AUSTRALIAN INSTITUTE

OF CRIMINOLOGY

No. 254 trends

Electronic Monitoring in the &
Criminal Justice System issues
Matt Black and Russell G. Smith
in crime and criminal justice
Sometimes criminal justice authorities may wish to control or to monitor the
location of an individual without resorting to imprisonment. For example,
before a criminal trial, police may want to ensure that the defendant stays in
town or stays away from the complainant. After conviction, a judge may wish
to place limits on an offender’s freedom while not employing a full-time
custodial sanction. Upon release from prison, a parole board may want to
impose restrictions on an offender.
Community-based programs aim to meet these goals through release
conditions such as reporting to officials or complying with a curfew. Electronic
monitoring is a technological means of enforcing such conditions. Using
tracking systems, criminal justice agencies can monitor an individual’s
location and be alerted to any unauthorised movements. Technology, thus, can
be useful in detention, restriction and surveillance.
However, constant surveillance of people, particularly through the use of
devices fixed to their body, or even implanted beneath the skin, raises serious
civil liberty and ethical concerns. This paper reviews developments in
electronic monitoring in criminal justice settings in Australia and identifies
the arguments for and against their use at a time when technology can provide
solutions that previously were impractical. Adam Graycar May 2003
Director

T he technologies of electronic monitoring have their roots in the

work of Dr Ralph Schwitzgebel of the Science Committee on
Psychological Experimentation at Harvard University (1968). In
ISSN 0817-8542
ISBN 0 642 53801 8
1964, he developed a one-kilogram Radio Telemetry Device that
could be worn by a person. The device transmitted signals to a
modified missile-tracking unit up to 400 metres away, which
determined the wearer’s location on a screen.
In the early 1980s an American judge, supposedly inspired by a
Spiderman comic, persuaded a company to develop a monitoring
bracelet suitable for offenders to wear (Rondinelli 1998). In 1983, the
Australian Institute
first order was made requiring an offender who had breached
parole to wear an anklet to monitor his future behaviour (Liverani of Criminology
1998). This use of electronic monitoring devices became commonly GPO Box 2944
known as “tagging”. Canberra ACT 2601
These developments took place at a time when community- Australia
based sanctions were becoming more prevalent and of greater
significance in reducing prison populations (Richardson 1999).
Tel: 02 6260 9221
Against a background of stubbornly high prison populations and
rapidly developing technology, governments are now reaching a Fax: 02 6260 9201
critical point in the use of electronic monitoring as a means of reducing
For a complete list and the full text of the
costs and improving the effectiveness of corrections. The aggressive
papers in the Trends and Issues in
marketing of private companies has been instrumental in the growth
Crime and Criminal Justice series, visit
of electronic monitoring (Maxfield & Baumer 1990; Liverani 1998).
the AIC web site at:
There are three main rationales behind the use of electronic
monitoring: http://www.aic.gov.au
• Detention
Electronic monitoring can be used to ensure that the individual Disclaimer: This research paper does not
remains in a designated place. For example, home detention necessarily reflect the policy position of the
schemes typically require offenders to be at home during Commonwealth Government.
established curfew hours. This was one the first uses of electronic
 Australian Institute of Criminology

monitoring and remains the systems primarily seek to enforce continuously monitoring the
most popular (Mukherjee 1999; detention, although they may be person’s location.
Crowe 2002). extended to achieve some restriction Miniature tracking devices are
• Restriction and surveillance as well. also currently being developed
Alternatively, electronic Active systems impose and tested (The Economist,
monitoring can be used to
ensure that an individual does restrictions through the installation 15 August 2002). These can be
not enter proscribed areas, or of monitoring devices in places implanted beneath the skin and
approach particular people, such where the person is not permitted can track an individual’s location
as complainants, potential to go. If the wearer goes into those as well as monitor physiological
victims or even co-offenders areas, an alert can be sounded and signs. Although these may be
(Marien 2002; The Economist, action taken (The Economist, removed using a simple surgical
15 August 2002). 15 August 2002). Active systems procedure, the potential for civil
• Surveillance can also be used to restrict an action for any adverse consequences
Finally, electronic monitoring individual’s access to other people of the surgery or the implant itself
may be used so that authorities
can continuously track a person, if those people (for example, demands serious consideration
without actually restricting their victims) are given a device that before any such developments
movements. detects if the person under take place. Professional ethical
surveillance comes too close. The issues also arise for doctors
surveillance purpose can be involved in the implantation and
Electronic Monitoring achieved to some degree by removal procedures. In the United
Technologies placing monitoring devices at bus Kingdom, there have been
stops and train stations so that the indications that the government
There are a number of technologies
individual can be tracked to and may consider the use of surgically
available that can aid with the
from work (for example, Johnson implanted devices for convicted
detention, restriction or
1999). paedophiles (Bright 2002).
surveillance of individuals within
An even more sophisticated
the criminal justice system. Most Global Positioning Systems
device includes a miniature video
involve some kind of device that Global Positioning Systems (GPS) camera that enables officials to
is locked onto the subject’s wrist consist of three components: observe the wearer’s location and
or ankle with tamper-proof satellites, a network of ground activities (Fabelo 2001), while
elements to prevent removal. stations, and mobile user devices other devices can measure
Passive Systems (Aerospace Corporation 1997). biochemical characteristics such as
Measuring the user’s distance the wearer’s blood-alcohol level.
In these systems, wearers are
from three different satellites
periodically contacted by
identifies the user’s location.
telephone to ensure that they are
GPS is used in military Applications
where they are supposed to be
operations, search and rescue,
(Crowe 2002). The individual’s There are three stages at which
police surveillance and private-
identity may be verified by such electronic monitoring may be
sector vehicle tracking (Aerospace
means as a password, a device used in the criminal justice
Corporation 1997; Dotinga 2003).
that the subject wears or a system: pre-trial, at sentencing
In the criminal justice system, GPS
biometric such as a fingerprint or and post-prison.
can be used for detention, restriction
retinal scan (Mukherjee 1999).
Passive systems are only effective
and surveillance purposes. The Pre-trial
technology eliminates the need for Electronic monitoring may be a
for detention purposes.
a device to be installed in the condition upon which a defendant
Active Systems wearer’s home and is currently is released on bail. Bail conditions
These systems utilise a device being used or introduced in a are normally required to be no
worn by the individual that number of jurisdictions in the more onerous than is necessary to
continuously emits a signal United States (Jarred 2000). ensure that the defendant appears
(Rondinelli 1998). A corresponding Detention with GPS is achieved for trial and does not commit
device in the person’s home relays in the same way as with an active further offences. Punishment, at
the signal to a monitoring station. system. The person is monitored this stage, is not relevant (Maxfield
If the wearer strays too far from to ensure curfew hours are kept. & Baumer 1990). Electronic
home or breaks the device, the Place-restriction is enforced monitoring should, therefore, be
authorities are alerted. through an alert that is triggered if confined to surveillance unless
A variation of this system the person goes into prohibited restrictions and detention are
utilises mobile equipment that can areas. The person’s proximity to absolutely essential.
detect the presence of the other people can be controlled if Trials of electronic monitoring
individual’s device. A corrections those people also carry GPS in the bail process began in 1989
officer can drive past a designated devices, or are regularly informed in the United Kingdom with 50
place to ensure that the wearer is of the wearer’s location. accused persons being subject to
there (Mukherjee 1999). Active Surveillance is achieved by surveillance (Richardson 1999).

2
 Australian Institute of Criminology

Such programs continue to operate Unlike pre-trial arrangements, six months of a prison sentence
in the United Kingdom today the use of electronic monitoring in (Jarred 2000). The prisoner is
(Home Office 2002a). For example, this context entails a sentencing released into the community with
one program allows defendants court seeking to punish an an electronic monitoring condition
aged 12 to 16 to be released with offender. This suggests a much and will then either progress to a
curfew conditions enforced larger role for detention. Restriction traditional parole order or finish
through electronic monitoring and surveillance can also be used the sentence. Queensland operates
(Nacro Youth Crime 2002). to reduce the likelihood of the a similar program. Towards the
Electronic monitoring has been individual re-offending, particularly end of their prison sentences,
used as a pre-trial requirement in against the original victim. prisoners may be released to
the United States. In one program, Electronic monitoring is home detention with electronic
electronic monitoring was currently available as a primary monitoring. They spend three to
available for those who could not sentence in the United States and four months on the program
afford to pay the required bail is generally considered to be before finishing their sentence on
amount (Maxfield & Baumer somewhat more lenient than parole (Corrections News 2001).
1990). The program used a passive prison, but harsher than probation.
system and if the accused had not Figures from the Bureau of Justice
The Australian Legislative
gone to trial after 90 days, the Statistics show that in 1998 there
Framework
electronic monitoring condition were 19,677 people on electronically
was lifted as the accused was then monitored probation in the United
considered a low risk. States (Bonczar & Glaze 1999). Pre-trial
In Canada, there are no The Northern Territory’s Only Western Australia specifically
specific legislative provisions for electronic monitoring program is a provides for electronic monitoring
electronically monitored bail. “direct alternative to imprisonment” at the pre-trial stage. The Bail Act
However, the courts do use their (NT Department of Justice 2002). 1982 (WA) allows home detention
general powers to order electronic The court first sentences an to be imposed on an accused
monitoring in conjunction with offender to imprisonment and person aged over 17, but only by a
home detention requirements for then, if the offender consents and judicial officer. A suitability report
some defendants (R v S (A.R.) is assessed as suitable, the term must first be obtained from a
2001 SKQB 47). may be served through monitored corrections officer and then the
There are two other possible home detention. accused person may be required
applications similar to pre-trial A similar situation exists in to wear a device or to permit the
usage. The first concerns the New South Wales, where a home installation of a device in the place
monitoring of asylum-seekers detention scheme enforced with where the person is required to
while their applications are being electronic monitoring exists remain.
processed. At present most such (Studerus 1999). However, an In most jurisdictions,
applicants are held in detention offender can only be considered electronic monitoring may be
(Brennan 2002). The Human for such an option after being possible under the generally
Rights Council of Australia (Sidoti sentenced to imprisonment broad discretion available when
2002) has suggested electronic (Jarred 2000). imposing bail conditions (Nacro
monitoring as an alternative to Youth Crime 2002). For example,
Post-prison section 11(2) of the South
detention. The second context
concerns restraining orders, which The post-prison stage may Australian Bail Act 1985 allows the
a court may impose to prevent a incorporate electronic monitoring bail authority to impose a
potential offender from in the early release of a prisoner condition requiring an accused
approaching a complainant (Legal into the community. For example, person to remain at his or her
Aid NSW 2003). Electronic it is used in the United Kingdom residence except for authorised
monitoring is not currently used “towards the end of a custodial activities such as employment.
in either of these settings in sentence, as a form of transition Although there is no specific
Australia, although modern from prison back into the mention of electronic monitoring,
restriction and surveillance community” (Home Office 2002b). the Supreme Court of South
capabilities may raise the Similarly in New Zealand, early Australia has interpreted this as
possibility for consideration. release of specified prisoners with authority to order electronically
electronic monitoring has been monitored bail, at least where the
Primary Sentencing available since 1999 and has been applicant is willing (R v Blayney
Electronic monitoring can be used found to work well, apart from [2002] SASC 184).
as a primary sentencing option to minor technological problems and
enforce certain restrictions on the some negative impacts on families Primary Sentencing
liberty of an offender. For example, and sponsors of offenders subject Two Australian jurisdictions have
home detention schemes generally to monitoring (Gibbs & King 2003). specific legislative authority for
use electronic monitoring to keep In South Australia, electronic home detention with electronic
the offender confined to his or her monitoring is available in the final monitoring as a primary
home during curfew hours. sentencing option. The Northern
3
 Australian Institute of Criminology

Territory’s Sentencing Act 1995 and home detention) may be example, it is possible that
provides that a “court which required to wear a device that electronic monitoring may be
sentences an offender to a term of monitors the offender’s location. used where mere suspension or
imprisonment may make an order Again, electronic monitoring probation would have been used
suspending the sentence on the after prison release may be previously. This may lead to “both
offender entering into a home possible under more general a widening of the net of social
detention order”. Offenders on a powers. The New South Wales control and an unwarranted
home detention order may be Crimes (Administration of Sentences) escalation of penalties” (Fox 1987).
required to “wear or have Act 1999 gives the parole board
attached a monitoring device”. general powers to impose conditions
Ethical, Legal and
In Western Australia, the on home detention and parole.
Practical Issues
Sentencing Act 1995 provides that The board in the Australian
a court may impose an intensive Capital Territory has similar The use of electronic monitoring
supervision order with a curfew powers under the Rehabilitation of in the criminal justice system
requirement. This requires the Offenders (Interim) Act 2001. raises a number of ethical, legal
offender to “submit to and practical issues.
surveillance or monitoring as
Advantages and Disadvantages As monitoring is predominantly
ordered” and to wear a device or applicable in correctional contexts,
have a device installed in his or There is a range of potential so the question of punishment
her home. Electronic monitoring advantages associated with the arises because of the power of
“may only be imposed for a term use of electronic monitoring. One modern monitoring technologies
of six months or less”. of the major advantages is the to facilitate restriction and
New South Wales law does possibility of reduced prison surveillance. Although not a
not specifically authorise populations. This is most likely punishment in itself, electronic
electronic monitoring, however where monitoring is used as an monitoring has the potential to
the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) alternative to prison, rather than enforce restrictions upon a
Act 1999 (NSW) gives the court to enhance existing non-custodial person’s liberty in connection with
the power to sentence certain orders. Major cost savings may be a judicially imposed punishment
offenders to home detention with achieved through building fewer such as home detention.
“such conditions as it considers prisons as well as reducing the A view expressed by some is
appropriate”. In practice, cost of administering custodial that home detention is simply
electronic monitoring is used to sentences. another way in which to serve a
enforce these home detention Another suggested advantage prison term, albeit in a less
orders (Keay 2000). is the possibility of improving restrictive environment (Keay
Electronic monitoring may rehabilitation and reintegration of 2000). In New Zealand, for
also be possible under general offenders. Electronic monitoring example, one of the few recent
powers of courts in other may allow more offenders to evaluations of electronically
jurisdictions. For example, the maintain employment and contact monitored home detention found
Tasmanian Sentencing Act 1997 with their families. It also avoids that detainees were generally
provides that an “order of a court any negative psychological effects happy with the system (Gibbs &
suspending the whole or a part of of incarceration, although of King 2003), and clearly it avoids
a sentence of imprisonment may course the wearing of a device the “violence, intimidation and
be made subject to such carries its own psychological degrading punishment” of some
conditions as the court considers pressures. prison experiences (Keay 2000).
necessary or expedient.” A disadvantage of electronic Electronic monitoring is
Post-prison monitoring is the lack of undoubtedly an invasive
incapacitation. Electronic technology that involves the
Legislation in two jurisdictions
monitoring does not physically physical attachment of a device to,
contemplates the use of electronic
restrain a person and dangerous or in, a person. Modern
monitoring in post-prison
offenders are still able to offend technologies are also psychologically
administration of sentences. In
before authorities can intervene. invasive in the sense that the
Western Australia, the Sentence
Also, the less onerous conditions person’s every move can be tracked,
Administration Act 1995 allows
of home detention with electronic other than when the device is
certain prisoners to be released on
monitoring may result in some programmed to be off. Fox (1987)
home detention. These offenders
victims and the public perceiving reported that:
may be required to wear a
some offenders as being dealt ...those who have experienced
monitoring device or to have a
with too leniently. the regime of [electronically]
device installed in the place where monitored home detention
There have also been concerns
they are required to live. Similarly, indicate that it is psychologically
that electronic monitoring as a
the Queensland Corrective Services wearing and more onerous in
primary sentence may actually
Act 2000 provides that offenders terms of self-discipline than the
increase the severity of some world of prison.
released on community-based
sentences (Jarred 2000). For
release orders (including parole
4
 Australian Institute of Criminology

Complex questions arise concerning Australian jurisdictions where effectiveness of monitoring to

the scope and practical application electronic monitoring is used under reduce recidivism and to enhance
of electronic monitoring. Is the use the court’s general power to impose rehabilitation.
of force acceptable when attaching conditions on an individual. If There appears to be no
a device? Should surgically that power is sufficient to require consensus as to the ability of
implanted devices ever be a person to wear a monitoring electronic monitoring to reduce
appropriate? If the offender is device, does it also authorise a court prison numbers. It depends upon
subject to a curfew, should to compel an individual to submit whether monitoring is used to
authorities have any right to track to a surgically implanted device? enhance existing community-
his or her movements outside The Corrective Services based sentences or as an alternative
curfew hours? To what uses Ministers’ Conference (1996) has to prison. The Northern Territory
should information about the published guidelines for the claimed an almost immediate
offender’s movements be put? implementation of home detention positive impact after the
One system in the United States, and electronic monitoring. It states introduction of home detention
for example, correlates the that home detainees should be with electronic monitoring
wearer’s movements with crime subject to the minimum level of (Owston 1990) and reductions of
reports and alerts authorities if he supervision necessary and that the approximately 10 to 30 per cent
or she appears to have been use of monitoring devices should were reported in Sweden (Jarred
present at the scene of a crime be unobtrusive and clearly 2000). In the United States,
(Scheeres 2002). explained to offenders. While however, electronic monitoring
Industry has played a pivotal these standards are a positive has generally not reduced prison
role in the growth of electronic move, there is a strong case for the overcrowding (Rondinelli 1998).
monitoring (Maxfield & Baumer implementation of legislation to Electronic monitoring can,
1990). In some jurisdictions, govern the use of electronic however, contribute to substantial
private sector firms operate monitoring. It may be possible for cost savings (Richardson 1999).
systems and even attach the the Commonwealth to do this This has been the experience in a
device to the offender (Richardson under its constitutional powers variety of jurisdictions including
1999). This raises many of the over “telegraphic, telephonic, and New Zealand, New South Wales,
contentious issues surrounding other like services” (s. 51(v) of the the United States and the United
the role of the private sector in Australian Constitution). Kingdom (Maxfield & Baumer
prison management, including Questions also arise about the 1990; Richardson 1999; Jarred
accountability, training and effectiveness of electronic 2000). Cost savings are obviously
service quality (Harding 1998). monitoring and whether or not it enhanced even further if a user-
Financial considerations also reduces costs and prison pays system is utilised.
arise. Some offenders involved in populations. If electronic Many jurisdictions have also
monitoring programs are required monitoring results in increased found high rates of successful
to pay a fee towards the cost of breach rates, then the result might completion of electronically
the equipment and the monitoring be an overall increase in prison monitored sentences. For example,
(Maxfield & Baumer 1990; admissions. rates of 80 per cent compliance in
Scheeres 2002). This is partially Finally, the question arises as the United Kingdom and 90 per
justified by the argument that to whether electronic monitoring cent compliance in Sweden have
offenders who remain in the can assist with the reintegration of been reported (Jarred 2000). In
community can continue in offenders into the community New Zealand, completion rates
employment (if they are able to better than conventional parole or were also high and recidivism
find suitable work). The logical prison programs. One argument is rates low (Gibbs & King 2003).
extension is, however, that all that electronic monitoring provides However, these figures have not
offenders on community-based great potential for improved been compared with control
programs should be required to rehabilitation of offenders (Liverani groups, making conclusions less
contribute to correctional costs. 1998). It allows offenders to certain. At the very least, modern
This could place hardship on maintain employment and enjoy forms of electronic monitoring
those with low incomes and high closer relationships with their make non-compliance easier and
family maintenance costs. families. This environment may quicker to detect.
Electronic monitoring also be more conducive to behavioural
raises the important legal question change than a prison setting.
Conclusion
of whether specific legislative Problems can arise, however, if
provisions should be enacted to there are no constructive activities The use of electronic monitoring
authorise such an invasive program. for home detainees and where has the potential to improve the
In other words, should the general other family members remain at cost-effectiveness of correctional
legal power to impose conditions home with the offender for programs, provide enhanced
be interpreted as authority to protracted periods of time (Jarred opportunities for offender
order electronic monitoring? This 2000; Gibbs & King 2003). Further rehabilitation and extend the
is currently the position in some research is needed to assess the range of sentences available to the
5
 Australian Institute of Criminology

courts. Despite the fact that Crowe, A.H. 2002, “Electronic supervision: Report on Crime and Justice, Oxford
electronic monitoring has been in From decision-making to University Press, New York.
implementation”, Corrections Today, Nacro Youth Crime 2002, “Electronic
use for at least two decades, there vol. 64, no. 5, pp. 130–3. monitoring of children remanded on
are still many legal, ethical and Dotinga, R. 2003, “Spying on snookums with bail or to local authority
practical issues to resolve. GPS”, Wired News, 3 January, http:// accommodation”, Youth Crime Briefing,
Although the latest technologies www.wired.com/news/technology/ June, http://www.nacro. org.uk/data/
0,1282,56537,00.html? tw=wn_ascii briefings/nacro-2002060300-ycs.pdf
are more efficient than in the past, (viewed 3 January 2003). (viewed 4 February 2003).
their surveillance potential creates Fabelo, T. 2001, “‘Technocorrections’: NT Department of Justice 2002, Home
concerns of over-regulation and Promises and uncertain threats”, Crime Detention Program, Correctional
infringement of human rights. An & Justice International, March, pp. 11– Services, NT Department of Justice,
12, 30–32. Darwin, http://www.nt.gov.au/justice/
awareness of these developments Fox, R.G. 1987, “Dr Schwitzgebel’s machine textpages/corrservs/commcorr/
is important, as is the creation of revisited: Electronic monitoring of homedet.shtml (viewed 3 February
policies to ensure that if such offenders”, Australian and New Zealand 2003).
technologies are adopted they are Journal of Criminology, vol. 20, no. 3, Owston, D. 1990, “Declining Northern
pp. 131–47. Territory prison population: How this
used in the most productive and Gibbs, A. & King, D. 2003, “The electronic was brought about by effective
ethical ways. In particular, the ball and chain? The operation and community-based programs”, Keeping
necessity for ensuring informed impact of home detention with People Out of Prisons, Conference
consent of those chosen to be electronic monitoring in New Proceedings series, no. 11, Australian
Zealand”, Australian and New Zealand Institute of Criminology, Canberra,
subject to monitoring should be Journal of Criminology, vol. 36, no. 1, http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/
guaranteed and effective pp. 1–17. proceedings/11/owston.pdf (viewed
procedures established to deal Harding, R. 1998, “Private prisons in 6 February 2003).
with unethical or illegal practices. Australia: The second phase”, Trends Richardson, R. 1999, “Electronic tagging of
and Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice, offenders: Trials in England”, The
no. 84, Australian Institute of Howard Journal, vol. 38, no. 2, pp. 158–72.
Acknowledgments
Criminology, Canberra. Rondinelli, V. 1997, “Tracking humans: The
Additional research for this paper was Home Office 2002a, Guidance for Tagging on electronic bracelet in a modern world”,
conducted by Dr Gregor Urbas and Bail, Home Office, London, http:// Criminal Lawyers’ Association Newsletter,
Mr Peter Marshall, both former Research www.youth-justice-board.gov.uk/ August, http://www.criminallawyers.
Analysts at the AIC. PractitionersPortal/Disposals/ ca/newslett/aug97/rondinelli.htm
ISSPMicrosite/OperationalGuidance/ (viewed 3 February 2003).
LegislativeGuidance.htm (viewed Scheeres, J. 2002, “GPS: Keeping cons out of
References 4 February 2003). jail”, Wired News, 15 October, http://
——— 2002b, Probation: Electronic Tagging, www.wired.com/news/privacy/
Aerospace Corporation 1997, The Global Home Office, London, http:// 0,1848,55740,00.html (viewed
Positioning System, The Aerospace www.cjsonline.gov.uk/access/working/ 15 October 2002).
Corporation, Los Angeles, http:// homeoffice/probation_tagging.html Schwitzgebel, R. 1968, “Electronically
www.aero.org/publications/ (viewed 4 February 2003). monitored parole”, Prison Journal,
GPSPRIMER/GPS-Primer.pdf (viewed Jarred, W. 2000, “Electronic monitoring: vol. 48, no. 2, pp. 34–5.
4 February 2003). Corrective Services Bill 2000”, Sidoti, C. 2002, “Refugee policy: Is there a
Bonczar, T. & Glaze, L.E. 1999, Correctional Legislation Brief 11/00, Queensland way out of this mess?” paper
Populations in the United States, 1998, Parliamentary Library, Brisbane. presented at Racial Respect Forum,
Bureau of Justice Statistics, US Johnson, T. 1999, “Monitoring device trial 21 February, Canberra.
Department of Justice, hailed a success”, The Corrective Studerus, K. 1999, “Home detention: Two
Washington DC, http://www.ojp. Services Bulletin, 21 October, p. 6. years on”, Corrective Services Bulletin,
usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/cpus98.pdf Keay, N. 2000, “Home detention: An no. 454, p. 4.
(viewed 4 February 2003). alternative to prison?” Current Issues in The Economist 2002, “Something to watch
Brennan, F. 2002, Australia’s Refugee Policy: Criminal Justice, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 98–105. over you”, The Economist, 15 August,
Facts, Needs and Limits, Jesuit Social Legal Aid NSW 2003, Apprehended Violence http://www.economist.com (viewed
Justice Centre, Sydney, http:// Orders, http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov. 30 April 2003).
www.ceo.parra.catholic.edu.au/pdf/ au/lac/lac.nsf/pages/avoapply (viewed
sjustice/fb_paper.pdf (viewed 5 February 2003). At the time of writing, Matt Black
6 February 2003). Liverani, M.R. 1998, “Slow take-up for home was an intern at the Australian
Bright, M. 2002, “Surgical tags plan for sex detention: Magistrates cool, many
lawyers unaware of the option”, Law Institute of Criminology.
offenders”, The Observer, 17 November
2002, http://society.guardian.co.uk/ Society Journal, February, pp. 42–8. Dr Russell G. Smith is Deputy
children/story/0,1074,842393,00.html Marien, M. 2002, Recent Developments in
Criminal Law Legislation in New South Director of Research at the AIC.
(viewed 17 November 2002).
Corrections News 2001, “Electronic Wales, NSW Attorney-General’s
monitoring team meets to gauge Department, Sydney, http://
progress”, Corrections News, www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/clrd1.nsf/
14 November, p. 3. pages/Recent%20Developments
Corrective Services Ministers’ Conference %20Speech (viewed 5 February 2003).
1996, Standard Guidelines for Corrections Maxfield, M.G. & Baumer, T.L. 1990, “Home
in Australia—1996, Government detention with electronic monitoring:
General Editor, Trends and Issues in
Printer, Brisbane. Comparing pre-trial and post-
conviction programs”, Crime & Crime and Criminal Justice series:
Criminal Lawyers’ Association 1997, “R. v
Delinquency, vol. 36, no. 4, pp. 521–36. Dr Adam Graycar, Director
Rohan Thomas, bail review (electronic
monitoring)”, Criminal Lawyers’ McConnell, B. 1990, “Tag partners”, New Australian Institute of Criminology
Association Newsletter, vol. 18, no. 5, Law Journal, vol. 140, p. 792. GPO Box 2944
http://www.criminal lawyers.ca/ Mukherjee, S. 1999, “Intermediate sanctions: Canberra ACT 2601 Australia
newslett/18-5/thomas. htm (viewed Electronic monitoring and house
Note: Trends and Issues in Crime and
3 February 2003). arrest”, in G. Newman (ed.), Global
Criminal Justice are refereed papers.