Electronic monitoring (EM) has become an increasingly common alternative to incarceration in the U.S. criminal justice system, raising both opportunities and significant challenges. As states seek to reform the use of this technology, upcoming legislative changes will play a pivotal role in shaping its future.

Expanding Use and Criticisms of EM

Over the past decade, the use of EM has grown exponentially. According to the Vera Institute of Justice, the number of individuals under electronic monitoring in the criminal legal and immigration systems increased nearly tenfold between 2005 and 2022. However, concerns about its effectiveness, equity, and ethical implications have prompted calls for legislative action. Critics argue that EM often extends state surveillance rather than serving as a true alternative to incarceration, disproportionately affecting marginalized communities and exacerbating systemic inequities.

Key Legislative Trends

1. Standardizing Oversight and Accountability
   A significant concern with EM programs is the lack of standardized regulations across jurisdictions. Current and proposed legislation aims to create uniform standards for device accuracy, data privacy, and program management. These regulations could help reduce disparities and protect the rights of individuals subjected to monitoring.
   
2. Reevaluating Compliance Requirements
   Many jurisdictions are exploring reforms to simplify compliance rules for EM. Presently, technical violations—such as failing to charge a device or exceeding movement restrictions—often result in reincarceration. Critics argue these rules set participants up for failure without improving public safety outcomes. Upcoming policies may emphasize less punitive approaches to non-criminal violations.
   
3. Addressing Equity and Racial Disparities
   Studies indicate that Black and Latinx populations are disproportionately subjected to EM, partly due to broader racial inequities in the criminal justice system. New legislative efforts aim to reduce these disparities by mandating equity-focused reviews of EM implementation and prioritizing alternative measures such as community-based interventions.
   
4. Balancing Surveillance and Privacy
   Some states have introduced or are considering laws to enhance data privacy protections for individuals on EM. These measures focus on limiting the storage and use of location and behavioral data collected by EM devices, addressing growing concerns over the involvement of private monitoring companies.
   
5. Reducing the Scope of EM Programs
   Progressive jurisdictions are experimenting with ways to reduce reliance on EM altogether. Examples include increasing access to pretrial release programs and using simpler, non-invasive methods like court-date reminders, which have been shown to reduce failure-to-appear rates without the need for surveillance.
   

Challenges Ahead

While legislative changes promise to address some of EM’s shortcomings, implementation challenges persist. These include ensuring adequate funding for reforms, training personnel, and balancing public safety with individual freedoms. Moreover, private-sector involvement in EM remains controversial, as some critics argue that profit motives conflict with justice-oriented goals.

Conclusion

As electronic monitoring becomes more entrenched in the U.S. justice system, upcoming legislative changes offer an opportunity to address its shortcomings and align it more closely with principles of justice and equity. Policymakers must prioritize transparency, fairness, and efficacy to ensure that EM serves as a true alternative to incarceration rather than an extension of it. With thoughtful reforms, the future of electronic monitoring could strike a better balance between public safety and individual rights.

For further insights, check reports from organizations such as the Vera Institute and advocacy groups like the ACLU, which have published in-depth analyses on these trends.