Electronic Monitoring: The Key to Successful Prisoner Rehabilitation?
Rehabilitation has long been considered a crucial component of the criminal justice system in the United States. However, in recent decades, the idea of rehabilitation has been overshadowed by the belief that nothing works and that incapacitation is the only way to address crime effectively. Despite a decline in crime rates since the early 1990s, recidivism remains a significant issue, with over 80% of released inmates reoffending. This begs the question: how can we reform prisoners and help them reintegrate into society successfully?
One potential solution lies in electronic monitoring. While imprisonment may not be conducive to rehabilitation for most inmates, electronic monitoring offers a unique approach that combines accountability and freedom. By utilizing technology, we can provide constant reminders and positive incentives for former inmates to choose the path of reintegration and law-abiding behavior.
Unlike probation and parole officers who are often burdened by large caseloads, electronic monitoring can provide an uninterrupted flow of reminders and guidance. Through audible alerts, individuals can be prompted to attend important appointments, avoid prohibited areas, and adhere to the conditions of their release. The knowledge that they are being monitored acts as a deterrent, making them less likely to reoffend. Unlike the confines of a prison, electronic monitoring allows individuals to exercise their freedom while still being held accountable.
The potential of technology in reintegration efforts is already being recognized. A Florida study conducted over a six-year period, involving more than 5,000 medium- and high-risk offenders placed on electronic monitoring, showed a 31% reduction in the risk of failure. While electronic monitoring may be intrusive and limiting, it is a necessary trade-off in the pursuit of successful reintegration. It is not a matter of whether the monitored individual is less free compared to those not monitored; rather, it’s whether they are freer than they were in prison. And undoubtedly, they are.
As technology continues to advance, we can expect less stigmatizing and more effective electronic monitoring solutions. For instance, experiments are already underway to explore the use of smartwatches as an alternative to traditional ankle bracelets. Such developments have the potential to be groundbreaking if they ensure accurate and continuous monitoring.
Interestingly, despite the promise that electronic monitoring holds for offenders, there are critics who question its use. Some leftist advocacy groups and even judges have expressed concerns about the intrusive nature of the technology. However, this skepticism is puzzling considering their continued support for rehabilitation through addiction treatment, mental health services, and vocational training, which have not been proven to significantly reduce recidivism rates. Electronic monitoring offers a practical and tangible tool to help ex-offenders turn their lives around and avoid wasting years behind bars.
Critics may argue that the focus should be on reducing the number of incarcerated individuals. While this is a valid perspective, it fails to recognize the purpose of incarceration: protection of the public, deterrence, and punishment. With a majority of state prisoners serving time for serious violent crimes or other serious offenses, decarceration is not a feasible option.
Once offenders are released, electronic monitoring provides the best opportunity for successful reintegration into society while ensuring public safety. After fifty years of grappling with the question of how to effectively reform prisoners, we finally have a solution that works. It is crucial that policymakers and reform advocates recognize the value of electronic monitoring in supporting ex-offenders on their journey to a law-abiding life.
