In a small Texas town, a mother grapples with a raw, visceral grief. Her son, Andrew Farias, was tragically killed during his high school graduation celebration. Now, the individual accused of his murder is out on bond, supervised by an electronic ankle monitor. For Shannon Vasquez, Andrew’s mother, this technology offers little comfort. She articulates a fear shared by many victims’ families: that a device designed for supervision feels insufficient, almost an insult, when confronted with the gravity of alleged violent crime. Her sentiments—”Being on house arrest and being on an ankle monitor doesn’t mean anything”—cut to the core of a persistent challenge for the electronic monitoring field.
The Efficacy Question and Public Perception
Vasquez’s frustration points to a significant disconnect between public expectations of electronic monitoring (EM) and its practical application. For many, an ankle monitor signifies a lapse in justice, a perception that a serious offender has ‘gotten off easy.’ Yet, courts frequently employ GPS tracking as a condition of pretrial release, offering an alternative to incarceration while attempting to ensure court appearances and restrict movement. The legal rationale often centers on an individual’s constitutional right to reasonable bail, alongside the presumption of innocence. EM allows courts to mitigate flight risk and potential danger to the community without requiring cash bail amounts that effectively incarcerate indigent defendants.
However, this balance is rarely visible to the public, particularly those directly impacted by violent crime. What the public often sees is an alleged perpetrator walking free, albeit with a tracker, while the victim remains gone. This situation forces us to ask: What does EM actually promise, and where do those promises fall short in the eyes of the community? Is it merely a tool for tracking, or is it implicitly positioned as a guarantor of public safety?
Stakeholder Perspectives and Real-World Impact
The emotional weight carried by victims’ families, like Shannon Vasquez, is immense. For them, an electronic monitor can symbolize a lack of accountability, a degradation of their loved one’s memory. This sentiment isn’t unfounded; while EM is a powerful tool for compliance monitoring, it cannot physically prevent someone determined to re-offend or violate conditions. Supervision agencies managing these individuals face the delicate task of balancing public safety with individual rights. They must manage caseloads, respond to alerts, and make critical decisions based on the data stream from these devices.
The public outcry following incidents where monitored individuals allegedly commit new crimes—even if statistically rare—casts a long shadow over the entire field. Such incidents fuel the narrative that electronic monitoring is merely a ‘slap on the wrist,’ rather than a sophisticated layer of supervision designed to manage risk in specific contexts. The challenge lies in effectively communicating the nuanced role of GPS ankle bracelets and other electronic tagging technologies in a justice system that strives for both accountability and rehabilitation.
Advancing Trust Through Technology and Transparency
To bridge this perception gap, the electronic monitoring industry must continue to innovate, not just in technology, but in how its capabilities and limitations are communicated. Enhanced tamper detection, more granular geofencing, and improved analytics that can predict escalating risk factors are all critical advancements. But equally important is a transparent dialogue with the public about what these devices can and cannot do. No technology can completely eliminate human risk, but it can provide vital data, enforce boundaries, and allow for quicker intervention.
The electronic monitoring sector has no shortage of established players. BI Incorporated, backed by GEO Group, remains one of the largest providers in the U.S. SCRAM Systems dominates the alcohol monitoring niche with its continuous monitoring ankle devices. Attenti, now under Allied Universal, serves programs in over 30 countries. Smaller vendors have carved out niches too—from Buddi in the UK to manufacturers offering compact one-piece GPS designs, such as the CO-EYE series, which features optical-fiber tamper detection and a three-second snap-on installation. This competitive landscape drives continuous improvement in areas like battery life, accuracy, and tamper resistance for offender tracking solutions.
The ongoing development of these devices—moving towards more sophisticated sensors, proactive alert systems, and seamless integration with broader justice systems—aims to strengthen their role as a credible alternative to incarceration. Ultimately, the goal is to foster greater confidence in community supervision, ensuring that electronic monitoring is seen not as a lenient bypass, but as a robust and accountable mechanism for managing risk and promoting public safety within the criminal justice framework.
Source: Mom says releasing son’s accused murderer on lowered bond is ‘degrading’ to his memory
