Electronic monitoring of criminal offenders and suspects, when properly conducted, can be an effective means of reducing law-enforcement budgets. But when improperly conducted, electronic monitoring can jeopardize public safety by allowing criminal offenders and suspects to escape this form of "custody" too easily.
Ninth Circuit Solicitor Ralph Hoisington has expressed concerns about the security procedures of the electronic monitoring system now in effect -- and the system's reliance on bail bondsmen to make it work. Mr. Hoisington tells us that "the reporting is left to the bondsman" in cases of monitoring violations. His concern stems from the fact that the bondsman is paid by the person monitored, which could result in a lack of motivation to promptly report violations.
"There's a fundamental problem with that aspect of it," Mr. Hoisington said. "I just want to make sure there's some reportability and some accountability on it. "
The solicitor's office has filed motions with the Charleston County clerk of court to learn more about the monitoring of some suspects, and is reviewing cases for monitoring irregularities. Though Chief Deputy Solicitor Scarlett Wilson recently told The Post and Courier that most monitors are believed to be working properly, that is an insufficient assurance for law-abiding citizens, who rightly expect all monitors to work as required.
Electronic monitoring via satellite can give the justice system a more efficient way to handle many criminals and suspects -- particularly those convicted or charged of nonviolent offenses.
State Sen. Robert Ford, D-Charleston, during this year's legislative session, proposed a monitoring-law amendment that would expand the use of monitoring "for low risk, nonviolent adult and juvenile offenders as selected by the court if there is a home detention program available in the jurisdiction." Predicting passage next year, the senator said: "We don't have the money anymore to build more prisons. We need to use 21st century technology. It can save the taxpayers so much money."
Savings could be realized by passing that amendment -- but only if the monitoring systems are reliable on both technological and procedural grounds. A thorough review of who should carry out the vital duty of making sure that all monitors are working as designed would be a welcome starting point.
Click here to return to story:
http://www.charleston.net/stories/081403/edi_14edit3.shtml