Ethical issues in the use of electronic monitoring (Global Positioning System ‘tracking’ technology) in forensic mental health settings – A four principles approach
Restricted accessReview articleFirst published online 2026
Ethical issues in the use of electronic monitoring (Global Positioning System ‘tracking’ technology) in forensic mental health settings – A four principles approach
Electronic monitoring (‘tracking’) of individuals has been used in the UK criminal justice system for over three decades, and its use is increasing. Electronic monitoring has more recently been implemented in forensic psychiatric services, which has generated considerable debate about the appropriateness of its use in clinical settings, and about legal and ethical concerns. The purpose of this article is to formally address the ethical issues that arise from using electronic monitoring in forensic psychiatry. These issues are considered using the Four Principles approach to medical ethics, namely autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence, and justice. We conclude that by adopting a patient-centred approach, where informed consent is sought, and the patient's best interests remain central to the decision-making process, electronic monitoring is both ethical and justifiable. More robust studies are required to develop standardised clinical guidelines for the use of EM in forensic psychiatry, and to apply the theory of patient-centred, consent-driven care to practice.
BalesBMannKBlombergT, et al.A quantitative and qualitative assessment of electronic monitoring. In: Report submitted to the Office of Justice Program, National Institute of Justice, US Department of Justice. Florida: The Florida State University, 2010.
DierickBJHAchterboschMEikholtAA, et al.Electronic monitoring with a digital smart spacer to support personalized inhaler use education in patients with asthma: the randomized controlled outerspace trial. Respir Med2023; 218: 107376.
20.
HearnD. Tracking patients on leave from a secure setting. Ment Health Pract2013; 16: 17–21.
21.
TullyJLarkinFFahyT. New technologies in the management of risk and violence in forensic settings. CNS Spectr2015; 20: 287–294.
22.
TullyJCullenAHearnD, et al.Service evaluation of electronic monitoring (GPS tracking) in a medium secure forensic psychiatry setting. J Forens Psychiatry Psychol2016; 27: 169–176.
23.
Ibid.
24.
MurphyPPotterLTullyJ, et al.A cost comparison study of using global positioning system technology (electronic monitoring) in a medium secure forensic psychiatric service. J Forens Psychiatry Psychol2017; 28: 57–69.
25.
TullyJHearnDFahyT. Author’s reply. British Journal of Psychiatry2014; 205: 501–501.
26.
WatsonEMadhaniPMysorekarS, et al.Electronic monitoring of forensic patients. Br J Psychiatry2014; 205: 500–501.
MoultonD. Nova Scotia sets direction on GPS monitoring of patients. CMAJ2015; 187: E232–E233.
29.
JehleJ-MLewisCNagtegaalM, et al.Dealing with dangerous offenders in Europe. A comparative study of provisions in England and Wales, Germany, the Netherlands, Poland and Sweden. Crim Law Forum2021; 32: 181–245.
30.
AshworthGWaldronGKahaiB. A service evaluation exploring staff perceptions about the use and impact of electronic monitoring (GPS tracking) in a medium secure forensic psychiatric unit. J Forens Psychiatry Psychol2025; 36: 508–525.
31.
MalekSHearnDFahyT, et al.Legal and human rights issues in the use of electronic monitoring (using GPS “tracking” technology) in forensic mental health settings in the UK. Med Sci Law2023; 63: 309–315.
32.
NellisM. Surveillance and confinement: electronic monitoring and its ethical implications. Crim Justice Ethics2009; 28: 207–222.
33.
NellisM. Surveillance, power and everyday life: electronic monitoring and the ethics of control. In: BrownD (ed.) The Routledge international handbook of forensic psychology in secure settings. London, UK: Routledge, 2016, pp.362–375.
34.
Bales, et al.op. cit. note 3.
35.
PayneBKGaineyRR. Electronic monitoring: philosophical, systemic, and political issues. Crim Justice Policy Rev2000; 11: 123–140.
36.
TravisJWesternBRedburnS. The growth of incarceration in the United States: Exploring causes and consequences. Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2014.
37.
Miller, Kevin. Total surveillance, big data, and predictive crime technology: privacy's perfect storm. J Technol Law Policy2014; 19: Article 3.
38.
NellisM. The ethics of GPS tracking. In: Standards and ethics in electronic monitoring: handbook for professionals responsible for the establishment and the use of electronic monitoring. Strasbourg: Council of Europe, 2015, pp.38–40.
39.
WeisburdK. Punitive surveillance.Va Law Rev2022; 108: 147–221.
40.
LandauRWernerS. Ethical aspects of using GPS for tracking people with dementia: recommendations for practice. Int Psychogeriatr2012; 24: 358–366.
41.
O’NeillD. Should patients with dementia who wander be electronically tagged? No. Br Med J2013; 346: f3606.
42.
YangYTKelsCG. Ethical considerations in electronic monitoring of the cognitively impaired. J Am Board Fam Med2017; 30: 258–263.
43.
CronjeH-MNixonMRossellSL. Exploring cognitive functioning among forensic mental health inpatients. Int J Forensic Ment Health2024; 23: 217–228.
44.
MurphyDMitchellJVacherJ, et al.Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale full scale IQ of male admissions to a high secure psychiatric hospital over six decades. Int J Forensic Ment Health2021; 20: 386–397.
45.
ShumlichEJReidGJHancockM, et al.Executive dysfunction in criminal populations: comparing forensic psychiatric patients and correctional offenders. Int J Forensic Ment Health2019; 18: 243–259.
46.
BeauchampTLRauprichO. Principlism. In: HaveH (ed.) Encyclopedia of global bioethics. Cham: Springer, 2016, pp.2282–2293.
47.
BeauchampTLChildressJF. Principles of Biomedical Ethics. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2019.
48.
AdsheadG. Care or custody? Ethical dilemmas in forensic psychiatry. J Med Ethics2000; 26: 302–304.
49.
NiveauGWelleI. Forensic psychiatry, one subspecialty with two ethics? A systematic review. BMC Med Ethics2018; 19: 1–10.
50.
SenPGordonHAdsheadG, et al.Ethical dilemmas in forensic psychiatry: two illustrative cases. J Med Ethics2007; 33: 337–341.
51.
BeauchampTLChildressJF. Principles of Biomedical Ethics Tom L. Beauchamp; James F. Childress. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1980.
52.
GillonR. Ethics needs principles—four can encompass the rest—and respect for autonomy should be “first among equals”. J Med Ethics2003; 29: 307–312.
53.
VarkeyB. Principles of clinical ethics and their application to practice. Med Princ Pract2020; 30: 17–28.
54.
ChiezeMClavienCKaiserS, et al.Coercive measures in psychiatry: a review of ethical arguments. Front Psychiatry2021; 12: 790886.
55.
McKeownAMortimerRManziniA, et al.Is coercion ever beneficent? Public health ethics in early intervention and prevention for mental health. Developments in Neuroethics and Bioethics2019; 2: 45–68.
MichaelKMcNameeAMichaelM. The emerging ethics of humancentric GPS tracking and monitoring. In: International conference on mobile business, 2006, pp.34–35.
59.
KerasidouAKerasidouC. Data-driven research and healthcare: public trust, data governance and the NHS. BMC Med Ethics2023; 24: 1–9.
60.
KipHSieverinkFVan Germert-PijnenLJEWC, et al.Integrating people, context, and technology in the implementation of a web-based intervention in Forensic Mental Health Care: mixed-methods study. J Med Internet Res2020; 22: e16906.
61.
RichardsNM. The dangers of surveillance. Harv Law Rev2013; 126: 1934–1965.
62.
McKeown, et al.op. cit. note 55.
63.
SzmuklerGAppelbaumPS. Treatment pressures, leverage, coercion, and compulsion in mental health care. J Ment Health2008; 17: 233–244.
AminotKRyanTJNijdam-JonesA. Delusion or conspiracy? How forensic mental health professionals differentiate delusional beliefs from extreme radicalized beliefs. Crim Justice Behav2024; 51: 1548–1569.
69.
BhatiaM. Racial surveillance and the mental health impacts of electronic monitoring on migrants. Race Cl2021; 62: 18–36.
70.
VorstenboschEMasoliver-GallachREscuder-RomevaG. Measuring professional stigma towards patients with a forensic mental health status: Protocol for a Delphi Consensus Study on the design of a questionnaire. BMJ Open2022; 12: 1–8.
71.
MarkhamS. Stigmatization and marginalization of forensic psychiatric patients. Illness Crisis Loss2024; 33: 613–635.
72.
HendersonCNoblettJParkeH, et al.Mental health-related stigma in health care and mental health-care settings. Lancet Psychiatry2014; 1: 467–482.
WestMYanosPMulayA. Triple stigma of forensic psychiatric patients: mental illness, race, and criminal history. Int J Forensic Ment Health2014; 13: 75–90.
75.
LeeS-MLeeS-HParkJ. A multidimensional approach to wearability assessment of an electronic wrist bracelet for the criminal justice system. Fashion and Textiles2022; 9: 1–10.
76.
Sen, et al.op. cit. note 50.
77.
AdsheadGSarkarSP. Justice and welfare: two ethical paradigms in forensic psychiatry. Aust N Z J Psychiatry2005; 39: 1011–1017.
78.
AdsheadG. Three faces of justice: competing ethical paradigms in forensic psychiatry. Legal Criminol Psychol2013; 19: 1–12.
79.
Sen, et al.op. cit. note 50.
80.
Payne-GillJWhitfieldCBeckA. The relationship between ethnic background and the use of restrictive practices to manage incidents of violence or aggression in psychiatric inpatient settings. Int J Ment Health Nurs2021; 30: 1221–1233.
81.
PedersenMLGildbergFBakerJ, et al.Ethnic disparities in the use of restrictive practices in adult mental health inpatient settings: a scoping review. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol2022; 58: 505–522.
82.
HoldsworthEHucklesbyA. Designed for men, but also worn by women. Crim Justice Matters2014; 95: 14–15.
83.
MaidmentMR. Toward a “woman-centered” approach to community-based corrections. Women Crim Justice2002; 13: 47–68.
84.
HoldsworthE and Wincup E. Researching women’s experiences of electronic monitoring. In: Criminological Research: Understanding Qualitative Methods. London, UK: SAGE Publications Ltd, 2017, pp.147–156.
85.
De VogelVKeulen de VosMLeongJ, et al.Working with women in Forensic Mental Health Care: Guidelines for Gender-responsive assessment and treatment. Int J Offender Ther Comp Criminol2025; 69: 2165–2184.
86.
Ashworth, et al.op. cit. note 30.
87.
Adshead and Sarkar. op. cit. note 77.
88.
HuxtableR. For and against the four principles of biomedical ethics. Clin Ethics2013; 8: 39–43.
89.
Adshead. op. cit. note 78.
90.
AustinWGobleEKelecevicJ. The ethics of forensic psychiatry: moving beyond principles to a relational ethics approach. J Forens Psychiatry Psychol2009; 20: 835–850.
