FO. For offenders, the tag acts as an element of distinction. It is a way to dissociate themselves from the population of prisoners referred to as “delinquents”. In other words: “I’m not a delinquent because I’m being monitored electronically; if I were a delinquent, I’d be in prison“.
In the eyes of society, the electronic tag is a stigma. The most obvious element is the object attached to the ankle, which identifies offenders in public places and reminds them of their offence. As one prisoner explained to me, the electronic bracelet is the only thing you can’t wash off. Beyond this material aspect, the restriction of mobility by time constraints is a stigmatising factor. Electronic monitoring entails a change in social practices: with an electronic tag, you can’t work overtime, you need a doctor’s note for medical visits, etc…
Although the electronic tag appears to be a device favouring reintegration, this is not always the case. Restricting mobility is an obstacle to social reintegration. Some offenders have even adopted an approach of self-imposed seclusion.
I therefore wondered about the basis for this constraint: why do Western penal systems care whether prisoners return home in the evening? This spatial information is considered important as it attests to the prisoner’s desistance process. It must say something about the prisoners themselves. However, sentencing judges and probation officers find that house arrest says little about this process. It is possible to reoffend without being detected by the surveillance system, and without violating the conditions of house arrest. By contrast, it is possible to return home late and still be well-integrated into society.
Electronic monitoring is therefore ambiguous, as offenders are no longer fully situated in prison but are not yet fully in society either.