Report EM 2005 - E - CEP, the European Organisation for Probation

The views of participants were informed to some extent by empirical research in their
countries in organisations, but rather more by anecdotal evidence and opinion.
It was suggested that the next conference might include representatives of the police,
whose involvement in electronic monitoring was increasing.
5.2 Offender perspectives on electronic monitoring
Mike Nellis
Mike Nellis explained why it was important to seek offender perspectives on electronic
monitoring – they had a right to be heard, it made it easier to understand the actual
personal impact of a penalty on an offender (and family), and it helped us to compare
the effectiveness of one penalty with another. Offender perspective studies had their
limitations, but had developed criteria for understanding the severity of punishment
(Gresham Sykes, 1958) and had compared the pains of imprisonment with the pains of
electronic monitoring (B Payne and R Gainey, 1998). Proper offender perspective studies
could help answer questions like “Can electronic monitoring be rehabilitative”, “Is
consent to a community penalty necessary” and “What ways of ensuring compliance
help bring about desistance from crime” He summarised the offender perspectives on
the satellite-tracking pilots in England and Wales (for which he was part of the
evaluation team).
In the discussion, participants asked whether electronic monitoring increased domestic
tensions and concluded that it did, in some small ways, but there had been some very
difficult individual cases. Were offenders prepared enough for being on electronic
monitoring Did they view it as shaming or stigmatising (and should it have this effect)
There was very little research on this. Would GPS tracking be seen as a soft option in
10 years’ time
Most participants who contributed to the discussion referred to research results, for
example in Sweden where offenders had to be persuaded to go on the post-release
electronic monitoring scheme because it was so onerous. Also, it was noted that some
electronic monitoring companies collected offender views at the end of the monitoring;
Reliance, who were operating in Scotland, fed these back to sentencers.
Among the key points that participants took away from the workshop were the sense
that electronic monitoring was not a complete solution that replaced the need for
personal human services; and that ways should be found to inform sentencers more fully
about offenders’ experiences of electronic monitoring.
It was suggested that the next conference should place the discussion of electronic
monitoring in the context of changes in – and the strengths of – probation.
14