Using electronic monitoring with female offenders in Thailand
Abstract
Aim: This paper aims to identify the benefits and drawbacks of using EM as an alternative to incarceration for female offenders who are either (1) pregnant, (2) breastfeeding, (3) mothers with children in prison, or (4) women with dependent children.
Method: This investigation relied on qualitative strategies. In-depth interviews were conducted with women who had used the EM as an alternative to incarceration to learn more about the program’s benefits and drawbacks. Ten female offenders were interviewed about their experiences with EM.
Findings: According to this study, most people experience high levels of stress and anxiety during the first week of EM treatment. However, they are in better mental and physical health after that time and report feeling better. The results also showed that female offenders felt better after using the EM for a while. Each period has a higher total point value, as can be seen. This indicates that when using EM as an alternative to incarceration, all participants felt better and experienced less stress.
Implications/Novel Contribution: Tiny and practical, the GPS device tracks your every move. However, today it is only valid in mainland Europe. Since other developing countries use more modern technology and successfully use the EM as an alternative imprisonment, it should not be difficult for the Thai government to solve the problem of the EM’s outdated technology.
References
Department of Corrections. 2016. “Statistics of Prisoners.” Retrieved June 15, 2016 (https://goo.gl/EoTU19).
Di Tella, R., and Schargrodsky, E. 2013. “Criminal Recidivism After Prison and Electronic Monitoring.” Journal of Political Economy 121(1): 28-73.
Losel, F. 2007. “Counterblast: The Prison Overcrowding Crisis and Some Constructive Perspectives for Crime Policy.” The Howard Journal of Criminal Justice 46(5): 512-519.
Maes, E., Mine, B., De Man, C., and Van Brakel, R. 2012. “Thinking About Electronic Monitoring in The Context of Pre-Trial Detention in Belgium: A Solution to Prison Overcrowding?” European Journal of Probation 4(2): 3-22.
Mair, G. 2005. “Electronic Monitoring in England and Wales Evidence-Based or Not?” Criminal Justice 5(3): 257-277.
Nellis, M., and Torres, N. 2011. “Electronic Monitoring and Probation: Offender Rehabilitation and the Reduction of Prison Population.” Presented at the 7th European electronic monitoring conference, May, 5-7, Evora, Portugal.
Nellis, M., Beyens, K., and Kaminski, D. 2013. Electronically Monitored Punishment International and Critical Perspectives. New York, NY: Routledge.
Paterson, C. 2007. “Commercial Crime Control and the Electronic Monitoring of Offenders in England and Wales.” Social Justice 34(3): 98-110.
Penal Reform International. 2016. “UN Bangkok Rules.” Retrieved June 16, 2016 (https://goo.gl/PKrIRL).
United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. 2016a. “United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for Non-custodial Measures (the Tokyo Rules): 3. Alternatives to Imprisonment and Restorative Justice.” Retrieved June 16, 2016 (https://goo.gl/6VaYjK).
United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. 2016b. “Why promote prison reform?” Retrieved June 16, 2016 (https://goo.gl/wZnLSv).
Vanhaelemeesch, D., Vander Beken, T., and Vandevelde, S. 2014. “Punishment at Home: Offenders’ Experiences with Electronic Monitoring.” European Journal of Criminology 11(3): 273-287.
Whitfield, D. 1997. Tackling the Tag: The Electronic Monitoring of Offenders. Winchester, England: Waterside press.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.