Should ankle bracelets be used more (yes) or less (no) by the criminal justice system to monitor parolees?

  • Yes, they safely lower costs

    Ankle bracelets are a great option for controlling parolees
    at lower cost. Their use will allow more inmates to stay at home, being fed and
    housed by their families instead of the taxpayers. That, in turn, will free up
    funds for better crime prevention and better law enforcement. Ankle bracelets
    are a brilliant solution to the high costs of crime.

  • They should each have one.

    I think every parolee should receive an ankle bracelet when they leave prison. Parolees are convicted criminals, regardless of the circumstances. Being on parole is a privilege. Just because a parolee checks with a parole officer once a week, it is not a guarantee that the parolee is not into any illegal activities. A bracelet would track their movement.

  • No, ankle bracelets should be used less by the criminal justice system.

    Ankle monitors do not have a measurable effect on preventing crime. According to a 2005 paper in the Journal of Experimental Criminology, ankle monitors were no more effective at preventing future crimes than other anti-recidivism measures. Considering this ineffectiveness and the additional cost (usually borne by parolee) of the ankle monitor program, it should be used less than it currently is.

  • Ankle bracelets are a waste of money.

    If someone is released from jail they obviously are thought to pose little risk, and they will already have parole meetings and (in cases of drugs) drug tests, so there isn't much point in wasting money on an ankle bracelet. There are some instances, such as pedophiles or cases of stalking, where they would be handy, but in many cases they are unneeded.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.