The Evolution Of Ankle Monitors: A Historical Perspective

Ankle monitors, also known as electronic monitoring devices, have been used as a form of surveillance since the 1980s. The devices are typically strapped to an individual's ankle to track their movement and location and are often used as an alternative to pre-trial detention or as a condition of probation. While they are promoted as a humane alternative to jail, private companies often charge individuals for wearing the devices, which can lead to financial strain and, in some cases, a return to incarceration. The use of ankle monitors has sparked debates around privacy, efficacy in reducing crime, and the exacerbation of systemic inequities.

The history of ankle monitors

Ankle monitors, or electronic tags, are a form of surveillance that uses an electronic device affixed to an individual. The first commercial applications of electronic monitoring were in the 1980s, but the concept was conceived two decades earlier by identical twins Ralph and Robert Gable, who were studying at Harvard under the psychologists Timothy Leary and B.F. Skinner. The Gables' prototype, called a behaviour transmitter-reinforcer, was intended to aid in the rehabilitation of young adult offenders by providing positive reinforcement. However, reviewers were sceptical, and the prototype never took off.

In the 1970s, the US saw an end to rehabilitative sentencing, with those found guilty of a criminal offence sent to prison, leading to a sudden increase in the prison population. Probation became more common, and in 1982, a former sales representative of Honeywell Information Systems, Michael T. Goss, was convinced by an Arizona state district judge, Jack Love, to start a monitoring company, National Incarceration Monitor and Control Services (NIMCOS). NIMCOS built several credit card-sized transmitters that could be strapped to an individual's ankle. The monitor transmitted a radio signal every 60 seconds, which could be picked up by a receiver up to 45 metres away.

In 1983, Judge Jack Love imposed home curfews on three offenders who had been sentenced to probation. The curfew was a probation condition and entailed 30 days of electronic monitoring at home. While the goal of home confinement was satisfied, two of the three offenders re-offended, meaning the aim of reducing crime through probation was not achieved.

In recent years, legislators have embraced ankle monitors as an enlightened alternative to incarceration. More than 125,000 people in the criminal justice system were supervised with monitors in 2015, compared with just 53,000 in 2005. However, the cost of these devices can be a burden for those who have to pay for them, and critics argue that they can place poor people in special jeopardy.

In addition, the stigma associated with wearing an ankle monitor can lead to social isolation and stress, exacerbating depression and anxiety for wearers. Furthermore, the surveillance can make it difficult for individuals to work or go to school, obtain necessary items such as soap and clothes, or visit family.

How ankle monitors work

The use of ankle monitors as a form of surveillance is not new, with the first commercial applications of electronic monitoring appearing in the 1980s. Ankle monitors are often used as an alternative to traditional incarceration, with prison overcrowding and inmate warehousing being major concerns in the criminal justice system. Here's how they work:

Types of Ankle Monitors

There are three main types of ankle monitors:

• Radio Frequency (RF) monitors: These monitors inform the monitoring party about the general whereabouts of the device in relation to a home-based unit, usually notifying when the device comes into or departs from a designated area. They are often used for curfew purposes and house arrest.
• Global Positioning System (GPS) ankle monitors: GPS monitors provide specific geographical coordinates for the wearer and can be very precise. They are useful for allowing individuals to travel according to prearranged schedules and can help restrict offenders from going too near certain locations or people.
• Secure Continuous Remote Alcohol Monitoring (SCRAM) systems: While SCRAM systems can also monitor location, their main purpose is to detect alcohol consumption. They periodically test the wearer's sweat for alcohol content and are often used for repeat driving under the influence (DUI) cases.

Ankle monitors are typically locked into place to allow for ongoing, accurate monitoring. They work by taking regular or constant readings of information such as the wearer's location, which is then transmitted to an on-site receiver and then to a remote receiver at a police station or monitoring centre. A judge will usually calibrate the monitor to restrict the wearer to a specific geographical area or alcohol consumption level. If the wearer leaves the designated area, tampers with the device, or the device requires charging, the monitor will signal the authorities or monitoring agents.

Rules and Restrictions

Individuals wearing ankle monitors must understand the requirements and rules of their monitor, which can vary on a case-by-case basis. Some common rules include:

• The individual must keep a job.
• The individual must stay in compliance with all conditions of supervision.
• The individual must pay all court fees.
• The individual must meet with their probation or parole officer at scheduled times.
• The individual must abstain from drugs and alcohol.

Effectiveness

While ankle monitors are used as an alternative form of punishment, some studies suggest that they may be less effective than other rehabilitation programs in discouraging further crimes. Additionally, the use of ankle monitors can place individuals in financial hardship, as they are often required to pay for the device and associated costs themselves.

Who has to wear ankle monitors

The use of ankle monitors has been a growing trend in the United States, with the number of people under electronic supervision increasing from 53,000 in 2005 to 125,000 in 2015. While ankle monitors are often seen as a more humane alternative to jail, they can also be restrictive and come with certain conditions that must be followed. So, who has to wear ankle monitors?

Ankle monitors are typically worn by individuals who are out on bond or probation and are considered a danger to the community or a flight risk. They are also commonly used for individuals with a history of reoffending or violating bail or parole terms. In some cases, ankle monitors are used as an alternative to pre-trial detention or as a condition of probation for low-risk offenders. For example, in DUI or DWI cases, individuals may be required to wear an ankle monitor that detects alcohol levels and ensures compliance with court orders not to drink.

In addition, ankle monitors are often used in domestic violence cases to ensure that the offender maintains a required distance from the victim. They can also be used in immigration cases, where individuals awaiting court dates may be required to wear them.

Ankle monitors are typically about the size of a pager and are strapped to the ankle with a tamper-proof band. The most common type of monitoring is radio frequency (RF), which uses GPS to track an individual's whereabouts. If an individual attempts to remove the monitor or leaves the designated area, authorities are notified.

While ankle monitors are meant to provide freedom and flexibility compared to incarceration, they can still be burdensome and restrictive. Individuals under electronic supervision must follow specific rules and regulations, such as adhering to a curfew or avoiding certain people or areas. The cost of renting and maintaining the device can also be a significant financial burden, especially for those who cannot afford it.

Overall, ankle monitors are worn by individuals who are deemed to require additional supervision or monitoring to ensure public safety and compliance with court orders. While they offer an alternative to incarceration, they also come with their own set of restrictions and challenges.

The cost of ankle monitors

In addition to the daily or monthly fees, there may also be upfront costs associated with getting the monitor attached. For instance, EMASS requires individuals to pay $300 upfront, which covers the first 25 days of monitoring plus the installation fee.

Furthermore, there may be hidden costs associated with ankle monitors. For instance, individuals may need to purchase additional equipment, such as power inverters or chargers, to ensure the monitor is always charged and functioning. Additionally, the restrictions and constant surveillance imposed by the monitor may impact an individual's ability to work and earn an income.

While ankle monitors are intended to be a more humane and cost-effective alternative to incarceration, the financial burden they impose on individuals, particularly those from low-income backgrounds, raises concerns about equity and fairness in the justice system.

The pros and cons of ankle monitors

Ankle monitors, also known as electronic tags, are a form of surveillance that uses an electronic device affixed to an individual. Typically, these devices are strapped around the lower leg and are used to track the movements of individuals who have been sentenced to restricted travel or activities. The use of ankle monitors has sparked debates about its advantages and disadvantages. Here are some of the pros and cons of ankle monitors:

Pros:

• Enhanced Security and Safety: Ankle monitors can provide real-time location tracking, ensuring the safety and well-being of individuals, especially in potentially hazardous environments or industries such as construction and mining.
• Improved Accountability: These devices can be used to ensure individuals adhere to the terms of their sentences or diversions, such as maintaining sobriety for those with substance abuse issues.
• Deterring Repeat Behaviour: Ankle monitors help deter individuals from reoffending or violating the conditions of their sentence. This has been supported by reports showing high compliance rates and a reduction in reoffending.
• Cost-Effectiveness: Ankle monitors are often seen as a cheaper alternative to imprisonment, as they allow individuals to serve their sentences from home or in community settings.

Cons:

• Invasion of Privacy: Constant monitoring can raise concerns about the invasion of personal privacy, potentially leading to discomfort and decreased morale among those wearing the devices.
• Data Security: The transmission and storage of sensitive location data come with inherent risks, and ensuring the protection of this information is critical.
• Operational Costs: There are significant costs associated with purchasing, maintaining, and managing ankle monitor technology, including initial investments and ongoing data subscription fees.
• False Positives and Negatives: Ankle monitors, like any technology, are not perfect and can sometimes provide inaccurate results, leading to misunderstandings and undermining the system's reliability.
• Limiting Freedom: While ankle monitors provide an alternative to imprisonment, they still impose restrictions on individuals' movements and activities, impacting their daily lives and sense of freedom.

Frequently asked questions