RED FLAGS AND TRIGGER CONTROL: THE ROLE OF HUMAN SUPERVISION IN AN ELECTRONIC MONITORING PROGRAM

Date28 April 2005
Pages31-48
DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1016/S1521-6136(04)06003-8
Published date28 April 2005
AuthorPeter R. Ibarra
RED FLAGS AND TRIGGER CONTROL:
THE ROLE OF HUMAN SUPERVISION
IN AN ELECTRONIC MONITORING
PROGRAM
Peter R. Ibarra
ABSTRACT
This study examines a probation department’s electronic-monitoring (EM)
based supervision of clients facing domestic violence charges. Of greater
significance than the technology per se is its anchoring within a regime of
restrictions and set of relevancies. These organize the probation officer’s
(PO) supervision practices, including the interaction strategies adopted with
clients. Clients are presumed to be susceptible to various triggers that can
imperil “victim safety,”and the PO’s activities are oriented toward identifying
and managing these risks. Thus, EM is less a technological accomplishment
than an interpretive one. Technology furnishes a resource for doing human
supervision rather than supplanting it.
This study was supported under award number 97-IJ-CX-K014 from the Office of Justice Programs,
National Institute of Justice, Department of Justice. Points of view in this document are those of the
author and do not necessarily represent the official position of the U.S. Department of Justice. Direct
correspondence to the author, Department of Justice Studies, 113 BowmanHall, Kent State University,
Kent, OH 44122.
Ethnographies of Law and Social Control
Sociology of Crime, Law and Deviance, Volume6, 31–48
Copyright © 2005 by Elsevier Ltd.
All rights of reproduction in any form reserved
ISSN: 1521-6136/doi:10.1016/S1521-6136(04)06003-8
31
32 PETER R. IBARRA
INTRODUCTION
The criminal justice system’s use of electronic monitoring (EM) has grown
steadily since its initial adoption in the mid-1980s (Vollum & Hale, 2002, p. 2).
EM is customarily used as an alternative to incarceration (“house arrest”), as
an intermediate sanction (e.g. as part of intensive probation), or as a condition
of release from jail (i.e. as a form of pretrial supervision). A commonly cited
rationale for using EM is that it alleviates jail/prison overcrowding while not
sacrificing public safety (Crowe et al., 2003). Another is that it offers offenders
an opportunity to maintain “productive” lives in the community. EM is especially
attractive to administrators in times of strained budgets and trimmed supervisory
staff. Presumably, EM promises to offer a means for handling “problem”
populations in spite of such limited resources (Vollum & Hale, 2002).
EM is usually studied in the context of evaluation research, often with a
quantitative focus on documenting patterns of recidivism among participants
(Black & Smith, 2003; Crowe, Syndey, Bancroft & Lawrence, 2002; Payne
& Gainey, 1998; Vollum & Hale, 2002). Rarely entailing field observations or
intensive interviewing, these studies gloss overhow the anchoring of EM technol-
ogy in specific social problems work contexts (Holstein & Miller, 2003) shapes
its implementation. Further, these studies typically focus on EM as an alternative
sanction, rather than as an instrument in pre-trial circumstances, neglecting to
consider the distinctive issues that emerge when defendants1rather than convicted
offenders are subjected to liberty restrictions. Finally, research has neglected the
use of EM where the offenses are of an interpersonal nature (understandably so,
since EM is rarely used as such). “Unilateral” electronic monitoring (UEM) is
studied and “bilateral” electronic monitoring (BEM) is not. Where UEM involves
the control of an offender alone, BEM tethers both defendants and complainants
into systems of surveillance (Erez, Ibarra & Lurie, 2004).
Unlike most previous research on EM, this study is based on fieldwork methods;
most of the program’s clients await adjudication; and the program targets persons
in problematic interpersonal relationships involving “domestic violence.” When
EM enrolls both alleged batterers as well as their putative victims, an agenda is
incorporated into the design and implementation of the program anchoring the
technology that is unusual. The focus is not on promoting “public safety” but on
insuring “victim safety.” This injects an interpretive relevancyonto the technology
that is decisive for the construction of the “problem” posed by EM clients.
THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVE
The “social problems work” perspective (Holstein & Miller, 2003) informs this
study of how supervision is organized in a BEM program for DV cases. This

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT