Attitudes toward electronic monitoring among monitored offenders and criminal justice students

Journal of Offender Rehabilitation

Volumn 29, Issue 3-4, 1999, Pages 195-208

  Payne, Brian K ^a   Gainey, Randy R ^a  

^a OLD DOMINION UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Civil liberties; Electronic monitoring; Monitored offenders

Indexed keywords

EID: 85008794294     PISSN: 10509674     EISSN: 15408558     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1300/J076v29n03_12     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Alpert, G., & Madden, T. (1994). Police pursuit driving: An empirical analysis of critical decisions. American Journal of Police, 13, 23-45.
2. Applegate, B.K., Cullen, F.T., Turner, M.G., & Sundt, J.L. (1996). Assessing public support for three-strikes-and-you’re-out laws: Global versus specific attitudes. Crime and Delinquency, 42, 517-34.
3. Austin, T.I., & Hummer, D.C. (1994). Has a decade made a difference? Attitudes of male criminal justice majors towards female police officers. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 5, 229-39.
4. Brown, M.P., & Elrod, P. (1995). Electronic house arrest: An examination of citizen attitudes. Crime and Delinquency, 41, 332-46.
5. Brummer, R.F. (1993). Don’t oversell electronic monitoring. Corrections Today, 55, 12.
6. Cheever, J.M. (1990). House arrest seen as solution for crowding. National Law Journal, 29, 30-31.
7. Clark, C.S. (1994). Prison crowding: Will building more prisons cut the crime rate? CQ Researcher, 4, 99-116.
8. Cohn, A.W. (1996). Development of an agency based self-evaluation instrument for electronic monitoring programs. Rockville, MD: Administration of Justice Services.
9. Crouch, B.M. (1993). Is incarceration really worse: Analysis of offenders’ preferences for prison over probation. Justice Quarterly, 10, 67-88.
10. Doob, A.N., & Roberts, J. (1984). Social psychology, social attitudes and attitudes toward sentencing. Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science, 16, 269-80.
11. Elrod, P., & Brown, M.P. (1996). Predicting public support for electronic house arrest: Results from a New York county survey. American Behavioral Scientist, 39, 461-73.
12. Flanagan, T.J., & Longmire, D.R. (1996). Americans view crime and justice: A national public opinion survey. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
13. Gainey, R.R., & Payne, B.K. (1998). Course content versus structure: A quasi-experiment examining attitudes about electronic monitoring. Unpublished manuscript.
14. Jackson, J.L., de Keijser, J.W., & Michon, J.A. (1995). A critical look at research on alternatives to custody. Federal Probation, 59, 43-51.
15. Lane, J.S. (1997). Can you make a horse drink? The effects of a corrections course on attitudes toward criminal punishment. Crime and Delinquency, 43, 186-202.
16. Larivee, J.J. (1993). Community programs: A risky business. Corrections Today, 55, 20-4.
17. Lilly, J.R., Ball, R.A., Curry, D.G., & Smith, R.C. (1992). The Pride, Inc., Program: An evaluation of five years of electronic monitoring. Federal Probation, 56, 42-7.
18. Lilly, J.R. (1989). What about house arrest? Journal of State Government, 62, 89-91.
19. Maineprize, S. (1992). Electronic monitoring in corrections: Assessing cost effectiveness and the potential for widening the net of social control. Canadian Journal of Criminology, 34, 161-180.
20. Maxfield, M.J., & Baumer, T.L. (1990). Home detention with electronic monitoring: Comparing pretrial and postconviction programs. Crime and Delinquency, 36, 521-36.
21. Miller, J.L., Rossi, P.H., & Simpson, J.E. (1991). Felony punishments: A factorial survey of perceived justice in criminal sentencing. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 82, 396-422.
22. Payne, B.K., & Gainey, R.R. (1998). A qualitative assessment of the pains experienced on electronic monitoring. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 42, 149-163.
23. Payne, B.K., & Gainey, R.R. forthcoming. A typology for assessing the electronic monitoring experience. Journal of Offender Monitoring.
24. Peck, K. (1988). High-tech house arrest. Progressive, 52, 26-8.
25. Petersilia, J., & Deschenes, E.P. (1994a). What punishes? Inmates rank the severity of prison versus intermediate sanctions. Federal Probation, 58, 3-8.
26. Petersilia, J., & Deschenes, E.P. (1994b). Perceptions of punishment: Inmates and staff rank severity of prison versus intemediate sanctions. Prison Journal, 74, 306-29.
27. Rackmill, S.J. (1994). An analysis of home confinement as a sanction. Federal Probation, 58, 45-52.
28. Robinson, R.J. (1993). What does ‘unwilling’ to impose the death penalty mean anyway? Another look at excludable jurors. Law and Human Behavior, 17, 471-77.
29. Sandys, M., & McGarrell, E.F. (1995). Attitudes toward capital punishment: Preference for the penalty or mere acceptance? Journal ofResearch in Crime and Delinquency, 32, 191-213.
30. Schmidt, A.K. (1991). Electronic monitors: Realistically, what can be expected? Federal Probation, 55, 47-53.
31. Sigler, R.T., & Lamb, D. (1995). Community-based alternatives to prison: How the public and court personnel view them. Federal Probation, 59, 3-9.
32. Silvia, J. (1989). Home detention: New technology enhances program. Corrections Today, 51, 130-31.
33. Spelman, W. (1995). The severity of intermediate sanctions. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 32, 107-35.
34. Turner, M.G., Cullen, F.T., Sundt, J.L., & Applegate, B. (1997). Public tolerance for community-based sanctions. Prison Journal, 77, 6-26.
35. Veneziano, C., & Fichter, M. (1995). Attitudes examined towards community-based sanctions. Corrections Today, 57, 152-54