From the crime control perspective, electronic monitoring (EM) is a technological solution that has been widely used in the juvenile justice system. Its goal is to align the overall strategy of community supervision with the hopes of changing the behaviors of offenders, so they do not commit a new crime. For the juvenile offender group, EM is among the most suitable solutions because it has shown to be effective for moderate-risk offenders. Although the effectiveness varies depending on circumstances, putting juveniles under some level of control beyond the prison system is a much more viable solution compared to a more intrusive setting.
Electronic monitors must be used for youthful offenders because it provides the necessary level of structure and rules that the individuals must follow in order to remain in the community. Courts should continue using monitors in order to enforce the rules that juveniles’ parents cannot maintain themselves, such as being at home at a certain time, not associating with certain groups, attending an educational facility, as well as avoiding certain areas (Samuelson Law, 2017). When it comes to the financial perspective, EM can save taxpayers’ money because it is more cost-efficient compared to putting juvenile offenders in jail. With the advancement of technologies, it is possible to use a wide range of trackers depending on the characteristics of each case while the costs of such trackers have decreased along with the price from cellular companies. Therefore, electronic monitoring must continue being used in the juvenile justice system because it is a valuable form of administrative punishment that can modify behaviors while also preventing reoffending.
Suitability of Electronic Monitoring: Due Process Perspective
From the due process perspective, one needs to be careful with using EM devices on low-risk juvenile offenders because of the possibility of overusing. Over-supervising and extensively controlling such a group of offenders, whether through technologies or not, is counterproductive and should be avoided. There is a broad range of available interventions and programs targeted at juvenile offenders that do not imply control but rather teach individuals to be independent, accountable, and learn how to make the right choices for themselves. In addition, for juveniles at lower risk of reoffending, an automated phone system is much more viable because it offers the needed level of freedom and flexibility while also ensuring supervision.
EM use in courts does not consider the fact that some individuals with specific character traits may not respond well to restrictive technologies (Stojkovic, Kalinich, & Klofas, 2015). Besides, there are concerns regarding the suitability of using electronic monitoring in pretrial populations because of the need to consider who specifically gets placed on the device and when they are being taken off. Since such decisions are usually made by judges, the lack of courts’ knowledge about GPS systems and how they can be used is a challenge. Because of this, there are many people who were put on EM by their judges but did not need it. Finally, the suitability of using EM in juvenile offenders is limited by the significant disconnect between the agencies tracking offenders and the court systems authorizing them. Since their procedures and policies do not coincide, there should be precautions put in place for the consequences of agencies’ compliance that limit EM’s effectiveness in the long run.
References
Samuelson Law. (2017). Electronic monitoring of youth in the California juvenile justice system. Web.
Stojkovic, S., Kalinich, D., & Klofas, J. (2015). Criminal justice organizations administration and management (6th ed.). Cengage Learning.