Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Between convict and ward: the experiences of people living with offenders subject to electronic monitoring

  • Published:
Crime, Law and Social Change Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

While the people who live with offenders who have been sentenced to electronic monitoring sometimes have to consent to the sanction, and the measure undoubtedly impacts their life and position, their experience has not received much attention from policymakers or in research. This paper analyzes the experience of 30 co-residents of offenders who are being electronically monitored. It finds that their experience is a balance between two competing roles: a “convict” and a “controller”. On the one hand, co-residents report changes in their daily and social life that make them feel as if they are also being punished. On the other hand, they see themselves as active in the administration of the punishment, becoming assistants, social workers and controllers of the electronic monitoring sanction and taking up roles as private individuals that were previously fulfilled by government.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. An exception to this is the jurisdiction of New South Wales, which expressed valid concerns, as the Home Detention Bill was being debated, about the impact of EM on co-residents [see 19].

  2. Art 22, Act on the External Legal Position of Prisoners.

  3. In Belgium, offenders do not need to pay for the equipment.

  4. For example, the first month they have 4 hours of spare time on Saturday and Sunday (or during the weekend), the second month 6 hours a day, the third month 8 hours a day and from the fourth month on 10 hours. Just like other detainees, they can also obtain penitentiary leave which enables them to leave their residence for 36 hours without certifying where they are. The frequency of penitentiary leave is determined individually, except for those with a prison sentence up to 3 years. From the second month on they have monthly penitentiary leaves.

  5. Justice assistants are equivalent to social workers, probation officers or private sector monitoring officers in other jurisdictions that use EM.

  6. Some 78 % of offenders (n = 1,320) who are subject to EM have been sentenced to up to 3 years’ imprisonment. The minority (22 % – n = 387) are sentenced to more than 3 years [28].

  7. As a part of this research, 73 offenders under EM were interviewed about their experiences.

  8. Between April–June 2011, March–June 2012 and January 2013.

References

  1. Keay, N. (2000–2001). Home detention - an alternative to prison. Current Issues in Criminology, 12(1), 98–105

  2. Beyens, K. (1996). Elektronisch toezicht. Een oplossing voor de Belgische strafrechtsbedeling? Panopticon, 17(5), 473–498.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Withfield, D. (2001). Electronic monitoring. In E. McLaughlin & J. Muncie (Eds.), The Sage Dictionary of Criminology (pp. 107–108). London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Nellis, M., Beyens, K., & Kaminski, D. (2013). Introduction: Making sense of electronic monitoring. In M. Nellis, K. Beyens, & D. Kaminski (Eds.), Electronically monitored punishment: International and critical perspectives (pp. 1–18). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Martinovic, M. (2007). Home Detention: Issues, Dilemmas and Impacts for Detainees’ Co-Residing Family Members. Current Issues in Criminology, 19(1), 90–105.

    Google Scholar 

  6. George, A. (2006). Women and home detention: Home is where the prison is. Current Issues in Criminology, 18(1), 79–91.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Lilly, J. R., & Nellis, M. (2013). The limits of techno-utopianism. Electronic monitoring in the United States of America. In M. Nellis, K. Beyens, & D. Kaminski (Eds.), Electronicaly monitored punishment. International and critical perspectives. (pp. 21–43). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Kilgore, J. (2013). Progress or More of the Same? Electronic Monitoring and Parole in the Age of Mass Incarceration. Critical Criminology, 21(1), 123–139. doi:10.1007/s10612-012-9165-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Robert, L. (2011). Vrouwe Justitia: ‘Horen, zien en … leren?’. Panopticon, 32(1), 1–5.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Bernasco, W. (2010). Learning about crime from criminals: Editor’s introduction. In W. Bernasco (Ed.), Offenders on offending: Learning about crime from criminals (p. 322). Cullompton: Willan.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Gainey, R. R., & Payne, B. K. (2000). Understanding the experience of house arrest with electronic monitoring: An analysis of quantitative and qualitative data. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 44(1), 84–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Mair, G., & Nee, C. (1990). Electronic monitoring: The trials and their results. Home Office Research Study 120. London: Home Office.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Kingi, V. (2009). The forgotten victims - the effects of imprisonment on families/whãnau. Paper presented at the The institute of policy studies forum ‘addressing the underlying causes of offending: what is the evidence?’, Victoria University of Wellington, 26–27 February 2009

  14. Murray, J. (2006). The effects of imprisonment on families and children of prisoners. In A. Liebling & S. Maruna (Eds.), The effects of imprisonment (pp. 442–462). Cullompton: Willan publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Martinovic, M. (2002). The punitiveness of electronically monitored community based programs. Paper presented at the probation and community corrections: making the community safer conference, Perth, September 2002

  16. Renzema, M. (2013). Evaluative research on electronic monitoring. In M. Nellis, K. Beyens, & D. Kaminski (Eds.), Electronically monitored punishment: International and critical perspectives (pp. 247–270). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Martin, J. S., Hanrahan, K., & Bowers, J. H. (2009). Offenders’ perceptions of house arrest and electronic monitoring. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 48(6), 547–570.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Robert, L., & Stassart, E. (2009). Onder elektronisch toezicht gestelden aan het woord: Krachtlijnen uit het eerste Belgische onderzoek. In T. Daems, S. De Decker, L. Robert, & F. Verbruggen (Eds.), Elektronisch toezicht. De virtuele gevangenis als reële oplossing? (pp. 9–33). Leuven: Universitaire Pers Leuven.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Church, A., & Dunstan, S. (1997). Home detention: The evaluation of the home detention pilot programme 1995–1997. Wellington: New Zealand Ministry of Justice.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Doherty, D. (1995). Impressions of the impact of the electronic monitoring program on the family. In K. Schulz (Ed.), Electronic monitoring and corrections: The policy, the operation, the research. Canada: Simon Fraser University.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Gibbs, A., & King, D. (2003). The electronic ball and chain? The operation and impact of home detention with electronic monitoring in New Zealand. The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 36(1), 1–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Roberts, J. V. (2004). The virtual prison: Community custody and the evolution of imprisonment. (Cambridge Studies in Criminology). Cambridge: University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Aungles, A. (1994). The prison and the home: A study of the relationship between domesticity and penalty. Australia: Sydney Institute of Criminology.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Heggie, K. (1999). Review of the NSW home detention scheme. Australia: NSW Department of Corrective Services.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Aungles, A., & Cook, D. (1994). Information technology and the family: Electronic surveillance and home imprisonment. Information Technology and People, 7(1), 69–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Gibbs, A., & King, D. (2003). Home detention with electronic monitoring: The New Zealand experience. Criminal Justice, 3(2), 199–211.

    Google Scholar 

  27. FOD Justitie (2010). Justitie in cijfers.

  28. DG EPI: cel data-analyse (2013). Penitentiaire bevolking onder ET op 06/08/2013.

  29. Reglementering inzake het elektronisch toezicht als strafuitvoeringsmodaliteit voor gevangenisstraffen waarvan het totaal in uitvoering zijnde gevangenisstraffen drie jaar niet overschrijdt (Regulation of electronic monitoring as an execution of sanction) (March, 12 2013).

  30. Feeley, M., & Simon, J. (1992). The new penology: Notes on the emerging strategy of corrections and it implications. Criminology and Criminal Justice, 30(4), 449–474.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Beyens, K., Devresse, M.-S., Kaminski, D., & Luypaert, H. (2007). Over het ‘eigen’aardige karakter van het elektronisch toezicht in België. Fatik, 116(25), 4–15.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Goossens, S. (2009). Elektronisch toezicht als efficiënte en effectieve vorm van strafuitvoering: Waar staan we? In T. Daems, S. De Decker, L. Robert, & F. Verbruggen (Eds.), Elektronisch toezicht. De virtuele gevangenis als reële oplossing? (pp. 75–83). Leuven: Universitaire pers Leuven.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Beyens, K., & Kaminski, D. (2013). Is the sky the limit? Eagerness for electronic monitoring in Belgium. In M. Nellis, K. Beyens, & D. Kaminski (Eds.), Electronically monitored punishment: International and critical perspectives (pp. 150–171). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Vander Beken, T. (2013). Met de hulp van spiderman. Op weg naar koud elektronisch toezicht. Panopticon, 34(2), 73–79.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Nellis, M., Beyens, K., & Kaminski, D. (2013). Electronically monitored punishment: International and critical perspectives. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Lobley, D., & Smith, D. (2000). Evaluation of electronically monitored restriction of liberty orders Edinburgh: Scottish executive research unit.

  37. Bourn, J. (2006). The electronic monitoring of adult offenders. National audit office, 52. Available at: http://www.nao.org.uk/publications/0506/the_electronic_monitoring_of_a.aspx (accessed April, 26 2013).

  38. Lévy, R. (2013). From tagging to tracking: Beginnings and development of electronic monitoring in France. In M. Nellis, K. Beyens, & D. Kaminski (Eds.), Electronically monitored punishment: International and critical perspectives (pp. 128–149). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Hucklesby, A. (2008). Vehicles of desistance? The impact of electronically monitored curfew orders. Criminology and Criminal Justice, 8(1), 51–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. O’Gorman, A., & Vander Laenen, F. (2010). Ethische aspecten van het kwalitatief onderzoek. In T. Decorte & D. Zaitch (Eds.), Kwalitatieve methoden en technieken in de criminologie (2nd ed., pp. 532–557). Leuven: Acco.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Vanhaelemeesch, D., & Vander Beken, T. (2012). Electronic monitoring: Convicts’ experiences in Belgium. In M. Cools, B. De Ruyver, M. Easton, L. Pauwels, P. Ponsaers, G. Vande Walle, et al. (Eds.), Social conflicts, citizens and policing (Vol. 6, pp. 77–96). Antwerp: Maklu.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Vanhaelemeesch, D., Vander Beken, T., & Vandevelde, S. (2014). Punishment at home: Offenders’ experiences with electronic monitoring. European Journal of Criminology, 11(3), 273–287.

  43. Jarred, W. (2000). EM: Corrective Services Bill 2000. In L. B. 11/00 (Ed.). Quensland Parliamentary Library.

  44. Altman, R. (1997). Home confinement: A ’90s approach to community supervision. Federal Probation, 61(1), 30.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Staples, W. G. (2005). The everyday world of house arrest: Collateral consequences for families and others. In C. Mele & T. Miller (Eds.), Civil penalties, social consequences (pp. 139–159). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Spaans, E. C., & Verwers, C. (1997). Elektronisch toezicht in Nederland: Uitkomsten van het experiment. Onderzoek en Beleid 164 (p. 71). Den Haag: Ministerie van Justitie. WODC.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Stassart, E., Peters, T., & Parmentier, S. (2000). Elektronisch toezicht. Een belevingsonderzoek bij de eerste groep van deelnemers. Eindrapport. (onuitgegeven) (p. 160). Brussel: Ministerie Van Justitie - K.U.Leuven.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Dodgson, K., Goodwin, P., Howard, P., Llewellyn-Thomas, S., Mortimer, E., Russell, N., et al. (2001). Electronic monitoring of released prisoners: An evaluation of the home detention curfew scheme. (pp. 84). London.

  49. Codd, H. (2007). Prisoners’ Families and Resettlement: A Critical Analysis. The Howard Journal of Criminal Justice, 46(3), 255–263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Farrall, S. (2004). Social capital and offender re-integration: making probation desistance focused. In S. Maruna & R. Immarigeon (Eds.), After crime and punishment: ex-offender reintegration and desistance from crime (pp. 57–84). Cullompton: Willan Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Gibbs, A. (2004). A letter from New Zealand: Home detention - emerging issues after the first 3 years. Crime Prevenetion and Community Safety, 6(3), 57–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Staples, W. G., & Decker, S. (2010). Between the ‘Home’ and ‘Institutional’ Worlds: Tensions and Contradictions in the Practice of House Arrest. Critical Criminology, 18(1), 1–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Goffman, E. (1961). Asylums: essays on the social situation of mental patients and other inmates. Garden City: Ancor.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Foucault, M. (1995 [1977]). Discipline and punish: the birth of the prison (A. Sheridan, Trans.). New York: Vintage Books.

  55. Staples, W. G. (2009). “Where are you and what are you doing?’ Familial back-up work as a collateral consequence of house arrest. In M. K. Nelson & A. I. Garey (Eds.), Who’s watching? Daily practices of surveillance among contemporary families (pp. 33–53). Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Kaminski, D., Snacken, S., & Van De Kerckhove, M. (2007). Mutations dans le champ des peines et de leur exécution. Déviance et société, 31(4), 487–504.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Garland, D. (1997). ‘Governmentality’ and the problem of crime: Foucault, criminology, sociology. Theoretical Criminology, 1(2), 173–214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. McCahill, M., & Finn, R. (2013). The surveillance of ‘prolific’ offenders: Beyond ‘docile bodies’. Punishment and society, 15(1), 23–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Aungles, A. (1995). Three bedroomed prisons in the Asia Pacific region: Home imprisonment and electronic surveillance in Australia, Hawaii, and Singapore. Just policy, 2, 32–37.

    Google Scholar 

  60. Payne, B. K., & Gainey, R. R. (2004). The electronic monitoring of offenders released from jail or prison: Safety, control, and comparisons to the incarceration experience. The Prison Journal, 84(4), 413–435.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Hucklesby, A. (2013). Insiders’ views. In M. Nellis, K. Beyens, & D. Kaminski (Eds.), Electronically monitored punishment: International and critical perspectives (pp. 228–246). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  62. King, D., & Gibbs, A. (2003). Is home detention in New Zealand disadvantaging women and children? Probation Journal, 50(2), 115–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Graham, H. (1982). Coping: or how mothers are seen and not heard. In S. Friedman & E. Sarah (Eds.), On the problem of men. London: Womens’ Press.

    Google Scholar 

  64. Nellis, M. (2009). Surveillance and confinement: Explaining and understanding the experience of electronically monitored curfews. European Journal of Probation, 1(1), 41–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Schlosser, J. A. (2008). Issues in interviewing inmates: Navigating the methodological landmines of prison research. Qualitative Inquiry, 14(8), 1500–1525.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Criminology, Penal Law and Social Law, Ghent University, Ghent, 9000, Belgium

    Delphine Vanhaelemeesch & Tom Vander Beken

Authors
  1. Delphine Vanhaelemeesch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Tom Vander Beken
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Delphine Vanhaelemeesch.

Additional information

Delphine Vanhaelemeesch holds a Ph.D. fellowship of the Research Foundation – Flanders (FWO).

Appendix

Appendix

Table 1 Demographic information
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Vanhaelemeesch, D., Vander Beken, T. Between convict and ward: the experiences of people living with offenders subject to electronic monitoring. Crime Law Soc Change 62, 389–415 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10611-014-9535-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10611-014-9535-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation