Punitiveness of electronic monitoring: Perception and experience of an alternative sanction
| Author | Marina Richter,Ueli Hostettler,Barbara Ryser |
| Published date | 01 December 2021 |
| Date | 01 December 2021 |
| DOI | 10.1177/20662203211038489 |
| Subject Matter | Original Articles |
Original Article
European Journal of Probation
2021, Vol. 13(3) 262–281
© The Author(s) 2021
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/20662203211038489
journals.sagepub.com/home/ejp
Punitiveness of electronic
monitoring: Perception and
experience of an alternative
sanction
Marina Richter
School for Social Work, HES-SO Valais/Wallis, University of Applied Sciences Western Switzerland, Switzerland
Barbara Ryser
Institute for Advanced Studies and Media Education, Bern University of Teacher Education, Switzerland
Ueli Hostettler
Institute for Penal Law and Criminology, University of Bern, Switzerland
Abstract
Electronic monitoring (EM) serves as an alternative sanction to incarceration. An im-
portant aspect that remains only scarcely debated in the literature is EM’s punitiveness
and, more specifically, exactly how punitive EM is in comparison to different forms of
incarceration. Responding to this gap, we propose a systematic meta-analysis of relevant
studies that scrutinizes and compares different studies on EM and its punitive effects (or
perceptionsof its degree of punitiveness)in relation to incarceration. Ultimately,there is no
simple and straightforward answer: EM’s level of punitiveness differs with the various
sociodemographic variables of respondents included in the studies and the various
characteristics of the penal system.It is necessary to assess thedegree of punitiveness of EM
to determine the conditions under and terms with whichit should be applied, for example,
as a humane substitute for incarceration or as an additional pain of the penal system.
Keywords
Electronic monitoring, house arrest, alternative sanctions, punitiveness
Corresponding author:
Marina Richter, School for Social Work, HES-SO Valais/Wallis, Route de la Plaine 2, CH-3970 Siders,
Switzerland.
Email: marina.richter@hevs.ch
Introduction
Debates about alternative and new forms of sanctioning and surveillance are often related
to questions of cost, punitiveness, level of security and preventive and rehabilitative
effects. Such questions of implementation and effect emerge in opposition to ethical
questions regarding the rights of offenders. Assessing the quality of alternative forms of
sanctioning and surveillance is a demanding task, especially for the governments re-
sponsible for the sanction.
These debates apply in particular to electronic monitoring (EM), a technology-based
form of detention. Since EM was introduced in 19 84 in the United States and in the late
1980s in Europe (first in the United Kingdom and Sweden, followed by Denmark in
2005, Finland in 2006 and Norway in 2008) (Killias et al., 2010), researchers have been
interested in EM’s level of punitiveness compared to other forms of detention.Situating
ourselves within this discussion, we conducted a meta-analysis of research in different
countries to determine the degree of punitiveness of EM. This article makes an im-
portant contribution to understanding EM by revealing the degree of punitiveness of
EM.
An important distinction has to be made regarding whether EM is used instead of
incarceration or as an added restriction, such as a condition for parole (Kilgore, 2012,
2015), because it has an important effect on the question of its punitiveness. We will come
back to this later. Although EM is used to implement different court orders (e.g. re-
straining orders and curfew), its level of punitiveness has thus far mostly been inves-
tigated in the context of house arrest. Accordingly, in this article, ‘EM’always refers to
electronically monitored house arrest.
In the following, we first focus on the relation between EM and punitiveness. Then, we
describe our data collection methods, the resulting data corpus and our strategy of
analysis. Based on these data, we assess the punitiveness of EM in general and then
categorize its pains by translating the pains of imprisonment (Sykes, 1958) to pains of
EM. To present a deeper understanding of the issue, we explore the role demographic
variables play in EM experiences. We review offender perspectives and subsequently
discuss the points of view of related individuals and of the general community. To
conclude, we present our findings, outline the study’s limitations and make suggestions
for future research.
Punitiveness of electronic monitoring
In criminological theory, the punitive aspect of penalty is a central aim of the cor-
rectional system. Referring to Cohen (1994),Matthews (2013:352)defines puni-
tiveness as a stance that ‘involves the infliction of pain, harm and suffering on
individuals in a coercive but impersonal manner by specialist, often legally empowered,
agencies’. Punitiveness is therefore inflicted on individuals subject to the correctional
system by legal enforcement authorities with the intention of causing some form of pain
or deprivation. It therefore involves a sanction that constitutes an excess above the
social norm of freedom of movement and agency,which is experienced by offenders and
Richter et al. 263
To continue reading
Request your trial