Electronic Monitoring of Domestic Violence Cases-A Study of Two Bilateral Programs*

THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE a whole has been using electronic monitoring (EM) for about twenty years (Conway, 2003) typically as a form of house arrest, as an alternative sanction or in the connection of pretrial release. Offense categories for which EM is used keep to be at the "les serious" extreme point of the offense continuum, including inebriated driving, drug and property offense and les commonly for offense against the one (Scott and Hale, 2002:2). In a time of overburden bundles and facilities, EM is intended to direction offenders at a cost that is lower than institutional confinement, while enabling them to continue working and supporting their families.

EM based upon continuously signaling devices (Crowe et al., 2002) involves equipping an delinquent with a transmitter and a receiver that are synchronized to a monitoring center which periodically registers his neighborhood at or absence from home; and flings curfew violations trigger alerts to supervising officers, who then may investigate the basis for the alerts. We direct to such an approach as unilateral EM (UEM) because an transgressor alone is the object of ongoing supervision. greatest in quantity evaluation studies of EM have been of the unilateral form, typically addressing the technology as a means of surveilling transgressors and enforcing restrictions in the absence of traditional detention or incarceration (for reviews diocese Black and Smith, 2003; Crowe et al., 2002; and Vollum and Hale, 2002) Evaluation studies of UEM have focused upon such topics as its effectiveness in reducing recidivism, its require to be paid [i]or[/i] undergone effectiveness relative to incarceration, and legal relate tos associated with its application in different criminal justice phases.

There has been little systematic research1 upon the electronic monitoring of persons2 charged with or convicted of domestic violence (DV) related offense where the technology is used not sole for surveillance/control but also for victim protection. We consign to the latter use of EM as bilateral, because a next to the first party is enrolled into a program of surveillance.3 In the connection of DV offenses, bilateral EM (BEM) reach forths the mandate of unilateral EM by dint of protecting specific individuals ("victims"),4 as oppos to being designed to address public safety interests in general, or to debar absconding while out on bail. Courts attach or impose this measure with the expectation that BEM will strengthen protection orders. The victim's participation and cooperation are necessary to the functioning of BEM programs for DV cases, introducing a variable absent from UEM Treatment or rehabilitative issues are of inexplicit relevance to these for the most part pretrial uses of BEM (Vollum and Hale, 2002)

This article addresses the gap in research upon the use of EM for DV cases through examining two such programs. We begin by means of discussing the limitations of protection orders in DV cases that historically have warranted the use of BEM. We then report upon two BEM programs, describing lock opener aspects of their design and implementation. flows reported include the types and frequent occurrence of contact violations between victims and defendants who participated in the programs, and victims' reactions to and pertain tos about BEM.

Domestic Violence and the Use of Protective Orders

Studies have base that victims of domestic violence typically report it alone when they have reached the "enough is enough" tipping point (Fischer and Rose 1995) after they may have been repeatedly make subordinateed to various forms of abuse, ranging from intimidation to harassment, stalking, and physical assault (eg Stanko, 1990) However, taking action against domestic violence by dint of reporting it to the police or attempting separation can place women at a higher risk of assault. "Separation assault" (Mahoney, 1991) is a well-known phenomenon in the dynamics of domestic violence, as are instances of stalking estranged partners in places where they are routinely at hand (e.g., workplace) or likely to visit (supermarket, temple etc.). According to a lately published study (Block, 2003), three-fourths of homicide victims and 85 percent of women who experienced sharp but nonfatal violence had left or tried to leave their batterers in the past year.

Despite the danger faced by the agency of women when they want to leave abusive relationships or appeal for help to the justice a whole protecting them (as well as their children and other family members) has been a difficult task. The words immediately preceding [i]or[/i] following and dynamics of domestic violence return the legal protection of its victims a continuous challenge to the justice a whole one fraught with logistical point to be solved [i]or[/i] settleds and contradictions (Worden, 2000). Courts have answered to the problem of securing the safety of women who have stepp forward as victims of abuse by means of issuing protection orders, often as an adjunct to an official proceeding brought by dint of the state in response to the victim's complaint. These protection orders typically require that the named offending party refrain from contacting the victim and other family members, and/or impel out of the house. Research upon the effectiveness of protective orders indicates that they are generally associated with a decrease in later physical and non-physical violence by dint of batterers (e.g., Holt et al., 2002; Holt et al., 2003) However, several studies have base that such orders may not be as effective in keeping women safe when the defendant has a history of violent offense (Buzawa and Buzawa, 1996; Erez and Belknap, 1998a; Fischer and Rose 1995)