3-2-2010 Massachusetts:
Devices don’t stop crime, survey says
Over the past five years, as technology has provided judges new sentencing options, the number of convicts in Massachusetts ordered to wear monitoring devices using a global positioning system has risen to more than 1,000, many of whom might otherwise be serving time behind bars.
The increasing number wearing such electronic ankle bracelets has saved the state money by reducing the need to feed and house them in prisons, but recent events underscore how the GPS tracking devices remain an imperfect substitute for incarceration. They allow authorities to monitor an offender’s whereabouts, but they do not prevent crime, especially when their plastic straps can be removed with a few snips of a scissors.
The risks of relying on electronic monitoring were demonstrated Feb. 18, when police arrested William French, 29, a convicted rapist from Framingham, a few hours after he cut off his ankle bracelet, which a judge ordered him to wear after finding that he had violated his probation.
French, released from prison in December after serving eight years for a 2001 rape, allegedly raped another woman in the hours he was a fugitive.
French’s arrest and similar cases have raised questions about the effectiveness of GPS monitoring, which relies on satellites to track an offender’s location. By last week, 1,019 state offenders were wearing GPS devices, and another 735 offenders were using a radio frequency device that tracks when they leave their homes.
“We can’t protect anyone’s safety,’’ said Paul Lucci, deputy commissioner of the state Office of the Commissioner of Probation, who oversees its electronic monitoring program. “It’s impossible to prevent those wearing GPS devices from committing a crime. . . . There are no guarantees whatsoever.’’
Since the technology came into wide use over the past decade - thousands of offenders are now tracked by GPS nationwide - a series of studies has raised questions about whether the devices reduce recidivism.
Nationally, more than 12,600 offenders were tracked by GPS in 2008, nearly 8,000 of whom were sex offenders, according to the most recent data available from the US Bureau of Justice Statistics. (Probation and Parole, 2008)
A review of that DOJ study, Tables 11 (Probation) and 22 (Parole) which show overall use of GPS and portion of it which is used for sex offenders, 68% of GPS used nationally is for tracking Sex Offenders. Further, the article admits GPS Will Not Prevent Crimes, so why the waste of taxpayer money?
Roxanne Lieb - director of the Washington State Institute for Public Policy, which monitors correctional policies around the country - said a survey of a dozen studies on the effectiveness of electronic monitoring shows that the devices do not blunt violence.
“The conclusion is that we don’t see a crime reduction,’’ Lieb said. “The question is whether this is the best route for offenders on parole or probation. We need more evidence.’’
Marc Renzema, who founded the New Jersey-based Journal of Offender Monitoring and now teaches criminal justice at Kutztown University in Pennsylvania, argued that judges and law enforcement officials must improve how they select candidates for electronic monitoring.
“These devices aren’t a ball and chain; they’re not prison,’’ he said. “They won’t rehabilitate people magically, but if you pick people reasonably, they can be effective.’’
In a recent journal article he wrote titled “Rationalizing the Use of Electronic Monitoring,’’ Renzema said electronic tracking works best for those who are rational enough to understand the penalties of removing their devices, an action that violates the law and immediately alerts officials.
Renzema added that the devices have the ability to help offenders steer clear of trouble by monitoring whether they attend their rehabilitation programs and medical appointments.
He pointed to a three-year study of 260 offenders published in Sweden last year that showed promise for electronic monitoring to reduce recidivism. The study found that electronically monitored offenders deemed less likely to commit new crimes did so 10 percent of the time, compared with 24 percent of the time for a similar group that was not tracked electronically.
The benefits of electronic monitoring dropped for offenders deemed more likely to commit new crimes: The study found that 44 percent of higher-risk offenders monitored electronically committed new crimes, while 49 percent not wearing a tracking device committed new crimes.
“The problem is that there aren’t enough prison cells, so we need [to] improve who we select for electronic monitoring,’’ said Renzema.
Massachusetts began using GPS to track offenders after Michael J. Bizanowicz, a sex offender, was convicted of killing a Woburn woman and her 12-year-old daughter in 2004. Bizanowicz was registered in Lowell, but spent much of his time in Woburn.
In 1997, Florida became the first state to track sex offenders with GPS devices. Since then, electronic monitoring of offenders has been adopted in more than 30 states. In Massachusetts, it has expanded to include domestic abusers and stalkers who have violated protection orders.
The devices use cellphones to relay a positioning signal to 24 satellites and back to offices in Boston, Clinton, and Springfield. If an offender enters a restricted area, warnings flash on the computers of some 40 technicians around the state monitoring the offenders’ movements. The bracelets also alert officials if they are cut and when their batteries die.
In the case of William French, who had his bail reduced to $100,000 at a hearing in Framingham District Court last week, Lucci said authorities obtained a probation violation warrant for his arrest within 20 minutes after he cut off the tracking device.
French will remain in jail until at least April 9, when he is scheduled to return to court.
French’s arrest followed a similarly brief disappearance this month of Leeland Eisenberg, a New Hampshire man who was being tracked electronically after he took hostages at a Hillary Clinton presidential campaign office in 2007. Authorities found him a day after he cut off his ankle bracelet.
In some cases, offenders being tracked did not remove their devices before committing new crimes. Last year, authorities accused Darrin Sanford, 30, a homeless sex offender monitored electronically, of killing 13-year-old girl Alycia Nipp in Vancouver, Wash. Investigators used his location history to identify him as a suspect.
In Middlesex County, prosecutors acknowledged the limited capability of electronic tracking to prevent crimes.
“GPS monitoring is an important probationary tool, but one that must be assessed on a case-by-case basis and not as an appropriate substitute for incarceration,’’ District Attorney Gerard T. Leone Jr. said in a statement. ..Source.. David Abel
No comments:
Post a Comment