Everywhere we look, technology is changing the way we live. From transportation and communication to dating, advertising, agriculture, retail, and beyond, technology is making life faster, more convenient and more efficient. 

But things aren’t as perfect as they seem. While amazing to behold, each advancement and new convenience that technology introduces also brings with it ethical questions that need to be addressed.  As technology becomes more and more prevalent and integrated into our lives, humanity should begin tackling new ethical questions that weren’t raised or even thought of, before.

Consider for a moment that the internet is one of the major drivers of climate change. While it powers many convenient services and businesses, it requires huge amounts of electricity to operate. Some call the internet “the largest coal-fired machine on the entire planet”. Social media is yet another example. On the one hand, huge social platforms like Facebook and TikTok connect people and make socializing more convenient. However, their use has exacerbated issues like cyberbullying and abuses of free speech to the point where we must ask ourselves whether the ethical issues outweigh the benefits.

Ethical Questions Surrounding Electronic Monitoring

Electronic monitoring (EM) in correctional work is quickly gaining ground as a humane alternative to some forms of incarceration. While the benefits it brings are clear, ethical questions regarding its use do exist. In this article, we’ll take a closer look at some of these ethical questions and offer ways to reduce and mitigate these concerns. 

Ethical Question #1: Does EM infringe on privacy? Is its use too intrusive?

EM leverages advanced tracking and identification technologies to provide real-time, highly accurate monitoring of an individual’s whereabouts. This means that in some sense, by agreeing to EM monitoring, one gives away their privacy. EM critics claim that this infringement is too much, a violation of basic human rights. EM proponents argue that the alternative is incarceration, which is much more intrusive and restrictive. The debate becomes even more intense when considering EM programs in pre-trial cases:      Critics claim that individuals are required to forego their privacy without having been convicted by a jury of peers. 

Other EM solutions protect survivors of domestic violence from their perpetrators. The solution requires bilateral or even multilateral monitoring to ensure that the perpetrator stays away from those who are under threat. So now we add to the equation not only the guilty party, but also the victims of their actions. Is it fair to breach the survivors’ privacy in that way?

Ethical Question #2: Does EM negatively affect the rights of 3rd parties?

Research shows that in many cases, offenders that are included in EM programs are adult males. In case of home arrest/curfew programs, this means that at specific times or 24/7, depending on each person’s terms, they are confined to their home, unable to take their children to the park, to school or to friends; they cannot go food shopping and carry their share in providing and caring for the family and household. This puts a disproportionate share of the burden on women and may be viewed as reinforcing traditional female roles as caretakers and intensifying gender inequality. 

Another aspect of this question is the stigmatizing nature of EM. Family members may be reluctant to appear in public with the offender or invite others into their home. This situation can cause long-term damage in the form of social isolation and create a sense of family members being punished for the crimes of the offender. 

Ethical Question #3: Who bears the cost of living during the EM program?

The financial incentive is a strong driver for increased EM use for many governments around the world. If an offender is sentenced to incarceration, it is obvious that the government pays for living expenses for the duration of their sentence. In some countries (mainly in the US), offenders sentenced to EM programs should bear the cost of the EM program which may drive the offenders into debt. In this state of affairs, the offender is required to pay a daily fee — in addition to an installation fee — for the use of the EM device. Let’s not forget the fact that many offenders often come from impoverished backgrounds and do not have the financial resources to cover the costs of lengthy EM programs. Not to mention that when wearing an EM device, an offender’s chances of finding and keeping employment are quite low. All of this means that in a sense, EM supports the rolling over of the cost of incarceration from the government to the offender, which may also have long-term consequences that will go with the offender even after the EM program ends. At the same time, many programs allow the offender to keep on supporting their family. 

Ethical Question #4: Does EM cause us to lose control over the way we’re perceived by society?

The ability to choose what one tells the world about themselves is a basic human right. EM devices are, in many cases, clearly visible signs that the wearer is undergoing some sort of punitive measure. This in and of itself removes the ability of the offender to decide whether or not they’d like to share this information with others. While some may claim that long pants can hide the device, this means that EM programs dictate to many what they can or cannot wear. 

For example, women who want to hide their EM device cannot wear dresses, while bathing suits and exercise outfits are completely out of the question. This alone means that EM programs restrict recreation and some forms of exercise. As mentioned in the previous section, visible EM devices can also significantly impact the offender’s ability to find and keep a job, impacting their social status, self-confidence and ability to rehabilitate. 

Ethical Question #5: What happens when tech failures cause offenders to be unjustly sent to prison?

Let’s face it, technology is far from perfect. Internet connections can be spotty, GPS can be inaccurate and that’s without even getting into software bugs and hardware breakdowns. 

An ethical question arises when considering the case of an offender being sent to prison because of technological failures. Say, for example, that the RF isn’t working properly and is sending inaccurate signals that show the offender has unlawfully left their residence. According to official procedure, the offender should be punished for breaking the terms of their EM program, perhaps even sent to prison. 

So when it comes to EM, do the ethical issues outweigh the benefits? We don’t think so

EM devices offer governments and courts of law a humane, cost-effective alternative to incarceration. They also offer some benefits to the offenders -you can read about them in our EM pros and cons article. Even though some claim that the ethical damage caused by EM devices to both offenders and their families can outweigh the benefits that the technology provides, we think otherwise.  

We believe that there are steps and measures societies and governments can take to mitigate the adverse ethical issues that EM devices may cause, making them a truly preferable alternative to prison sentences. Here are some of the things that can be done: 

• Smart EM programs that take into account the level of offense: Regulating stricter forms of EM, like electric anklets and biometric identification, to serious offenders. Low-risk offenders could use less intrusive technologies like RF (as opposed to GPS).

• Public communication about EM and its advantages: We should make a widespread effort across society to explain the positive effects of EM devices. People should be more aware of the benefits EM devices provide to society so that instead of shaming people wearing devices, they will solicit a more positive reaction.

• Getting the family on board and accompanying it along the way: Judicial authorities should take the family of the offender into account when formulating their punishments. If they do decide to proceed with EM programs, the family should be provided with support and guidance regarding how to cope with the stigma associated with wearing EM devices.

In addition, EM programs should only be used after authorities consult with the offenders’ families and receive their consent. 

• Rigorous testing and QA: All EM devices should undergo rigorous testing and QA before and while they’re used. Yearly maintenance checkups should be scheduled to ensure that devices are functioning properly in order to minimize false-positive incidents.