With the coming of technological advancements, it has become easy to record and maintain databases of sexual offenders. The new technology makes it possible not only to identify social offenders, but also the kind of offence committed, location and such other aspects necessary for legal redress ( Pittman & Parker, 2013 ). With these improvements, the question arises as to the legality of monitoring sex offenders and more so, those who have already been convicted and served their terms. Many proposals have been forwarded to act as incarceration alternatives to traditional forms of parole and probation. Such include unannounced home searches and lifetime monitoring of offenders. The major question is: Does such a system cover the three objectives to crime desistance of rehabilitation, supervision, and restoration?
Pros
It has been known for juvenile sex offenders to recidivate. Lifetime monitoring is a good attempt to keep offenders from bad old habits ( Alarid, 2016 ). By having the offender well aware of the repercussions if they recidivate, and by keeping them certain of being caught, this is a good attempt at helping the offenders conform, putting safety of the public in mind. The effect of certainty and perceptions of being caught and severity of revocations when caught serve a constant reminder to the offender to maintain good behavior ( Pittman & Parker, 2013 ).
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Further, monitoring is useful in assigning duties to policing officers due to the detailed information availed. Lifetime monitoring helps in mapping offenders, and since their whereabouts are known at all times, assigning policing officers to a certain geographical area to monitor a known number of offenders saves both time and resources, by eliminating the need to keep moving from one locality to another ( Alarid, 2016 ). In addition, having specific officers monitor offenders in a certain locality establishes an offender-officer relationship, helping the offender commit to good behavior than would be the case under by different officers. This sample of positive correctional intervention promotes attitudinal change and an overall reduction in caseload ( Pittman & Parker, 2013 ).
Monitoring offenders increases public safety perception while still serving as a constant reminder to would-be-offenders to refrain from similar offences. This enhances community policing by promoting deterrent behavior ( Alarid, 2016 ). Monitoring influence the offender to alter their attitude towards unwanted behavior, but at the same time, can encourage rogue behavior where individuals want to challenge the system. Therefore, monitoring should be coupled with cognitive-behavioral therapy to assist offenders conform to societal norms ( Pittman & Parker, 2013 ).
Cons
The offender’s family is the first unit to restoration into the community. While some family members may not be receptive to living with sex offenders, restorative efforts should not subject the family to additional tension due to unannounced intrusive searches ( Alarid, 2016 ). While such violates the privacy of the offender, they do more damage to the offender’s family. This can have the opposite effect to the intended purpose of monitoring, and may result in domestic violence that may split family unit.
The extent of monitoring to map the offender’s movements may infringe on the civil rights of the offender. However, according to the United States Supreme Court ruling in the case United States v. Jones , such a move constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment and is constitutional ( Pittman & Parker, 2013 ). Further, the court advises that while such a move is constitutional, a clear argument need to be presented to support whether it is reasonable or not ( Alarid, 2016 ). While it is an intricate issue deciding which rights to or not torestore to a sex offender, a boundary should be established to determine the extent of such on the civil rights of the offender. Similarly, a guideline should exist clearing stating how long an offender need demonstrate good behavior for expungement of their crime records.
Monitoring offenders questions the effectiveness of the principles of correctional intervention. After incarceration, an offender expects to reintegrate back into the society without stigmatization. Electronic monitoring requires the offender to attach electronic gadgets to their physical beings. For effectiveness, this need to be online always, and as such, the offender becomes immobile for several hours at a go when attached to a socket on a wall to recharge them. This routine makes reintegration into the community challenging ( Alarid, 2016 ). Establishing families or engaging socially becomes a difficult or almost impossible.
The objective of the judicial system to the community is restorative justice for all and automatic restoration/reinstatement of civil rightsto offenders upon incarceration. Monitoring offenders affects their employability, housing, and general mobility. This may encourage deviant or even extremist behavior, undermining the objective of restorative justice.
While offenders do not expect clemency for their crimes, as civilians, they expect the rule of law to accord them their civil rights. Registration and constant monitoring undermine the civil rights, especially of juvenile offenders ( Pittman & Parker, 2013 ). While seeking employment or housing, records of the offender are accessible by the employer, which may influence the employer in decision-making, even after the offender has reformed provided they have no deferred adjudication or subsequent conviction, the confidentiality of juvenile offenders ’records should be maintained to enable them live normal lives ( Pittman & Parker, 2013 ).
Conclusion
Statutes that require monitoring of sex offenders have been useful to law enforcement in investigating sex crimes and to the community by providing identities and locations of known offenders in localities. Lifetime monitoring of offenders has been associated with decline in recidivism, and as such, should be upheld. However, the extent of searches and tracking by authorities should not cross the threshold of infringing on the rights of the individual. Clear jurisdiction should be put in place that define extents to which authorities monitor without compromising rights of offenders and public safety.
References
Alarid, L. F. (2016). Community based corrections . Cengage Learning.
Pittman, N., & Parker, A. (2013). Raised on the registry: The irreparable harm of placing children on sex offender registries in the US . Human Rights Watch.
