Types of Technology that Track Repeat Offenders - Research Paper Example

Types of Technology that Track Repeat Offenders Introduction: The policy of technological tracking of repeat offenders is one of the most contentious issues in many parts of the world today. This is mainly because it poses some fundamental ethical, philosophical and human rights dilemmas in regard to its practicality and effectiveness. This has resulted in two schools of thoughts: one which is pro technological repeat offender tracking, and the anti-technological offender tracking. The costs of repeat offending cannot be underestimated in many social and economic fields. In Canada for example, over 3,000 deaths and more than 200,000 injuries, with over 25,000 being fatal injuries, occur annually as a result of traffic crashes which has a wide documentation indicating that 80% to 90% of the crashes are attributable to repeat-offender related behavior. Of the 3000 motor vehicle crashes related deaths, 800 are as a result of red lights running (Greenlaw, 1997). Similarly, most murders and sex related capital offences are believed to be done by repeat offenders. These among other reasons show that there is need for concerted efforts to advocate for innovative and new approaches such as technological repeat-offender tracking because available studies elucidate that much less impact have been achieved by traditional countermeasures. This paper therefore aims at examining the various technological measures that have been adopted to track repeat offenders, with a particular understanding that this is an area that has not been intensively investigated into as compared to other scientific insights into crime aberration. Furthermore, this paper will move from policy identification to the myriad challenges in operational requirements as they are faced by law enforcement agents. The main objective is to arrive at a conclusion that would give some viable recommendations that would assist or contribute to reduced future victimization to the general public and increased general community safety. Some examples of repeat offences and tracking technologies that will be highlighted include: red light running and red light cameras; impaired driving as a result of alcohol influence and breath tests gadgets; DNA database tracking; GPS- Global Positioning Satellite technology and repeat sex offenders; among other capital offences. Literature Review: There has been a profound global increase of electronic monitoring and tracking technology legislation within the last decade as a further repeat and future offenses prevention measure. In 2006 in America for example, legislation authorizing or requiring wide application of GPS- Global Positioning Satellite technology was passed by 22 states. Among these, six states (Florida, Wisconsin, Ohio, Colorado, Missouri, and Oklahoma) enacted electronic monitoring laws that require lifetime tracking for some categories of offenders (Spellman, 2007). Similarly, the Federal Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act (2006) provisionally advocates for outfitting of registered sex and other capital crime offenders with electronic tracking gadgets. The ultimate goal in these and other related legislations is reduction in recidivism, supervision conditions violations, non-compliance, and absconding through offender accountability as well as promotion of increased public safety (Durling, 2006). Several theories have been brought forth with an attempt to authenticate the need for technologically tracking repeat criminals. Most of these have mostly been aimed at bridging the gap between the psychological, ethical and economical empirical literatures, but relatively little have been done to consider the actualization process of the different types of technologies involved. We will therefore have a brief look into these earlier literatures before getting into the current need levels of a more specific approach to technologically tracking repeat offenders. According to McMurran, (2002), there is some substantial evidence that criminals are generally more informed about law enforcement and consequential penalties than the general non-criminal public. They also have increased tendency to think or assume that they won’t be imprisoned or caught, which implies that they tend to underestimate the probabilities of the likelihood to be caught and of the harm. This is what culminates to the attitudes that these criminals have towards the risks involved and which eventually have some effects on the risk perception. This in effect tells us that increased use of electronic technology to track the repeat offenders is a surer way of constantly reminding them that they are constantly under scrutiny and thus the probability of crime commission is reduced. The economics of crime literature has also postulated that alcohol deterrence policies’ information provision, media campaigns by governmental organs as well as grass roots organizations, and new policies and laws publicity have substantially increased law compliance. It is notable for example that sobriety checkpoints’ publicity has reduced driving fatalities and drinking (Crowe, 2002). Langworthy, (1988) postulated that technological tracking of repeat offenders is effective in the sense that it enhances the social norms that do not necessarily require governmental intervention either in enforcement or promulgation. This means that the presence of a device such as an effective GPS sex offender tracking machine, red light camera or the DNA databases is a sure way of promoting law compliance even where a government sanction may be absent, and such devices therefore can easily act as law reinforcement tools or they may act in lieu of such laws. The importance of political and civil processes influence in affecting the policy of using technological devices in combating repeat crimes is magnanimous even though empirical criminal sanctions studies enumerate the difficulty of distinguishing between the norms’ role and policies effect in crime deterrence (Cumming, 2005, pp. 121). However, there is a high probability of technological devices’ laws synergy in reducing repeat offences behaviors as more of such laws get enacted and promulgated. Consequently, law enforcement becomes much easier, where judges may discretely mete harder penalties and the community may accord more support to the police with a generally increased willingness from all the stakeholders to devote more resources than before. It is imperative to realize the importance of understanding the capabilities, uses and the disadvantages of this emergent electronic offender tracking technology. Legislations of red lights cameras (which also uses the GPS technology) for example has gone a long way in alleviating the incidents of road carnages and fatalities, even though this hasn’t had a significant reduction in the number of repeat offenders on the roads. However, majority of repeat red light runners attribute their behavior to merely being in a hurry without minding the consequences that follow from such irresponsible “hurry” (Mainprize, 1992). There are many complications related to the ethical and legal background behind use of electronic cameras as some people feel that their right of privacy is being violated. The necessity of these life-saving instruments cannot be overlooked in the sense of privacy violation because it is not an individual’s right to drive aggressively and at the same time the instrument presents no threat whatsoever to safe drivers. Among the most contested technological divisions of tracking repeat offenders are the forensic DNA databases. Over the past few decades, this technological advancement has proved to become an increasingly vital tool in law enforcement. This is particularly so due to the fact that it absolutely exonerates the innocent and convicts the repeat offenders beyond any reasonable doubt about the specific crime commissions involved. Over the last decade alone, approximately 400,000 crime scene matches have been provided by the database, some of which have solved some “very cold case” crimes long after the initial investigations were done, and some of which involved innocent convictions while the real offenders continued repeating the offences at the cost of others (Conway, 2003, pp. 19). Much of the contentions towards this technological storage of criminal data are brought by the argument that once a suspect is arrested and no conviction is done after he/she has been proven innocent, then it is insouciant to retain such DNA data as this would constitute violation of an individual’s rights. It is common knowledge that some DNA samples of children as low as below 16 years have appeared in these databases even without conviction (Conway, 2003, pp. 22). In contrast to such arguments, supporters of forensic DNA databases are of the opinion that it would even be better if a nation wide or a global database was possible to manage for all the population and not only the repeat offenders due to the economic and time advantages this would bring in solving crimes. The policy has been reviewed severally especially in regard to how long samples of different categories of offenders should be retained. One such consideration is permanent retention of fingerprints and DNA profiles for all recordable offences. An example of the benefits of the GPS tracking technology involved tracking a convicted rapist by the Falls Church police in Virginia after being paroled to the city. According to a 28th January 2009 Washington Post report by Greg Bartlett, the felon was arrested by the undercover officers while attempting to abduct yet another victim. He was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment for attempted repeat rape (Brown, 2009). Use of this technology to track known felons’ movement is an optimum method that should be adopted to prevent death or injury of innocent victims. Other than just deterring such grave occurrences, incorrigible repeat offenders would be easily apprehended in time before any more unsuspecting lives are wasted by individuals who think they have a right to go away with repeated criminal acts. Available data from some scientific research on the GPS offender tracking options show that this technology has greatly reduced the cost of controlling crime and criminals. The approximate daily cost of incarcerating a criminal ranges from $45.00 - $125. Some GPS options’ daily costs range as follows: GPS phones: $1.50 Tagging: $2.50 - $4.50 GPS passive offender tracking: $4.50 - $12.50 GPS active offender tracking: $8.00 - $15.00 (Tewey, 2005) These statistics are good indicators of the need to enhance criminal tracking using the available technological advancement as a way of cutting on government expenditure as well as tax payers’ burden. METHODOLOGY: Study Type: The case study research has been found to elicit succinct understanding of complex issues or objects and give an expansive experience as well as adding more strength to existing knowledge from previous investigations (Yin, 1984). This study therefore will make use of case study research typology. The case is Types of Technology That Track Repeat Offenders. Data Collection: Multiple techniques and sources are the optimum means by which data related to this study will be gathered. There will be need to assemble a focus group which will be interviewed through some predetermined open ended questions. In addition, a questionnaire will also be developed aimed at collecting all such other data as are necessary in answering the various research questions that are posed in this study. Moreover, documentary reviews, especially those contained in relevant websites such as the repeat offenders’ website will also be utilized accordingly. It will also be inevitable to write an introductory letter that will accompany every questionnaire in order to get the explicit informed consent of the population for the study. Data Analysis: The study will use descriptive statistics to present the research results after triangulating the multiple resources data for stronger research findings. Conclusion: This paper has explored some literatures behind the technology that is used in tracking repeat offenders of different categories. It has also shown that some divisions are eminent between proactive and ant-electronic schools of thought in using electronic monitoring technology on different political, ethical and technological advantages as well as disadvantages of this approach. However, the writer’s opinion has been included in support of the advantages of this technology against its disadvantages. Two such distinct advantages of electronic monitoring that this paper has identified include: a) the reduced public tax burden on condition that the offender is allowed to work, subsequently meeting the maintenance costs and b) overcrowding in prisons and jails is significantly reduced after application of this alternative as opposed to incarceration. Furthermore, three major rationales behind the types of technology in tracking repeat offenders have also been identified and they include: restriction which controls the proscribed and allowed areas in which an individual can enter at a particular time or the specific people they approach such like co-offenders, potential victims or complainants; detention which ensures that an individual remains only in designated places such as their homes; and surveillance by which authorities constantly track the offenders without an actual restriction of their movements. References: Brown, T. (2009). Global Positioning Technology for Community Supervision: Lessons Learned. Falls Church, Virginia. Retrieved on 9th June 2009 from http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/219376.pdf Conway, P. (2003). A Survey of Agencies Using Electronic Monitoring Reveals a Promising Future. Journal of Offender Monitoring Vol. 16(2), pp. 18-23 Crowe, A. (2002). Offender Supervision with Electronic Technology: A User’s Guide. Washington D.C.: National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice Cumming, G. (2005). Supervision of the Sex Offender: Community Management, Risk Assessment, and Treatment. 2nd ed. Brandon, Vermont: Safer Society Press, pp. 121 Durling, C. (2006). “Never Going Home: Does It Make Us Safer? Does It Make Sense? Sex Offenders, Residency Restrictions, and Reforming Risk Management Law.” Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Vol. 97, pp. 56-61 Greenlaw, P. (1997). “The Impact of Federal Legislation to Limit Electronic Monitoring.” Public Personnel Management, Vol. 26, pp. 212-216 Langworthy, R. (1988). Older Offenders: Perspectives in Criminology and Criminal Justice. Westport, Connecticut, London: Praeger Publishers Mainprize, S. (1992). “Electronic Monitoring in Corrections: Assessing Cost Effectiveness and the Potential for Widening the Net for Social Control.” Canadian Journal of Criminology, Vol. 34, pp 118- 126 McMurran, M. (2002). Motivating Offenders to Change: A Guide to Enhancing Engagement in Therapy. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons Spellman, W. (2007). Repeat Offender Programs for Law Enforcement. Washington D.C.: Police Executive Research Forum. Retrieved on 6th June 2009 from http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/BJA/pdf/IACPSexOffenderElecMonitoring.pdf. Tewey, F. (2005). Task Force to Study Criminal Offender Monitoring by Global Positioning Systems: Final Report to the Governor and the General Assembly. Maryland Department of Public Safety & Correctional Services. Retrieved on 10th June 2009 from http://www.dpscs.statemd.us/publicinfo/publications/pdfs/GPS_Task_Force_Final_Report.pdf Yin, R. K. (1984). Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, pp Read More