J CRJ Two Questions, Unit 7 - Article Example

Unit Seven Questions Electronic Monitoring (EM) is a system that allows for the remote measurement and determination of the location that an offender was at during any time of the day. It involves an electronic device being secured to the individual, often around the ankle, during the time of their probation. The output of the device is monitored by a computer 24 hours a day. The amount of cases that EM is being used for is increasing annually. However, it is expensive to implement and there are concerns that it violates the constitutional rights of the offenders.

Home confinement is a method of probation that restricts the activities of offenders. They are able to move about in the community, but only within the conditions that are placed on them by the courts. Generally it means that on the weekends and during the evenings the offenders are required to be at their residence.Home confinement and EM are often used in conjunction, as EM is a time effective means of monitoring behavior. Offenders that are placed under EM are generally those that have committed less serious crimes and have a low likelihood of reoffending.

However, there is an increasing trend of EM being used to violent offenders.Home confinement aims to enable offenders to still go to school or perform at their job, to reduce the number of people that are imprisoned and maximize the safety of the public while still providing effective punishment that encourages reintegration into society and rehabilitation. EM has many of the same aims, resulting in it complementing home confinement well. 2. Mempa v. Rhay: This case established the right for defendants to have representation during probation revocation hearings as it is considered to be a ‘critical stage’ for offenders. Gagnon v. Scarpelli: This case equated probation and parole revocation hearings with one another and determined that juvenile courts are not required to follow adult proceedings.

Morrissey v. Brewer: This case established the minimum level of due process for cases of parole revocation, and the creation of a proceeding which allows objective examination of the cases.