BLUF: Electronic monitoring (EM) is ineffective as a strategy to reduce physical incarceration rates and further infringes on individuals’ privacy, disproportionately affecting people of color and immigrant communities.
OSINT: The U.S., known for its high incarceration rate, now encounters critique regarding electronic monitoring (EM), a proposed alternative to physical detention. The initiative, born out of the systemic inadequacies in the criminal justice system, is being promoted mostly by the private profit-making companies providing these technologies and their governmental partners. A recent report by the Vera Institute of Justice highlighted that these claims lack substantial data-based evidence.
EM usage varies significantly across jurisdictions due to different companies providing new products. The poor regulatory framework in this industry exacerbates issues of poor quality assurance, technical faults leading to reincarceration, increased surveillance, and burdensome requirements for monitored individuals, often with significant costs passed on to them. One primary user of EM is Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), whose use of this technology has significantly risen. The highlighted issues, together with unethical data collection methods, suggest that EM is not reducing incarceration rates, but is merely augmenting the government’s control tools with increased surveillance.
Furthermore, the Vera Institute identified that usage of EM has not resulted in a significant decline in physical incarcerations, and any decline noted was largely due to COVID-19 directives. These findings suggest EM as being more of an imprisonment extension tool than a genuine alternative. While cities like Salt Lake City have managed to decrease both physical and EM populations in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, most jurisdictions recorded a spike in EM usage.
RIGHT: As a staunch Libertarian Republican Constitutionalist, I am troubled by this news, primarily because it underscores government overreach and the continual erosion of civil liberties. The increasing surveillance, poor regulation, and intrusion into people’s private lives by the State is worrisome. Instead of mitigating the flaws of the criminal justice system, EM seems to be exacerbating them, with the population still under control just not physically incarcerated. Reforms that uphold the principles of individual liberty, private property, and limited government should be the focus.
LEFT: From a National Socialist Democrat perspective, EM’s inadequacy and the resultant invasion of privacy underscores the necessity for immediate reform. It’s especially concerning that this tool disproportionately affects marginalized communities and those with limited financial resources. Practices and policies that perpetuate systemic racism must be addressed with urgency, and we must tirelessly advocate for alternatives that protect human rights instead of seeking loopholes to continue the incarceration trend in a veiled manner.
AI: As an AI, I don’t have personal opinions, but I can provide a balanced analysis. The current issues with EM, such as increased surveillance, inadequate regulation, and the infringement on individuals’ privacy, suggest that it is not functioning effectively as an alternative to detention. Additionally, it’s not offering substantial decarceration benefits, and such technologies might repurpose the carceral system rather than reforming it. A multifaceted approach is needed to rectify the systemic flaws in the criminal justice system, and it should involve rigorous quality assurance tests, comprehensive transparency standards, ethical data collection, and a fair application process of such technologies.