Electronic Monitoring: Technology and Managing Offenders 247Who gets the electronic monitor? The use of electronic monitoring is generally
reserved for defendants who are considered higher risk and therefore require a more
structured supervision plan. Cooprider (1992) found that there is a direct correlation
between class of felony and the use of electronic monitoring: on average, the more
serious the felony charge, the more likely electronic monitoring will be imposed as
a condition of release. Conversely, the less serious the felony charge, the less likely
electronic monitoring will be imposed. Also, offenders charged with sex offenses
are much more likely to be placed on bond supervision with electronic monitoring
than any other category of offense. With the exception of sex offenders, on average
all other offense types (property, violent, drug, and public order) were more likely to
be placed on bond supervision without electronic monitoring than with it. Public
order and property defendants are less likely to be electronically monitored than
any other offense category.
Suggestions for Future ResearchMore research needs to be directed toward creating a rehabilitative aspect to
electronic-monitoring programs. Electronic monitors alone are insufficient to en-
force a viable home confinement and rehabilitative program. Rehabilitation pro-
vides the means to remedy the issue of the inmate's loss of a sense of identity. For
example, there needs to be personal involvement with the offender on the part
of a parole or probation officer to ensure that the offender is gainfully employed,
has a balanced domestic life, is not engaging in prohibited behavior such as alco-
hol/drug abuse or violence, and is a functioning and contributing member of a
community. Also, charity work and donations are rehabilitative tools that can brace
electronic monitoring because the offender stays out of trouble and contributes
toward improving the community. This type of rehabilitation develops an inmate's
independence and sense of identity because of the numerous responsibilities and
commitments. A decrease in the amount of offenders each parole/probation officer
is responsible for would achieve the goals of offender accountability and public
protection because of the increase in offender personal attention.
Another suggestion for future research is that electronic monitoring programs
need to provide the context in which the monitoring equipment is to be used. A
clear definition needs to be instituted in terms of how a user enters the program,
who will make the decision, on what the decision will be based, and how long the
person will remain in the program. Unfortunately, there is a public misconception
about electronic-monitoring programs. Educating the public would clear this up
and help foster an understanding of the particular programs. For example, it is
often publicly assumed that electronic monitoring equipment has the capability
to track an offender as he or she moves around a community. Realistically, the
electronic monitoring equipment can only monitor the presence of an individual