What the Supreme Court’s Policy Wing Missed About Electronic Monitoring
Electronic Monitoring (EM) is often celebrated as a breakthrough in criminal justice reform, seen as a cost-effective and progressive alternative to traditional imprisonment. However, a recent report by the Centre for Research and Planning (CRP), the Supreme Court’s in-house policy wing, has sparked debate over its uncritical endorsement of this "techno-penal innovation." The report, titled “Prisons in India: Mapping Prison Manuals and Measures for Reformation and Decongestion,” was released on November 5 and highlights electronic tracking as a potential solution to prison overcrowding in India. But does this solution hold up to scrutiny?
The Case for Electronic Monitoring
The CRP report proposes using EM for “low and moderate risk” under-trial prisoners as part of a pilot project. The idea is to electronically tag prisoners who have demonstrated good conduct and release them on parole or furlough. This pilot aims to test "community readiness" for EM.
The report claims that EM can be a cost-effective alternative to incarceration, reducing overcrowding in prisons while maintaining a degree of control over offenders. It draws inspiration from international practices and aligns with the Model Prisons and Correctional Services Act (2023), which includes provisions for EM.
The Problem with the CRP’s Approach
Despite its focus on evidence-based policy, the CRP’s report appears to overlook critical evidence that challenges the effectiveness and ethics of EM. After three decades of global experimentation with EM in over 30 countries, studies reveal significant limitations and risks associated with its use.
-
Questionable Cost-Effectiveness
While EM may appear cheaper than imprisonment, it requires substantial investments in infrastructure, technology, and human resources. Studies, including a systematic review by Jyoti Belur and colleagues (2020), highlight that success depends on adequate staffing, specialized training, reliable equipment, and sophisticated GPS technology. Ironically, while EM might cost less than incarceration, it is often more expensive than other non-custodial alternatives like probation or community service. -
Risk of Technical Violations
EM’s heightened surveillance increases the risk of individuals committing technical violations, such as accidental breaches of restrictions or false alerts from faulty devices. This paradox, noted by criminologist Fergus McNeill, undermines EM’s credibility. Compliance is heavily enforced, but the intense monitoring also leads to more detected infractions, which might otherwise have gone unnoticed, thus complicating its implementation. -
Net-Widening and Mesh-Thinning
Drawing from Stanley Cohen’s (1985) work on social control, EM risks two troubling outcomes:- Net-Widening: EM may extend penal control to individuals who might not have been sanctioned otherwise, adding unnecessary layers of punishment.
- Mesh-Thinning: It could increase the intensity of punitive measures for low-risk offenders who might have been managed with less invasive interventions.
For instance, in Canada, EM was disproportionately applied to low-risk offenders, while in the U.S., its adoption failed to reduce incarceration rates despite extensive use. These patterns suggest EM often supplements existing systems rather than serving as a true alternative to imprisonment.
- Social and Ethical Concerns
EM is often criticized for its social harms, particularly when applied to marginalized groups. Dubbed “E-Carceration” by critics, it reinforces existing inequalities and imposes disproportionate burdens on families and communities. The invasive nature of EM also raises questions about privacy and the stigma of constant surveillance.
What the CRP Missed
The CRP’s report enthusiastically promotes EM as a panacea for prison overcrowding without fully addressing its complexities. There is little evidence to suggest that EM can consistently achieve its stated goals of cost-saving and decongestion. Instead, global experiences show that it may exacerbate existing issues in criminal justice systems.
Moreover, the CRP overlooks the need for a nuanced approach to EM. While some studies in Western settings suggest that EM might be preferable to prolonged detention in specific cases, such findings are context-dependent and cannot justify a blanket endorsement of EM in India.
Moving Forward: A Critical Approach to EM
India’s criminal justice system must approach EM with caution and critical consideration. Rather than viewing it as a quick fix, policymakers should:
- Conduct in-depth qualitative research to understand the implications of EM in India’s unique context.
- Evaluate whether EM genuinely addresses the root causes of prison overcrowding.
- Consider less invasive and more community-centered alternatives like probation, community service, or restorative justice programs.