There had been a great issue, political in particular way back four years in the Philippine context. The president of the Republic was allegedly accused for cheating the electoral proceedings during her second term due to the wire tapped conversation between the election commissioner during the voting season. In effect, one of his opponents, probably from the opposition, monitored her fictitious actions. Here enters the topic on electronic monitoring system with at least a little deviant on the cheating issue in the Philippines.
Electronic monitoring system was in great heights at western countries especially in the United States, United Kingdom and other English speaking countries due to the increasing criminality and overflowing number of inmates. In effect space is limited for those who are in prison. Electronic monitoring or simply tagging is the quarantine of prisons to certain places (e. g. their home) with tamper proof monitoring device to make sure that the prisoner(s) are observed and made sure that he is at one place.
Once the tamper is damaged, a signal is transmitted giving an idea that the prisoner is out of curfew and deemed for judicial proceedings (COMCOR, Inc). Nowadays, with the advent of technological advancement, the science of electronic monitoring system had purge not only with prisoners but also with clients and especially the youth to whom curfew is deemed necessary. Equipping with telephone lines or other monitoring devices enables the client or the parent to determine whether the person they are looking for is at home.
Some companies also use this kind of technology to monitor their employees to minimize work related tardiness and related work issues (U. S. Pretrial Services, Eastern district of Missouri). There are two types of electronic monitoring system the active or the continuous signaling and the passive or the programmed contact. For the active monitoring system, the a transmitter is put situated at the offender and the average regular intervals to which the offender makes a signal by going through the curfew is recorded.
Any deviance to the regular interval shall be reported to the main database which contains a centralized computer while the offender will be reported immediately to file immediate actions. The passive monitoring, on the other hand is similar to the first electronic monitoring system wherein the offender is situated at a definite place and regular calls and signals are recorded. Voice analysis among the calls will also be analyzed. Varying devices such as cell phones and pagers are often used in the passive monitoring system.
A specified caller ID is required to each offender to authenticate their identity (John Howard Society of Alberta). Other specifications on both of the two types include an approved itinerary for the offenders. Nonetheless they would require an additional, itinerary such as hospitalization; there would be a need for an approval in the central office for special matters. The development of Global Positioning System allowed an increased accuracy of the electronic monitoring and further development on the electronic devices increased the efficiency of the monitoring programs.
By far, many states have adapted this kind of monitoring system. In contrast, a few to several people argue that this kind of monitoring invades privacy as it monitors nearly every chores and schedules of a person. In my own point of view, the electronic monitoring system may quite invade privacy but still it is a good assurance to the employers, judicial and parents that their people are somewhere to found.
Entering a crime, a job, and being a son/daughter entails compliance because this is for the reason of safety and security. Hence, the need for monitoring is established. As a recommendation, maybe the issue on privacy can be lessened by applying a decreased monitoring time only for those in the workplace and for sons and daughters but strictly not for the offenders (John Howard Society of Alberta).
COMCOR, Inc. “Electronic Monitoring – Alternatives to Incarceration”. Splish Interactive. “2006”. Accessed November 16, 2008 from http://www. comcor. org/electronic_monitoring/index. htm John Howard Society of Alberta. “Electronic Monitoring”. “2000”. Last updated November 5, 2008”. Accessed November 16, 2008 from http://www. johnhoward. ab. ca/PUB/A3. htm#EXE U. S. Pretrial Services, Eastern district of Missouri. “Electronic Monitoring” “Last Updated 06/04/2008” Accessed November 15, 2008 from http://www. moept. uscourts. gov/FAQ%20EM. htm