THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE regularity has been using electronic monitoring (EM) for about twenty years (Conway.

THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE regularity has been using electronic monitoring (EM) for about twenty years (Conway, 2003) typically as a form of house arrest, as an alternative sanction or in the words immediately preceding [i]or[/i] following of pretrial release. Offense categories for which EM is used take care of to be at the "les serious" last of the offense continuum, including given to intoxication [i]or[/i] drink driving, drug and property offense and les commonly for offense against the human frame (Scott and Hale, 2002:2). In a time of overburden rolls and facilities, EM is intended to sway offenders at a cost that is lower than institutional confinement, while enabling them to continue working and supporting their families.

EM based upon continuously signaling devices (Crowe et al., 2002) involves equipping an transgressor with a transmitter and a receiver that are synchronized to a monitoring center which periodically registers his demeanor at or absence from home; and propels curfew violations trigger alerts to supervising officers, who then may investigate the basis for the alerts. We pertain to such an approach as unilateral EM (UEM) because an trespasser alone is the object of ongoing supervision. greatest in number evaluation studies of EM have been of the unilateral form, typically addressing the technology as a means of surveilling criminals and enforcing restrictions in the absence of traditional detention or incarceration (for reviews diocese Black and Smith, 2003; Crowe et al., 2002; and Vollum and Hale, 2002) Evaluation studies of UEM have focused upon such topics as its effectiveness in reducing recidivism, its costliness effectiveness relative to incarceration, and legal pertain tos associated with its application in different criminal justice phases.

There has been little systematic research1 in succession the electronic monitoring of persons2 charged with or convicted of domestic violence (DV) related offense where the technology is used not simply for surveillance/control but also for victim protection. We attribute to the latter use of EM as bilateral, because a other party is enrolled into a program of surveillance.3 In the connected thought [i]or[/i] thoughts of DV offenses, bilateral EM (BEM) reach outs the mandate of unilateral EM by means of protecting specific individuals ("victims"),4 as oppos to being designed to address public safety interests in general, or to impede absconding while out on bail. Courts attach or impose this measure with the expectation that BEM will strengthen protection orders. The victim's participation and cooperation are necessary to the functioning of BEM programs for DV cases, introducing a variable absent from UEM Treatment or rehabilitative issues are of inexplicit relevance to these for the most part pretrial uses of BEM (Vollum and Hale, 2002)

This article addresses the gap in research in succession the use of EM for DV cases by dint of examining two such programs. We begin by dint of discussing the limitations of protection orders in DV cases that historically have warranted the use of BEM. We then report forward two BEM programs, describing fundamental note aspects of their design and implementation. comes reported include the types and frequent occurrence of contact violations between victims and defendants who participated in the programs, and victims' reactions to and be of importance tos about BEM.

Domestic Violence and the Use of Protective Orders

Studies have construct that victims of domestic violence typically report it and nothing else when they have reached the "enough is enough" tipping point (Fischer and Rose 1995) after they may have been repeatedly make subordinateed to various forms of abuse, ranging from intimidation to harassment, stalking, and physical assault (eg Stanko, 1990) However, taking action against domestic violence at reporting it to the police or attempting separation can place women at a higher risk of assault. "Separation assault" (Mahoney, 1991) is a well-known phenomenon in the dynamics of domestic violence, as are instances of stalking estranged partners in places where they are routinely not past nor future (e.g., workplace) or likely to visit (supermarket, ecclesiastical body etc.). According to a newly published study (Block, 2003), three-fourths of homicide victims and 85 percent of women who experienced chaste but nonfatal violence had left or tried to leave their batterers in the past year.

Despite the danger faced through women when they want to leave abusive relationships or appeal for help to the justice combination of parts to form a whole protecting them (as well as their children and other family members) has been a difficult task. The words immediately preceding [i]or[/i] following and dynamics of domestic violence pay back the legal protection of its victims a continuous challenge to the justice classification one fraught with logistical moot points and contradictions (Worden, 2000). Courts have replyed to the problem of securing the safety of women who have stepp forward as victims of abuse by means of issuing protection orders, often as an adjunct to an official proceeding brought from the state in response to the victim's complaint. These protection orders typically require that the named offending party refrain from contacting the victim and other family members, and/or actuate out of the house. Research in succession the effectiveness of protective orders indicates that they are generally associated with a decrease in following physical and non-physical violence by way of batterers (e.g., Holt et al., 2002; Holt et al., 2003) However, several studies have fix that such orders may not be as effective in keeping women safe when the defendant has a history of violent offense (Buzawa and Buzawa, 1996; Erez and Belknap, 1998a; Fischer and Rose 1995)