From Brennan Center for Justice:
In 2022, every major wireless carrier will shut down their 3G networks in what is known as the “3G Sunset.” The move will allow companies to allocate more resources to operating and maintaining their faster 4G and 5G networks. However, it will also render 3G-reliant devices obsolete. Many electronic monitoring devices — ankle bracelets and other wearable GPS devices used to track people in the immigration and justice systems — will be affected by the change, which could negatively impact people involved in the criminal legal system.
With a number of these monitoring devices poised to become unusable, there is a vacancy for new developments in community supervision. Instead of using the 3G Sunset as an opening to introduce modernized, high-tech electronic monitoring devices, local governments and federal agencies should take the opportunity to move away from the invasive and burdensome practice of electronic monitoring.
Once touted as a humane alternative to incarceration, electronic monitoring subjects people to excessive, onerous requirements and is now widely viewed as “the most restrictive form of government surveillance and control” after prison. The restrictions faced by those under monitoring are difficult to comply with and can hinder successful reentry. Many people struggle to find and maintain employment due to the stigma associated with their electronic monitors, and others struggle to schedule work shifts around mandatory curfews and travel limitations. These rules can even prevent people from receiving adequate medical care, as electronic monitors are incompatible with X-rays and MRI machines. Navigating the dizzying array of requirements significantly impacts people’s mental health and reentry prospects.
Further compounding the problem, when a person cannot abide by the terms of their supervision, they are often incarcerated — even if they are not a threat to public safety. One study in Los Angeles County found that 94 percent of people on pretrial release who were terminated from electronic monitoring were incarcerated not for committing new crimes but for violating a requirement of supervision, such as missing curfew. The rules and punishments associated with electronic monitoring have led many people subjected to electronic monitoring to view the devices as digital shackles. Continue reading
|
|
|
|
