bonta, Wallace-Capretta, & Rooney
(2000)
Electronic Monitoring + Treatment
LOWER recidivism for high-risk
No effect on lower risk
Match offender to interventions
Low-risk in high-risk setting
More recidivism
Evidence
[cont.]
Padgett, Bales, & Blomberg
75,661 (RF and GPS)
Electronic monitoring of offenders in the
community may prove an effective public
safety alternative to prison
Evidence
[cont.]
Technical violation
RF = 95.7% less
likely
GPS = 90.2% less
likely
SO = slightly less
likely
Absconding
RF = 91.2% less
likely
GPS = 90.2% less
likely
SO = 42% less likely
Revocation for new
crime
RF = 95% less
likely
GPS = 95% less
likely
SO = 44.8% less
likely
GPS for Violent Offenders:
Some Concerns
Lack of research
Workload
Net-widening
False sense of security
Responsiveness to characteristics of
violent offending
Sanction’s responsiveness to the
motivations for offending
GPS for Violent Offenders:
Some Concerns
Stigma and degree of control
Redefining the justice orientation
Legal issues
Cost of using GPS
GPS for Violent Offenders:
Some Concerns
Establish purpose of GPS monitoring
policies
Clearly defined goals make successful
implementation more probable
Do not over-estimate actual abilities of
technology
GPS for Sex Offenders:
Some Concerns
Recognize that policies
may have unintended
negative
consequences and be
prepared with
appropriate remedies
GPS for Violent Offenders:
Some Concerns
Zero tolerance
policies should be
avoided
Training
Funding
Probation and parole
officers should
expect dramatic
workload increases
Must maintain
physical contact and
“intense scrutiny”
Must take all alerts
seriously
GPS for Violent Offenders:
Some Concerns
Collaborative effort is required
Law Enforcement
Jails/Prisons
Probation and parole officers are NOT
solely responsible for sex offending
prevention
GPS for Violent Offenders:
Some Concerns
More criminological research in this area
Research should focus on
Sex offenders and strategies to control them
Officer and Offender interaction: How do GPS
policies affect this interaction?
Unanticipated Consequences of
Monitoring Policies for Sex
Offenders
False sense of security
Sanction stacking
Restructured workloads
Anomic conditions in the electronic monitoring program
Isolation
Unanticipated Consequences of
Monitoring Policies for Sex
Offenders
False sense of security
EM policies may not be providing direct
protection to the community
95% of all sex crimes involving a victim less than
18 years of age involve a known offender
Unanticipated Consequences of
Monitoring Policies for Sex
Offenders
Sanction stacking
Occurs when probationers and parolees are
exposed “to a number of punitive and
rehabilitative controls, which often leads to
violations and returns to the correctional
system”
Unanticipated Consequences of
Monitoring Policies for Sex
Offenders
Restructured workloads
GPS supervision increases per offender
workload by lengthening the enrollment
phase for an offender
Time spent informing the offender with
various operation and technological
concerns
Time spent fitting, cleaning, replacing,
maintaining equipment
Unanticipated Consequences of
Monitoring Policies for Sex
Offenders
Anomic conditions in the electronic
monitoring program
The potential for normlessness in officer
caseloads escalates with unrealistic
expectations and lack of guidance
One problematic offender will make it difficult
to supervise other offenders
Officer confusion
Unanticipated Consequences of
Monitoring Policies for Sex
Offenders
Isolation
Potential to push officers further away from
face-to-face interaction with offenders
Brutalization Effect
Offenders may perceive the controlling
nature of GPS in negative ways and
react aggressively as a result of the
sanction
Implications of Current
Legislation and Evidence
General vs. Specific Policy
States with specific policies may have
dramatically increased workloads
Implications of Current
Legislation and Evidence
Sentence Integration
Officers will need to expand their abilities to
ensure that various types of sentences are
administered simultaneously or
consecutively
Implications of Current
Legislation and Evidence
Risk Assessment
Officers will need to be effectively trained to
determine risk
Implications of Current
Legislation and Evidence
Punitive Nature of the Policies
Probation is generally seen as rehabilitative
and treatment oriented
GPS may be most punitive form of probation
Implications of Current
Legislation and Evidence
Evaluation of Policies
Officers must be trained to gather
appropriate data that will effectively assess
the utility of policies
Empowerment approach to evaluate policies
Implications of Current
Legislation and Evidence
Reliance on Offender Fees
Officers need to make sure offenders are
paying for the monitoring
Officer will need to work with offenders to
make sure they are paying bills
Officers must recognize that fees alone will
not be enough to pay for GPS
Implications of Current
Legislation and Evidence
Breadth of Offenders
Officers will need to be able to deal with a
variety of offenders
Child perpetrators
Young offenders
Repeat offenders
Implications of Current
Legislation and Evidence
Implied Causality
Narrowly defining cause of sexual abuse
may place individuals at risk and be an
ineffective use of resources
Laws: sex offending is caused by opportunity and
availability
Research: histories of violence and other factors
contribute to sex offenders’ motivations
Implications Current
Legislation and Evidence
Consider workload
Repairs and
malfunctions
Responding to alerts
Consider liability
Active GPS
Constant information
Must process
information
Implications Current
Legislation and Evidence
Consider offender type
Location tracking = high-risk sex offender
Curfew monitoring = lower-risk offenders
Implications Current
Legislation and Evidence
Improve performance
Short-term management
Treatment completion
No behavior change
Lack long-term
Lack cognitive-behavioral adjustment
Implications Current
Legislation and Evidence
Integrate TOOLS
Not a panacea
Highly structured = external control
Containment of offender’s life
Overall strategy of ACCOUNTABILITY
Legislation
Mandating active GPS
Recommendations for Probation
and Parole Officers
Must recognize the diverse nature of
offenders
Each type of offender poses varying levels
of risk and different criminogenic needs
Treatment and interventions must be
individualized
Recommendations for Probation
and Parole Officers
Must be adequately trained to use electronic
monitoring strategies to supervise offenders
Recommendations for Probation
and Parole Officers
Must be a part of a supportive environment that
will help overcome the consequences of
isolation
Must pay attention to potential for burnout
Recommendations for Probation
and Parole Officers
Must work with researchers to validate that
response strategies are evidence based
Need to utilize strategies that are Proven
effective
Must have clear expectations for the
technology
Contact Information
Matthew DeMichele
American Probation
and Parole
Association
(859) 244-8123
[email protected]
Brian Payne
Old Dominion
University
[email protected]
Deeanna Button
Old Dominion
University
[email protected]