解密电子监控(EM)的凝视:达姆斯的电子监控和加塞克的便携式监狱的比较书评

IF 1.5 3区 社会学 Q2 CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY
Carlotta Berry
{"title":"解密电子监控(EM)的凝视:达姆斯的电子监控和加塞克的便携式监狱的比较书评","authors":"Carlotta Berry","doi":"10.1177/26338076231173150","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Electronic monitoring (EM) is a highly recognisable yet contested penal sanction that employs surveillance and spatial temporal control to enforce curfews. Due to EM’s rapidly transforming and expanding inter-jurisdictional implementation, attempts at understanding this penal measure have often been outpaced by a need to keep up with simple information (Hucklesby & Holdsworth, 2016). Dramatic technological innovations have recently changed EM’s physical equipment and monitoring systems; however, concerns about how many, who and in what stage of the justice process, have taken precedent. Agencies commission official research seeking evaluations of whether EM works, while more penetrating questions about its objectives are left unanswered. Although very beneficial insights, deploying concepts such as telematics and e-topia have been made by luminaries like Mike Nellis (2017), sustained theoretical examinations of EM, until recently, have been rare. Nevertheless, such theoretical analyses are important: How can we ask whether EMworks, when (as is particularly the case in my jurisdiction, England and Wales) its penal objectives are unclear from a practical, let alone philosophical, perspective? Furthermore, if those objectives were explicitly formulated, we could then critically evaluate whether their purported aims match their actual use. Two recent books, Tom Daems’ Electronic monitoring: Tagging offenders in an age of surveillance (2020) and James Gacek’s Portable prisons: Electronic monitoring and the creation Book Review","PeriodicalId":29902,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Criminology","volume":"56 1","pages":"359 - 367"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Decrypting the gaze of electronic monitoring (EM): A comparative book review of Daems’ Electronic monitoring and Gacek's Portable prisons\",\"authors\":\"Carlotta Berry\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/26338076231173150\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Electronic monitoring (EM) is a highly recognisable yet contested penal sanction that employs surveillance and spatial temporal control to enforce curfews. Due to EM’s rapidly transforming and expanding inter-jurisdictional implementation, attempts at understanding this penal measure have often been outpaced by a need to keep up with simple information (Hucklesby & Holdsworth, 2016). Dramatic technological innovations have recently changed EM’s physical equipment and monitoring systems; however, concerns about how many, who and in what stage of the justice process, have taken precedent. Agencies commission official research seeking evaluations of whether EM works, while more penetrating questions about its objectives are left unanswered. Although very beneficial insights, deploying concepts such as telematics and e-topia have been made by luminaries like Mike Nellis (2017), sustained theoretical examinations of EM, until recently, have been rare. Nevertheless, such theoretical analyses are important: How can we ask whether EMworks, when (as is particularly the case in my jurisdiction, England and Wales) its penal objectives are unclear from a practical, let alone philosophical, perspective? Furthermore, if those objectives were explicitly formulated, we could then critically evaluate whether their purported aims match their actual use. Two recent books, Tom Daems’ Electronic monitoring: Tagging offenders in an age of surveillance (2020) and James Gacek’s Portable prisons: Electronic monitoring and the creation Book Review\",\"PeriodicalId\":29902,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Criminology\",\"volume\":\"56 1\",\"pages\":\"359 - 367\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-05-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Criminology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/26338076231173150\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Criminology","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/26338076231173150","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

电子监控(EM)是一种高度认可但有争议的刑事制裁,它利用监控和时空控制来实施宵禁。由于EM迅速转变和扩大了跨司法管辖区的实施,理解这一刑事措施的尝试往往被跟上简单信息的需要所超越(Hucklesby&Holdsworth,2016)。最近,显著的技术创新改变了EM的物理设备和监控系统;然而,人们担心有多少人、谁以及在司法程序的哪个阶段采取了先例。各机构委托官方研究,寻求对EM是否有效的评估,而关于其目标的更深入的问题则没有得到解答。尽管像Mike Nellis(2017)这样的名人已经提出了非常有益的见解,部署了远程信息处理和电子乌托邦等概念,但直到最近,对EM的持续理论研究还很少。尽管如此,这样的理论分析还是很重要的:当(尤其是在我管辖的英格兰和威尔士)其刑罚目标从实践的角度,更不用说哲学的角度来看是不明确的时候,我们怎么能问EM是否有效呢?此外,如果这些目标是明确制定的,那么我们就可以批判性地评估其声称的目标是否与实际用途相匹配。最近出版的两本书,Tom Daems的《电子监控:监控时代的罪犯标签》(2020)和James Gacek的《便携式监狱:电子监控与创作书评》
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Decrypting the gaze of electronic monitoring (EM): A comparative book review of Daems’ Electronic monitoring and Gacek's Portable prisons
Electronic monitoring (EM) is a highly recognisable yet contested penal sanction that employs surveillance and spatial temporal control to enforce curfews. Due to EM’s rapidly transforming and expanding inter-jurisdictional implementation, attempts at understanding this penal measure have often been outpaced by a need to keep up with simple information (Hucklesby & Holdsworth, 2016). Dramatic technological innovations have recently changed EM’s physical equipment and monitoring systems; however, concerns about how many, who and in what stage of the justice process, have taken precedent. Agencies commission official research seeking evaluations of whether EM works, while more penetrating questions about its objectives are left unanswered. Although very beneficial insights, deploying concepts such as telematics and e-topia have been made by luminaries like Mike Nellis (2017), sustained theoretical examinations of EM, until recently, have been rare. Nevertheless, such theoretical analyses are important: How can we ask whether EMworks, when (as is particularly the case in my jurisdiction, England and Wales) its penal objectives are unclear from a practical, let alone philosophical, perspective? Furthermore, if those objectives were explicitly formulated, we could then critically evaluate whether their purported aims match their actual use. Two recent books, Tom Daems’ Electronic monitoring: Tagging offenders in an age of surveillance (2020) and James Gacek’s Portable prisons: Electronic monitoring and the creation Book Review
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Criminology
Journal of Criminology CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY-
CiteScore
3.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
32
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信