Bar's Ankle Monitor: Surveillance Or Punishment?

Ankle monitors are often used as an alternative to incarceration, allowing individuals to remain in their community rather than serving time in jail. They are usually employed as a condition for bail or parole, or as a pretrial condition for probation. Ankle monitors are often used for DUI offenders, with the monitor acting as an alcohol detector to ensure compliance with court-ordered sobriety. Additionally, they are used to track the location of individuals, allowing authorities to ensure they stay within designated boundaries and adhere to specific conditions set by the court. While ankle monitors are promoted as a humane alternative to jail, they have been criticised for being expensive, causing psychological distress, and perpetuating mass incarceration by keeping individuals connected to the prison system.

Ankle monitors are used as an alternative to jail time, but still come with restrictions

Ankle monitors are often used as an alternative to jail time, but they come with restrictions that can significantly impact the wearer's life. While they are intended to allow individuals to remain free while awaiting trial or as a condition of probation, the restrictions can be burdensome and impact various aspects of daily living.

One of the main restrictions of ankle monitors is the constant surveillance and tracking of the wearer's movements. This can include GPS monitoring, which allows authorities to track the wearer's location at all times. Additionally, the ankle monitor may be equipped with an alcohol detector that tests the wearer's sweat every thirty minutes to ensure they are abstaining from alcohol consumption, as is often the case for DUI offenders. These monitors can also detect attempts to tamper with or destroy the device, sending alerts to the monitoring company and probation officers.

Another restriction is the imposition of curfews and limitations on movement. Wearers of ankle monitors may be required to adhere to strict curfews and may need permission to leave their residence during approved hours. They may also be restricted from entering certain areas or specific locations, such as malls, parks, or sports stadiums. These restrictions can make it difficult to maintain employment, as was the case for Daehaun White, who struggled to find work due to the bulky and noticeable ankle monitor.

The financial burden associated with ankle monitors is another significant restriction. In many cases, the wearer is responsible for the installation fee and daily monitoring costs, which can range from $10 to $15 per day. For individuals who are already financially strained, these costs can be overwhelming and may result in debt or even a return to jail if they are unable to pay. This was evident in the case of Daehaun White, who was unable to afford the $10 per day fee and ended up back in jail due to his inability to pay.

While ankle monitors offer an alternative to incarceration, they come with a set of restrictions that can be challenging and restrictive. These devices impact various aspects of the wearer's life, including their movement, employment, and finances. Therefore, while they may provide a form of freedom compared to jail time, it is a restricted freedom that still imposes limitations and challenges on the individual.

They are often used to monitor sobriety, especially for DUI offenders

Ankle monitors are often used to monitor sobriety, especially for DUI offenders. DUI stands for Driving Under Influence, and it is a serious offence that can result in jail time and/or a fine. Repeat DUI offenders typically face from one year in county jail and/or up to three years in state prison. In such cases, ankle monitors are sometimes used as an alternative to jail or prison.

Ankle monitors for sobriety monitoring are known as SCRAM (Secure Continuous Remote Alcohol Monitor) devices. They are bracelets that are worn on the ankle 24 hours a day and can be installed above the ankle, on the lower leg. They are designed to work continuously, detecting alcohol coming from the user by testing the wearer's perspiration every 30 seconds to 30 minutes. The device measures the level of alcohol in the person's body, and the results are uploaded via the internet for third-party companies to monitor.

The SCRAM device is similar to a breathalyser as it measures the level of alcohol in the body. When a person consumes alcohol, it enters the bloodstream and causes intoxication. The kidneys then slowly eliminate the alcohol and pass it through the urine. However, during the time it is in the blood, some of it is exhaled through the breath, and a tiny part of it escapes as ethanol vapour through the sweat pores. While this amount of alcohol is not detectable to the human nose, the SCRAM device is sensitive enough to detect it.

The SCRAM device not only helps to monitor sobriety but also provides accountability and encourages compliance with court orders. It increases community safety and supports long-term behaviour change, complementing treatment for alcohol dependence or addiction. The device is equipped with anti-tamper technology that identifies any attempts to remove or destroy it, and it will immediately alert the relevant authorities if it is tampered with.

Courts may mandate ankle monitors to ensure defendants appear for their trial

For example, DUI offenders may be required to wear an ankle monitor to ensure they refrain from drinking alcohol. The monitor tests the wearer's sweat every thirty minutes for the presence of alcohol, and alerts the probation officer if alcohol is detected. This helps to ensure the defendant's appearance in court, as violating the terms of the ankle monitor can result in additional penalties, including jail time.

In some cases, ankle monitors may be used as a condition of probation or parole. For instance, individuals on probation or parole for serious crimes such as murder, sexual assault, or major drug offenses may be required to wear an ankle monitor. This allows authorities to monitor their location and ensure they do not reoffend.

While ankle monitors are intended to provide an alternative to incarceration, there is criticism that they may not be as effective as claimed. Some argue that the devices can be restrictive and hinder individuals' ability to work or take care of their families. Additionally, the cost of the ankle monitor is often passed on to the wearer, which can be a significant financial burden, especially for those who cannot afford bail.

In conclusion, while ankle monitors can be a useful tool for courts to ensure defendants' appearance in court, there are also concerns about their effectiveness and the potential financial burden they place on individuals.

They can be expensive, with installation and daily monitoring fees

Ankle monitors can be expensive, with installation and daily monitoring fees. The cost of these devices can vary depending on the company providing them. Typically, the individual required to wear the monitor is responsible for covering these costs.

Installation fees for ankle monitors can range from $50 to $100. On top of this, there is a daily monitoring fee, which can be as much as $10 to $15 per day. This means that the monthly cost of wearing an ankle monitor can quickly add up to $300 or more.

In some cases, individuals may be able to avoid paying for the ankle monitor directly. For example, if they are unable to pay, the costs may be covered by their bail bond service or lawyer. However, this usually results in higher overall bail or legal fees.

For those who cannot afford the cost of an ankle monitor, the alternative is often incarceration. This highlights the financial burden that ankle monitors can place on individuals, particularly those from low-income backgrounds. The high cost of these devices can act as an additional punishment, potentially hindering the individual's ability to work, support their family, and successfully reintegrate into society.

The expense of ankle monitors is not just a financial burden for the individual but also raises questions about the role of private companies in the criminal justice system. The profit motive of these companies can influence the cost and accessibility of ankle monitors, impacting the lives of those involved.

Some people view ankle monitors as a form of digital jail

Ankle monitors are often viewed as a more humane alternative to jail, allowing people to live at home and move about more freely than they would behind bars. However, some people consider ankle monitors as a form of digital jail, arguing that they are restrictive and violate civil rights.

One of the main concerns with ankle monitors is the financial burden they place on wearers. In some cases, individuals are required to pay daily fees for the device, which can range from $5 to $35 per day. These costs can be excessive, particularly for those who are already financially disadvantaged. If people cannot pay, they may end up back in jail. Additionally, there may be installation fees and other associated costs, such as daily charging, which can further strain individuals' finances.

Another issue with ankle monitors is the restriction on liberty and freedom of movement. Wearers may be subject to strict rules and conditions, such as curfews, geographic restrictions, and limitations on social activities. Any violation of these rules can result in harsh penalties, including jail time. The constant surveillance and the threat of punishment can create a sense of anxiety and trap people in a cycle of incarceration.

Furthermore, ankle monitors can have negative social consequences. The devices are often bulky and noticeable, leading to stigmatization and social isolation. This can make it difficult for individuals to find employment or maintain social relationships, further exacerbating their financial and personal struggles.

Some also argue that ankle monitors are not effective at preventing recidivism or enhancing public safety. There is limited rigorous research to support the idea that ankle monitors reduce the likelihood of absconding or reoffending. In some cases, individuals have been able to cut off or tamper with the devices without immediate consequences.

Overall, while ankle monitors are intended to provide an alternative to incarceration, they can end up imposing additional hardships and restrictions on individuals. The financial costs, loss of liberty, and social consequences associated with ankle monitors lead some to view them as a form of digital jail.

Frequently asked questions