Creativity and effectiveness in the use of electronic monitoring: a case study of five European jurisdictions

The comparative research project covered current uses of electronic monitoring (EM) 5 jurisdictions in Europe: Belgium, England and Wales, Germany, the Netherlands and Scotland. An extensive literature review was undertaken alongside observations of all aspects of the EM process (75 days in total) and 190 interviews with policy-makers and practitioners involved in the provision of EM

Creativity and effectiveness in the use of electronic monitoring: a case study of five jurisdictions

The use of electronic monitoring (EM) has grown rapidly in the European Union and elsewhere and is likely to continue to do so but knowledge about its operation and its potential to provide a humane, credible and effective alternative to imprisonment is limited. The research on which this report is based was carried out in five jurisdictions in Europe (Belgium, England and Wales, Germany, the Netherlands and Scotland) which deploy EM in different ways and to varying extents facilitating comparative analysis. The research is the first empirical comparative study of electronic monitoring. Its aim was to compare the law, policy and practices in the five jurisdictions focussing particularly on EM’s capacity to act as an alternative to custody and to identify best practices to enhance its effectiveness and ensure that EM is used legally, creatively, ethically and humanely

Kreativität und Effektivität in der Anwendung von Electronic Monitoring: eine Fallstudie über fünf europäische Rechtssysteme

Das Forschungsprojekt umfasste fünf europäische Rechts-systeme: Belgien, England und Wales, Deutschland, die Niederlande und Schottland. Zusätzlich zu Beobachtungen aller Aspekte des EM-Prozesses (insgesamt 75 Tage) wur-de eine ausführliche Literaturanalyse durchgeführt, sowie 190 Interviews mit Entscheidungsträgern und Praktikern, die mit dem EM-Prozess zu tun haben

Creativiteit en effectiviteit in het gebruik van elektronisch toezicht: vergelijking van vijf Europese jurisdicties

Het onderzoek greep plaats in 5 jurisdicties in Eu-ropa: België, Engeland en Wales, Duitsland, Neder-land en Schotland. Naast het observeren van alle aspecten van het ET-proces (75 dagen in totaal) en 190 interviews met beleidsmakers en professionals die betrokken zijn bij de uitvoering van ET werd een uitgebreid literatuuronderzoek uitgevoerd

Créativité et efficacité dans l'utilisation de la surveillance électronique: une étude de cas portant sur cinq juridictions européennes

Le projet s'est penché sur 5 juridictions en Europe: la Belgique, l'Angleterre et le Pays de Galles, l'Allemagne, les Pays-Bas et l'Écosse. Une vaste étude bibliogra-phique a été menée ainsi que des observations de tous les aspects du processus de la SE (75 jours au total), et 190 entretiens auprès de décideurs politiques et de professionnels intervenants dans la mise en oeuvre de la SE

Assistance, Support and Monitoring? The Paradoxes of Mentoring Adults in the Criminal Justice System

Mentoring has recently taken centre stage as one of the primary criminal justice ‘interventions’ to reduce reoffending, having grown in popularity over the past fifteen years. Its rapid growth has been driven by claims of success within and outwith the criminal justice system, leading some to argue that it has been perceived as a silver bullet (Newburn and Shiner, 2005). This article challenges such claims on three fronts: first, mentoring is an ill-defined concept with weak theoretical foundations; second, the evidence base upon which claims of success are made is limited; and third, transferring mentoring into the coercive and punitive environment of the criminal justice system results in a departure from the very principles and values which are the basis of its usefulness elsewhere. The article utilises the findings from three empirical criminal justice research projects to question claims of widespread and effective mentoring activity with defendants and offenders, suggesting instead that ‘interventions’ described as mentoring serve as a vehicle to extend the reach of the criminal justice system. At the end of the article we suggest that desistance theory, specifically the Good Lives Model, provides a conceptual framework for taking mentoring in criminal justice forward

Exploring the dynamics of compliance with community penalties

In this paper, we examine how compliance with community penalties has been theorized hitherto and seek to develop a new dynamic model of compliance with community penalties. This new model is developed by exploring some of the interfaces between existing criminological and socio-legal work on compliance. The first part of the paper examines the possible definitions and dimensions of compliance with community supervision. Secondly, we examine existing work on explanations of compliance with community penalties, supplementing this by drawing on recent socio-legal scholarship on private individuals’ compliance with tax regimes. In the third part of the paper, we propose a dynamic model of compliance, based on the integration of these two related analyses. Finally, we consider some of the implications of our model for policy and practice concerning community penalties, suggesting the need to move beyond approaches which, we argue, suffer from compliance myopia; that is, a short-sighted and narrowly focused view of the issues