The decision to place an individual under electronic monitoring may be taken at any stage of the sentencing process. It may enable some people to avoid prison altogether; for others, it may come at the end of a prison sentence, bringing it to an end more quickly. Marie-Nathalie d’Hoop is the Deputy Managing Director of the General Service for Justice and Justiciable (Service Général Justice et Justiciable) of the General Administration for Community Justice Centres (Administration générale des Maisons de Justice, AGMJ) in Belgium. She points out that electronic tags enable their wearers to begin addressing problems that would be difficult to resolve whilst in prison, such as administrative issues, personal troubles and difficulties accessing employment. “Life is at a standstill in prison. Incarcerated individuals are in an enclosed space that does not allow them to get a handle on their problems in the outside world. Wearing an electronic tag enables individuals to start dealing with these issues, amongst other things”, she explains.

Electronic tags also prevent individuals from being separated from their families, which, in turn, means their loved ones are not required to travel back and forth to visit them in prison. This spares families the emotional and financial burden of visitation, which is particularly hard on children. Ryan* recalls: “For me, tagging was an opportunity; for others, it meant being constrained. It was all positive: eating where I wanted to eat, seeing the daylight, opening my door myself and being allowed a phone. All that mattered to me was going to work to support my family and, most of all, spending time with them.”

Given that electronic tagging offers an alternative to incarceration, relatives are faced with a choice that is hardly one at all. “Families will inevitably go along with the sentence, regardless of the information they are given”, observes Franck Ollivon, a researcher and professor of geography. The constraints of electronic monitoring are not insignificant and include installation of the device at home, scheduling, alerts, and malfunctions.

The feeling of loyalty tends to endure throughout the sentence, even if things get complicated, because there is no other alternative. This can lead to difficult situations. Marie-Nathalie d’Hoop explains: “There are cases where loved ones are forced to live with [the offender] with whom they are having problems because there is no one else who can take responsibility for them. When you are told ‘it’s either you or prison’, especially when you know the conditions in prison facilities, it is hard to talk about choice. It is a heavy burden placed on families.”

As for the individual being monitored, they find themself heavily reliant on those who take them in. Tensions or conflict can result in the individual losing their home, forcing them to find other accommodation that is compatible with electronic monitoring. This is particularly true in the case with young adults living with their parents, observes Franck Ollivon.
The financial issue is added to that of housing. Audrey Servais, attaché to the AGMJ, notes that, in Belgium, the allowance given to individuals serving this type of sentence who are unemployed and/or not entitled to unemployment benefits has not been indexed since 2007. “The amount is negligible. Individuals who rely solely on this income live below the poverty line. It puts them in a situation where they are totally dependent on others: their family must provide for them financially, which is utterly discriminatory. This also prevents the offender from rebuilding valuable social ties, both with their family and society in general.”

Those living with a loved one being monitored feel the effects of the measure, despite not being its intended target. While individuals who are tagged receive support, the situation is less clear for their family members. Many civil society actors are calling for support for families as well, particularly when the device is installed.

Until recently, home assessments were carried out by judicial clerks before all electronic monitoring installations in Belgium. The purpose was to assess conditions in the home and to anticipate any potential issues. Criminologist Marie-Sophie Devresse insists on the importance of this step: “Judicial clerks really took the time to discuss with families what to expect when their loved ones came home and what electronic monitoring would entail. At the end of the assessment, the judicial clerk would indicate in their report if the family appeared ready to welcome the offender or not. Considering the pressure on them, they would say yes most of the time. Thus, this assessment allowed the judicial clerk to note any concerns expressed by the family at the time. The magistrate could then take the decision to implement electronic monitoring in the home based on the findings of the home assessment.”

These assessments are no longer regularly carried out. The number of people being placed under electronic monitoring is rapidly increasing; however, the same cannot be said for the number of staff dealing with these cases. Assessment is no longer the focus for judicial clerks. Now the main goal is to obtain consent from families, regardless of how much, or little, support they have been given.

The situation is not much better for families in France. The Penitentiary Integration and Probation Service (Service pénitentiaire d’insertion et de probation, SPIP) only contacts families for them to sign the necessary documents to consent to housing the individual being monitored. Only in very rare circumstances is there a follow-up, namely if the SPIP suspects violence within the family. Franck Ollivon stresses that, while those who are tagged are inevitably informed about how the device operates, their families are not. “Moreover, the majority of people who are tagged would rather not involve their families in their sentence and try to keep them away from the penitentiary administration”, explains the researcher. “Most of them are not keen on the idea of serving a sentence, including wearing an electronic tag, because of stigmatisation. Some even want to hide the tag from anyone who doesn’t live with them, even other family members”, he adds. Much like the stigma of being incarcerated, the stigma of wearing an electronic tag tends to spread to the offender’s entire family.

The electronic tag is often described as a collective punishment. Families of individuals being monitored must also learn to live with the restrictions and flaws associated with the device. Camille wore a monitoring device for a year after her release from prison. “The alarm can go off at any time. It goes off at night, 3 o’clock in the morning, and wakes everyone up in a panic. It’s great”, she says sarcastically.

Each family views and reacts differently to the obligations and restrictions imposed on the individual being monitored. Franck Ollivon emphasises that tags can affect the behaviour of family members in a variety of ways: “Some individuals assume the role of the prison administration, especially mothers with their sons or wives with their husbands. The gender aspect is very apparent. Others may subtly remind the offender of their obligations.” According to the researcher, these behaviours can have a positive effect by preventing the individual being monitored from being late or missing appointments with the prison administration. However, those serving the sentence often view this as an additional burden. They feel they are being watched by both the penitentiary administration and by their family. This can create or increase tension in the home.

Tags often impact the social lives of wearers’ loved ones, and day-to-day routines in the household change. Family members adapt their schedules to fit that of the wearer, usually the husband and/or father. Everyone’s activities are restricted, especially during the evening and/or on weekends. Some even postpone going on holiday.

Franck Ollivon describes this as “family confinement”. The allocation of tasks and daily schedules must also be reorganised: “If the father used to take the kids to football and can no longer do so, the mother must now step in. She may already be busy with other children or work. Their entire family life must be rearranged overnight, which can be very complicated. Thus, instead, we see a reduction in the outings and activities [of family members] during the sentence.”

Monitoring forces offenders to spend more time at home, which leads some individuals, particularly fathers, to become more involved in family life. “Some of them have told me: ‘The tag was really good, it allowed me to be there for my family.’ While this may be true, the question is, will it last even after monitoring ends”, the researcher wonders. Life as a couple can radically change because of tagging, for better or for worse. Criminologist Marie-Sophie Devresse cites the example of several wives who said they appreciated their husbands being tagged, as it kept them at home instead of “being out at all hours”. Their relationship issues seemed to lessen because of electronic monitoring. The criminologist notes: “Tagging might lead an individual to take their relationship more seriously, but this change in their behaviour is not of their own volition. Perhaps they will realise that staying at home is not so bad after all, but, in most cases, they will go back to their old way of life as soon as the tag is removed. We never really know what will happen with couples.”

Many interlocutors mentioned the failings of electronic tagging, particularly the technological issues. Tags are often considered ineffective by professionals, as well as by those who wear them. “We expect the device to do something it is not capable of doing”, explains Franck Ollivon. “It can only report if the person is home at a given moment, but it does not reveal anything about the desistance process.” The device is limited to sending alerts if an individual is not home at specific times, regardless of the circumstances or any effort being made by the individual.

In some instances, tags may actually be detrimental to an individual’s ability to reintegrate into the community because of the restrictions they impose. This applies to delays or schedule changes, for example. Marie-Sophie Devresse explains: “The electronic tag is often called a virtual prison. In truth, it is not so much the prison that is virtual, but rather the world in which the person hopes to reintegrate. A world in which there are no traffic jams, nobody is ever late, and your boss never expects you to work overtime. A world that does not exist. Real life consists of unforeseen events that electronic monitoring cannot take into account unless the offender wades through the red tape of paperwork, telephone calls and correspondence with the agencies overseeing their monitoring.” Camille echoes this sentiment: “With my line of work, being tagged was hell. I am a journalist, my hours are all over the place. I am at the mercy of the people I interview. Ultimately, it made no sense. The reintegration and probation counsellors also clearly realised this. Nevertheless, their response was always the same, ‘yes, but those are the rules’. Never mind that this undermines reintegration; those are the rules.”

How can we measure the extent to which electronic monitoring negatively impacts the individual under surveillance, as well as their loved ones? For Marie-Nathalie d’Hoop, such a task is no easy undertaking. She explains: “The day we recognize that electronic surveillance is not an alternative punishment but a punishment in its own right, we will be able to examine the implications of this measure. We will also be able to discuss the lack of visibility of tagged individuals and raise a whole series of other issues. We are currently still under the illusion that wearing a tag is so much better than being in prison, so, we are totally dependent on this comparison. We continue to think that being tagged is a favour, when that is simply not the case.”

Under the guise of being an alternative to incarceration, electronic monitoring shifts responsibility onto those housing the offender, who have nowhere to turn to in order to discuss the challenges they face. “It is extremely difficult to appreciate what those housing offenders go through, as they are caught between a rock and a hard place”, observes Marie-Nathalie d’Hoop. They have no freedom of choice and nowhere to talk about the constraints they are under: “Giving these families the opportunity to talk through the problems they face means running the risk that they will be deemed non-compliant, unfit to house the offender, or failing in the role assigned to them by the State. This issue is not talked about, but it boils down to offenders being reintroduced too quickly with a lack of preparation to help them reintegrate into their families and wider society.”

Those who are tagged, as well as their loved ones, experience electronic monitoring as a punishment, in every sense of the word. Providing them with support and a space to express their feelings is essential.