Electronic monitoring (EM) is reshaping the landscape of criminal justice, particularly in the Midwest. This form of digital surveillance, often implemented through GPS ankle monitors or mobile apps, has emerged as a controversial tool for pretrial release, probation, and immigration supervision. Advocates argue that EM offers a less restrictive alternative to incarceration, but critics highlight its financial, psychological, and systemic drawbacks.
Growing Prevalence in the Midwest
The Midwest leads the nation in the usage of EM, with 65 individuals per 100,000 residents under monitoring, significantly outpacing other regions like the South (41 per 100,000). This expansion reflects broader trends, with the U.S. EM population increasing nearly tenfold from 2005 to 2022, reaching approximately 500,000 people. Much of this growth has been driven by state and local jurisdictions incorporating EM into their criminal justice practices, often in tandem with traditional incarceration rather than as a replacement.
Financial and Emotional Costs
EM imposes significant financial burdens on individuals. Monitoring programs often charge user fees that can range from hundreds to thousands of dollars annually, disproportionately impacting low-income families. These fees, coupled with strict compliance requirements, make it challenging for individuals to rebuild their lives post-incarceration. A failure to pay these fees or comply with EM rules often results in re-incarceration, perpetuating cycles of poverty and punishment.
On a personal level, EM can feel more restrictive than incarceration. For instance, individuals may be required to submit detailed schedules, face limitations on movement, and endure physical discomfort from the devices. These restrictions not only hinder employment opportunities but also contribute to heightened stress and anxiety, as even minor infractions can lead to severe consequences.
Limited Effectiveness as a Criminal Justice Reform
Although marketed as a reformative alternative to incarceration, EM often functions as an extension of carceral control. In cities like Detroit, increased EM usage coincided with rising jail populations, indicating that EM is more of an additive measure than a substitute. Moreover, the privatization of EM programs, dominated by a few major companies, raises concerns about accountability and ethical practices within this burgeoning industry.
The Path Forward
As the Midwest continues to adopt EM on a large scale, policymakers and advocates face crucial questions. How can EM be implemented equitably without exacerbating existing inequalities? What safeguards can be established to ensure that EM fulfills its intended purpose of reducing incarceration rather than expanding surveillance? Addressing these challenges will require not only legislative reform but also greater public awareness of EM’s implications.
The rapid rise of electronic monitoring highlights the need for balanced approaches to criminal justice reform. While technology offers potential, its implementation must prioritize rehabilitation and fairness over surveillance and punishment.
For more details on the impacts and challenges of electronic monitoring, consult the Vera Institute of Justice’s comprehensive reports on this topic.