Modern Correctional Alternatives - Essay Example

The community correctional field has thus been searching for alternative options using technological discoveries that free up the supervising officers to focus on higher-risk offenders as well as reduce the budget needed to run these monitoring activities (Mathew & Brian, 2009).

Technology has led to the introduction of a number of alternative monitoring procedures that do not need a large number of people to operate and can function efficiently at a low cost. The most popular of these technologies is the GPS tracking bracelet that allows the supervisors to electronically locate the position of offenders without the physical confirmation of an officer (Mathew & Brian, 2009). This works by placing a bracelet on the offender that contains a GPS device that allows the officers to track their movements. It should be noted that like any other technology, the GPS bracelet also has its drawbacks as one can simply cut the bracelet off and thus be able to move around undetected. The GPS device can only work efficiently with the addition of a monitoring officer who is able to determine whether the offender has been wearing the bracelet or if it has been tampered with.

Another popular monitoring device that has been introduced by the development of technology is kiosk reporting. This is an electronic-based reporting system that allows the offender to report to kiosks that have been fitted with fingerprint scanners as well as cameras to ensure that it is the actual individual reporting instead of showing up at an officer’s premises. The kiosk is also able to issue follow-up demands such as having the individual report to an officer if deemed necessary or even take a drug test (Mathew & Brian, 2009).

The secure remote alcohol detection is also another piece of technology that has been introduced and allows offices to remotely detect if an offender has any alcohol present in their system. Remote alcohol detection has been developed to detect any tampering of the device which makes it harder for the offender to trick the system. A voice verification system has also been introduced which is a means of identifying the offender through the sound of their voice. The offender is required to speak into a microphone at an electronic kiosk which then compares the voice with a sample that has been placed in its database to ensure that it is the actual offender who has reported to the kiosk (Mathew & Brian, 2009).

England of late has also been pushing for the use of CCTV (closed-circuit television) together with facial recognition systems to track down individuals who may be suspects in a crime (Mathew & Brian, 2009). Though these technologies have freed up officers to focus on higher risk offenders, it should be noted that they cannot efficiently work on their own and still require supervision by a human being who is able to adequately run these devices for them to be a success (Mathew & Brian, 2009).