A number of concerns have surfaced about the use of electronic monitoring as a sanction since its inception in 1984. Research into these concerns has examined the sanction’s breadth, pitfalls, and successes. This research focuses on the way electronically monitored offenders define various issues about the sanction. Results suggest that offenders do not necessarily see the sanction in ways that are consistent with the portrayal of the sanction in the literature and the media. Implications are provided.
Altman, R. N., Murray, R. E., & Wooten, E. B. (1997). Home confinement: A ‘90s approach to community supervision. Federal Probation, 61, 30-32.
2.
Arneklev, B. J., Cochran, J., & Gainey, R. R.1998. Testing Gottfredson and Hirschi’s low selfcontrol stability hypothesis: An exploratory study. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 23, 107-127.
3.
Baumer, T. L., Maxfield, M. G., & Mendelsohn, R. J. (1993). A comparative analysis of three electronically monitored home detention programs. Justice Quarterly, 10, 121-142.
4.
Berg, B. L. (2000). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
5.
Bonta, J., Wallace-Capretta, S., & Rooney, J. (2000a). Can electronic monitoring make a difference?Crime and Delinquency, 46, 61-75.
6.
Bonta, J., Wallace-Capretta, S., & Rooney, J. (2000b). A quasi-experimental evaluation of an intensive rehabilitation supervision program. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 27, 312-330.
7.
Brown, M., & Elrod, P. (1995). Electronic house arrest: An examination of citizen attitudes. Crime and Delinquency, 41, 332-346.
8.
Cadigan, T. (1993). Technology and pretrial services. Federal Probation, 57, 48-53.
9.
Clemmer, D. (1940/1958). The prison community. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
10.
Cooprider, K. W. (1992). Pretrial bond supervision: An empirical analysis with policy implications. Federal Probation, 56, 41-49.
11.
Cooprider, K. W.,& Kerby, J. (1990). Apractical application of electronic monitoring at the pretrial stage. Federal Probation, 54, 28-35.
12.
Courtright, K., Berg, B. L.,& Mutchnick, R. (1997). The cost effectiveness of using house arrest with electronic monitoring for drunk drivers. Federal Probation, 61, 19-22.
13.
Courtright, K., Berg, B. L., & Mutchnick, R. (2000). Rehabilitation in the new machine?International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 44, 293-311.
14.
Del Carmen, R.,& Vaughn, J. (1986). Legal issues in the use of electronic surveillance in probation. Federal Probation, 50, 60-69.
15.
Gainey, R. R., & Payne, B. K. (2000). A qualitative and quantitative consideration of offenders’ experiences on electronic monitoring. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 44, 84-96.
16.
Gainey, R. R., Payne, B. K., & O’Toole, M. (2000). Time in jail, time on electronic monitoring, and recidivism: An event history analysis. Justice Quarterly, 17, 733-752.
17.
Gottfredson, M., & Hirschi, T. (1990). A general theory of crime. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.
18.
Grace, A. M. (1990). Home incarceration under electronic monitoring. New York Law School Journal on Human Rights, 7, 285-314.
19.
Hirschi, T. (1969). Causes of delinquency. Berkley, CA: University of California Press.
20.
Houk, J. M. (1984). Electronic monitoring of probationers. Golden Gate University Law Review, 14, 431-446.
21.
Jolin, A., & Stipak, B. (1992). Drug treatment and electronically monitored home confinement. Crime and Delinquency, 38, 158-170.
22.
Jones, M.,& Sims, B. (1997). Recidivism of offenders released from prison in North Carolina: A gender comparisonPrison Journal, 77(3), 335-358.
23.
Lilly, J. R.,& Ball, R. (1987). Abrief history of house arrest. Northern Kentucky Law Review, 20, 505-530.
24.
Lilly, J. R., Ball, R., Curry, D., & Smith, R. (1992). The Pride, Inc. Program: An evaluation of five years of electronic monitoring. Federal Probation, 56, 42-53.
25.
Lilly, J. R., & Jenkins, D. (1989). Life with a tag. New Statesman, 2, 20-24.
26.
Loconte, J. (1998). Making criminals pay: A New York county’s bold experiment in biblical justice. Policy Review, 87, 26-32.
27.
Mainprize, S. (1992). Electronic monitoring in corrections. Canadian Journal of Criminology, 34, 161-180.
28.
Maxfield, M. J., & Baumer, T. (1990). Home detention with electronic monitoring. Crime and Delinquency, 36, 521-536.
29.
McCorkle, R. (1993). Research note: Punish and rehabilitate? Public attitudes toward six common crimes. Crime and Delinquency, 39, 240-252.
30.
Muncie, J. (1990). A prisoner in my own home. Probation Journal, 37, 72-77.
31.
O’Toole, M. (1999). Factors that affect recidivism of offenders on electronic monitoring in Norfolk, VA. Unpublished Master’s thesis, Old Dominion University, Norfolk, VA.
32.
Payne, B. K.,& Gainey, R. R. (1998). A qualitative assessment of the pains experienced on electronic monitoring. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 49, 49-63.
33.
Payne, B. K., & Gainey, R. R. (1999). Attitudes toward electronic monitoring among monitored offenders and criminal justice students. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 29, 195-208.
34.
Payne, B. K.,& Gainey, R. R. (2000). Electronic monitoring: Philosophical, systemic, and political problems. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 31, 93-112.
35.
Petersilia, J. (1986). Exploring the option of house arrest. Federal Probation, 50, 50-59.
36.
Petersilia, J.,& Deschenes, E. (1994). Perceptions of punishment. Prison Journal, 74, 306-328.
37.
Roy, S. (1997). Five years of electronic monitoring of adults in Lake County, Indiana. Journal of Crime and Justice, 20, 141-160.
38.
Spelman, W. (1995). The severity of intermediate sanctions. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 32, 107-135.
39.
Sykes, G. (1958). A Society of Captives. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
40.
Thistlewaite, A., Woolredge, J., & Gibbs, D. (1998). Severity of dispositions and domestic violence recidivism. Crime and Delinquency, 44, 388-399.
41.
Von Hirsch, A. (1990). The ethics of community based sanctions. Crime and Delinquency, 36, 162-173.
42.
Wood, P. B., & Grasmick, H. G. (1999). Toward the development of punishment equivalencies. Justice Quarterly, 16, 19-50.
