Electronic monitoring and supervision: A comparative perspective
| Author | Kristel Beyens |
| DOI | 10.1177/2066220317704130 |
| Published date | 01 April 2017 |
| Date | 01 April 2017 |
| Subject Matter | Editorial |
704130EJP0010.1177/2066220317704130European Journal of ProbationBeyens
2017
Editorial
European Journal of Probation
2017, Vol. 9(1) 3 –10
Electronic monitoring and
© The Author(s) 2017
Reprints and permissions:
supervision: A comparative
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
https://doi.org/10.1177/2066220317704130
DOI: 10.1177/2066220317704130
journals.sagepub.com/home/ejp
perspective
Kristel Beyens
Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Research Group Crime & Society (CRiS), Belgium
Abstract
The use of electronic monitoring (EM) has grown rapidly in Europe and elsewhere and is
likely to continue to do so. EM is a technological tool that allows to monitor the location
of individuals via an electronic ankle tag, to track the movements of individuals either in
real time or retrospectively. This special issue of the European Journal of Probation focuses
on the relationship of EM with supervision in four jurisdictions (Belgium, Germany, The
Netherlands and Scotland) and the question whether EM is mainly used as a stand-alone
order or as an integrated measure; that is, alongside other supervisory conditions. It
also contains a contribution with an initial round up of Australian experiences with EM.
Introduction to the special issue
The use of electronic monitoring (EM) has grown rapidly in Europe and elsewhere and
is likely to continue to do so. EM is a technological tool, which allows one to monitor the
location of individuals via an electronic ankle tag, with radio-frequency technology as
the most commonly used technology. Global Positioning System (GPS) technologies
track the movements of individuals either in real time or retrospectively. EM can be used
at all stages of the criminal justice process: pre-trial, as a sentence, as early release from
prison and post-sentence.
Despite EM’s growing significance in the penal landscape empirical research on the
operation of EM remains scarce and most studies or commentaries are based on single
jurisdictions. Nellis et al. (2013) is the first international compilation that provides in-
depth descriptions and analysis of how EM is employed in single jurisdictions enabling
common themes to be drawn together. In addition, cross-jurisdictional surveys have been
undertaken regularly by the Confederation of European Probation (CEP) (Beumer and
Kylstad Øster, 2016; Pinto and Nellis, 2011) and the Council of Europe (Nellis, 2015).
Corresponding author:
Kristel Beyens, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Department of Criminology, Research Group Crime & Society
(CRiS), Pleinlaan 2, 1050 Brussel, Belgium.
Email: Kristel.Beyens@vub.ac.be
4
European Journal of Probation 9(1)
Graham and McIvor’s (2015) international literature review usefully brings together the
available international evidence on EM. Two special issues of journals have focused on
EM from an international and comparative perspective (Erez and Ibarra, 2014; Nellis and
Martinovic, 2016). Neither of these publications aimed to systemically compare the
deployment of EM in the different jurisdictions nor were the contributions based exclu-
sively on empirical research. Nellis and Bungerfeldt (2013) analysed developments in
EM-schemes in England and Wales, and Sweden, pointing to differences in private sec-
tor involvement and the way EM is integrated with probation, both at the institutional
level (structures of service delivery) and at the practical level (individual supervision).
They illustrate that similar ideological and political shifts in two countries not necessar-
ily reconfigure institutional arrangements in the same way, or at the same pace, or with
the same outcomes. Sweden adopted and developed EM under similar circumstances as
England and Wales, at a similar time, as a means of adding control to measures that,
politically, were being deemed too soft. Nonetheless, and contrary to England and Wales,
it never used EM to denigrate probation and opted for an integrated use from the outset.
And while not prioritizing rehabilitative efforts above just deserts, Sweden did not decry
them (Nellis and Bungerfeldt, 2013). This analysis shows that, to really understand its
particular nature, comprehension of how EM is enforced in a given broader political
context and penal–organizational–cultural configuration is of great importance.
Comparative research in five European jurisdictions
This special issue is, amongst others, the result of an international comparative research
project, which was funded by the Criminal Justice Programme of the European
Commission.1 It was carried out in five jurisdictions in Europe (Belgium, England and
Wales, Germany, the Netherlands and Scotland) that deploy EM in different ways and to
varying extents. Its aim was to compare the law, policy and practices in these jurisdic-
tions. The research comprised an extensive literature review alongside observations of
all aspects of the EM process and 191 interviews with policy-makers and practitioners
involved in the provision of EM in the five jurisdictions. The research was carried out
between the autumn of 2014 and early 2016 and was led by Anthea Hucklesby from the
University of Leeds. All full country reports, including a comparative report (Hucklesby
et al., 2016) can be downloaded at the website of...
To continue reading
Request your trial