Tagging re-booted! Imagining the potential of victim-oriented electronic monitoring
| DOI | 10.1177/0264550517711278 |
| Date | 01 September 2017 |
| Author | Craig Paterson |
| Published date | 01 September 2017 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Article
Tagging re-booted!
Imagining the
potential of victim-
oriented electronic
monitoring
Craig Paterson
Sheffield Hallam University, UK
Abstract
Electronic monitoring (EM) technologies or ‘tagging’, as the ankle bracelet is known,
have been subject to much experimentation across the criminal justice landscape, yet
there remains a good deal of conjecture concerning the purpose and subsequent
effectiveness of these technologies. This article calls for renewed consideration of both
the potential and pitfalls of radio frequency (RF) and global positioning by satellite
(GPS) EM technologies and provides a victim-oriented perspective on future devel-
opments in EM. The author proposes further interrogation of the penal assumptions
that underpin thinking about the use of EM as well as analysis of recent police
experimentation with the technology. The article concludes with a call for a clear and
strong probation voice in the renewed debates about EM that can guide and support
ethical and effective policy and practice.
Keywords
electronic monitoring, policing, probation, victimization, tagging
Introduction
The potential of electronic monitoring (EM) technologies has been subject to much
scrutiny since their emergence on the criminal justice landscape in the late 1980s.
Corresponding Author:
Craig Paterson, Department of Law and Criminology, Collegiate Crescent Campus, Sheffield Hallam
University, Sheffield, South Yorkshire, S10 2BP, UK.
Email: c.paterson@shu.ac.uk
The Journal of Community and Criminal Justice
Probation Journal
2017, Vol. 64(3) 226–241
ªThe Author(s) 2017
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0264550517711278
journals.sagepub.com/home/prb
Despite this scrutiny, there remains an absence of clarity regarding the purpose(s) of
the technology and what can be achieved when integrating EM into criminal justice
programmes. Unhelpfully, debate about both the potential and pitfalls of EM pro-
grammes has been confused by the multiplicity of aims of diverse stakeholders from
the political, policy-making and commercial arenas. Criminal justice voices have
been comparatively quiet. In England and Wales, a revolving door has swung
between politics, practice and commerce and has promoted the unrealistic
expectation that EM technologies would ultimately build the digital walls of a ‘virtual
prison’ (Paterson, 2006).
These technologically deterministic perspectives disappeared in the wake of
technical failures and high-profile breaches of EM curfew orders that led to a
decrease in public and political support for EM (Paterson, 2007). Enthusiasm for EM
only recently renewed with new policy innovations, affordable GPS technology and
the establishment of a reliable digital infrastructure. The resurgence of interest in EM
in the wake of technological innovations and cost reductions confirms that EM has
too often been understood by criminal justice professionals and academics as a
penal development rather than as a component in a more radical shift in digital
governance. The shift in governance towards ‘digital by default’ (UK Government,
2012) requires renewed debate about both the potential and pitfalls of digital
connectivity for the future shape of crime and its control.
Ever since the 1960s when the Schwitgebel brothers first conceptualized the idea
of electronically monitoring those who had committed criminal offences, the locus of
criminological and criminal justice attention has remained on notions of control and
regulation, and criminal justice policy has remained laden with this offender-
oriented thinking. More recently, innovations in criminal justice have adapted
and extended this conceptual prism to incorporate the potential for EM programmes
to support and protect victims and witnesses of crime. Bilateral (offender and victim)
EM systems provide a structure where criminal justice personnel engage directly
with victims to recognize their right to protection and to validate their concerns
about their safety. This victim-oriented approach seeks to avoid victims perceiving
that their safety concerns have been trivialized by agencies or individuals. Police
and probation officers can play a key role here in consistently promoting the mes-
sage that an individual’s security is their priority whilst the EM system simultaneously
monitors the offender. Evidence of this policy leap is evident across diverse jur-
isdictions (Erez and Ibarra, 2007; Ferreira et al., 2012; Rosell, 2011 Paterson and
Clamp, 2015), no doubt in part driven by the rise of victim voices in policy debates
but also, less visibly, by the continued integration of digital technology into con-
temporary statecraft.
Both victim and practitioner voices had little prominence in initial debates about
the future of EM in England and Wales as policy debates were dominated by
politicians and EM commercial organizations (Paterson, 2007). With an EM digital
infrastructure now embedded across a number of international jurisdictions, the
necessity of a strong probation voice remains higher than ever to balance the
imperatives of ‘digital by default’ politics and commerce and their visions of
the future of social control. Significant critiques of EM have emerged from those
Paterson 227
To continue reading
Request your trial