Zusammenfassung
Vom 01. Oktober 2010 bis 30. März 2012 wurde in Baden-Württemberg der Einsatz der elektronischen Aufsicht im Vollzug der Freiheitsstrafe im Rahmen eines experimentell angelegten Modellprojekts erprobt. Das Gesetz über die elektronische Aufsicht im Vollzug der Freiheitsstrafe (EAStVollzG) in Baden-Württemberg ermöglichte die Anwendung der elektronischen Überwachung mittels GPS in den drei Anwendungsbereichen elektronisch überwachter Hausarrest als Entlassungsvorbereitung, elektronisch überwachte Vollzugslockerungen (Freigang) und elektronisch überwachter Hausarrest im Rahmen von Ersatzfreiheitsstrafen. Mit Abschluss der Begleitforschung werden im vorliegenden Aufsatz die Ergebnisse dieser experimentell angelegten Studie vorgestellt. Zunächst werden die Ergebnisse zur Implementation und Wirkungsevaluation des Modellprojekts dargestellt. Schließlich werden die Resultate der Rückfallanalyse nach Beendigung der Maßnahme theoretisch und empirisch aufbereitet und präsentiert.
Abstract
From October 2010 to March 2012, the use of electronic monitoring (EM) with GPS in the prison regime of the federal state of Baden-Württemberg was tested in a pilot project. The »Act on electronic monitoring during the enforcement of imprisonment« allowed for the use of EM in three areas of application: home detention instead of imprisonment for failure to pay a fine, home detention as a means of release preparation, and electronically supervised work release. With the termination of the evaluation project, the results of this RCT are presented in this paper. First, we present the results of the implementation and impact evaluation. Finally, this study analyses the recidivism-reducing effect of EM after the termination of the electronically monitored measures.
Literatur
Albrecht, H.-J. (2002). Der elektronische Hausarrest. Monatsschrift für Kriminologie 85 (2), 84–104.10.1515/mks-2002-00014Search in Google Scholar
Andersen, S.H. & Telle, K. (2016). Electronic Monitoring and Recidivism. Quasiexperimental Evidence from Norway. Oslo: Statistics Norway Research Department Discussion Paper No. 844. Search in Google Scholar
Andersen, L.H. & Andersen, S.H. (2012). Losing the Stigma of Incarceration: Does serving a sentence with electronic monitoring causally improve post-release labor market outcomes? Odense: University Press of Southern Denmark. Search in Google Scholar
Andrews, D.A. & Bonta, J. (1998). Level of Service Inventory – Revised. North Tonawanda, NY: Multi-Health Systems.Search in Google Scholar
Bales, W., Mann, K., Blomberg, T., Gaes, G., Barrick, K., Dhungana, K. & McManus, B. (2010). A Quantitative and Qualitative Assessment of Electronic Monitoring. Tallahassee: Florida State University, College of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Center for Criminology and Public Policy Research.Search in Google Scholar
Barkemeyer, K. (2011). Das kostet doch alles viel mehr als das, was ich zahlen muss. Forum Strafvollzug 60 (3), 139–142.Search in Google Scholar
Bartels, L. & Martinovic, M. (2017). Electronic monitoring: The experience in Australia. European Journal of Probation 9 (1), 80–102. 10.1177/2066220317697658Search in Google Scholar
Black, M. & Smith, R.G. (2003). Electronic monitoring in the criminal justice system. Trends and Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice 254 (5), 1–6. Search in Google Scholar
Bottos, S. (2007). An Overview of Electronic Monitoring in Corrections: The Issues and Implications. Ottawa: Correctional Service Canada. Search in Google Scholar
Cornish, D. & Clarke, R.V. (1986). The Reasoning Criminal. Rational Choice Perspectives of Offending. New York, Berlin, Heidelberg, Tokyo: Springer Verlag. 10.1007/978-1-4613-8625-4Search in Google Scholar
Corzine, J.S. & Barnes Jr., P.J. (2007). Report on New Jersey’s GPS Monitoring of Sex Offenders. New Jersey: New Jersey State Parole Board.Search in Google Scholar
Cotter, R. & de Lint, W. (2009). GPS-electronic monitoring and contemporary penology: A case study of U. S. GPS-electronic monitoring programmes. The Howard Journal of Criminal Justice 48 (1), 76–87.10.1111/j.1468-2311.2008.00545.xSearch in Google Scholar
Deusinger, I.M. (1986). Die Frankfurter Selbstkonzeptskalen. Göttingen: Verlag für Psychologie Hogrefe.Search in Google Scholar
Di Tella, R. & Schargrodsky, E. (2013). Criminal recidivism after prison and electronic monitoring. Journal of Political Economy 121 (1), 28–73. 10.1086/669786Search in Google Scholar
Dünkel, F., Thiele, C. & Treig, C. (2017a). Elektronische Überwachung von Straffälligen im europäischen Vergleich – Bestandsaufnahme und Perspektiven. Mönchengladbach: Forum Verlag Godesberg.Search in Google Scholar
Dünkel, F., Thiele, C. & Treig, J. (2017b). Elektronische Überwachung von Straffälligen und Beschuldigten in Europa – Zusammenfassender Vergleich und Perspektiven für die Kriminalpolitik. In F. Dünkel, C. Thiele & C. Treig (Hrsg.), Elektronische Überwachung von Straffälligen im europäischen Vergleich – Bestandsaufnahme und Perspektiven (475–540). Mönchengladbach: Forum Verlag Godesberg. Search in Google Scholar
Fallesen, P. & Andersen, L.H. (2017). Explaining the consequences of imprisonment for union formation and dissolution in Denmark. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 36 (1), 154–177. 10.1002/pam.21933Search in Google Scholar
Felson, M. & Clarke, R.V. (1998). Opportunity Makes the Thief. Practical Theory for Crime Prevention. Police Research Series 98. London: Research, Development and Statistics Directorate. Search in Google Scholar
Fydrich, T., Sommer, G. & Brähler, E. (2007). Fragebogen zur Sozialen Unterstützung. Göttingen: Hogrefe.Search in Google Scholar
Gainey, R.R. & Payne, B.K. (2000). Understanding the Experience of House Arrest with Electronic Monitoring: An Analysis of Quantitative and Qualitative Data. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 44 (1), 84–96.10.1177/0306624X00441008Search in Google Scholar
Henneguelle, A., Monnery, B. & Kensey, A. (2016). Better at home than in prison? The effects of electronic monitoring on recidivism in France. Journal of Law and Economics 59 (3), 629–667. 10.1086/690005Search in Google Scholar
Hirschi, T. (1986). On the compatibility of rational choice and social control theories of crime. In D.B. Cornish & R.V. Clarke (eds.), The Reasoning Criminal: Rational Choice Perspectives on Offending (105–118). New York: Springer Verlag.Search in Google Scholar
Hucklesby, A. (2008). Vehicles of Desistance? Criminology and Criminal Justice 8 (1), 51–71.10.1177/1748895807085869Search in Google Scholar
Killias, M., Gillieron, G., Kissling, I. & Villettaz, P. (2010). Community service versus electronic monitoring – what works better? Results of a randomized trial. British Journal of Criminology 50 (6), 1155–1170. 10.1093/bjc/azq050Search in Google Scholar
Krampen, G. (1991). Fragebogen zu Kompetenz- und Kontrollüberzeugungen. Göttingen: Hogrefe.Search in Google Scholar
MacKenzie, D. (2006). What Works in Corrections. Reducing the Criminal Activities of Offenders and Delinquents. New York: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511499470Search in Google Scholar
Mair, G. & Nee, C. (1990). Electronic Monitoring: The Trials and Their Results. Home Office Research Study 120; http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20110218135832/http://rds.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs05/hors120.pdf [27.06.2019].Search in Google Scholar
Marklund, F. & Holmberg, S. (2009). Effects of early release from prison using electronic tagging in Sweden. Journal of Experimental Criminology 5 (1), 41–61. 10.1007/s11292-008-9064-2Search in Google Scholar
Martin, J.S., Hanrahan, K. & Bowers, J.H. (2009). Offenders’ Perceptions of House Arrest and Electronic Monitoring. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation 48 (6), 547–570.10.1080/10509670903081359Search in Google Scholar
Mayer, M. (2004). Modellprojekt elektronische Fußfessel. Studien zur Erprobung einer umstrittenen Maßnahme. Freiburg i.Br: edition iuscrim.Search in Google Scholar
Meloy, L.M. (2015). You can run but you cannot hide: GPS and electronic surveillance of sex offenders. In R.G. Wright (ed.), Sex Offender Laws Failed Policies, New Directions (2nd ed., 165–179). New York NY: Springer. Search in Google Scholar
Meuer, K. (im Druck). Legalbewährung nach elektronischer Aufsicht im Vollzug der Freiheitsstrafe – eine experimentelle Rückfallstudie zum baden-württembergischen Modellprojekt. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot.Search in Google Scholar
Meuer, K. & Wößner, G. (2018). Kriminalprävention durch elektronische Aufsicht? In M. Walsh, B. Pniewski, M. Kober & A. Armborst (Hrsg.), Evidenzorientierte Kriminalprävention in Deutschland. Ein Leitfaden für Politik und Praxis (619–642). Berlin: Springer. Search in Google Scholar
Nellis, M. (2015). Standard and Ethics in Electronic Monitoring. Strasbourg: Council of Europe. Search in Google Scholar
Ortmann, R. (1987). Resozialisierung im Strafvollzug. Theoretischer Bezugsrahmen und empirische Ergebnisse einer Längsschnittstudie zu den Wirkungen von Strafvollzugsmaßnahmen. Freiburg: edition iuscrim.Search in Google Scholar
Padgett, K., Bales, W. & Blomberg, T. (2006). Under surveillance. An empirical test of the effectiveness and consequences of electronic monitoring. Criminology & Public Policy 5 (1), 61–91. Search in Google Scholar
Payne, B.K. (2014). It’s a small world, but I wouldn’t want to paint it. Criminology & Public Policy 13 (3), 381–391. 10.1111/1745-9133.12090Search in Google Scholar
Payne, B.K. & Gainey, R.R. (2004). The electronic monitoring of offenders released from jail or prison: Safety, control, and comparisons to the incarceration experience. The Prison Journal 84 (4), 413–435.10.1177/0032885504269345Search in Google Scholar
Petersilia, J. & Turner, S. (1990). Comparing intensive and regular supervision for high-risk probationers, early results from an experiment in California. Crime & Delinquency 36 (1), 87–111.10.1177/0011128790036001007Search in Google Scholar
Pew Charitable Trusts (2016). Use of Electronic Offender-Tracking Devices Expands Sharply; https://www.pewtrusts.org/-/media/assets/2016/10/use_of_electronic_offender_tracking_devices_expands_sharply.pdf [27.06.2019].Search in Google Scholar
Renzema, M. & Mayo-Wilson, E. (2005). Can electronic monitoring reduce crime for moderate to high-risk offenders? Journal of Experimental Criminology 1 (2), 215–237. 10.1007/s11292-005-1615-1Search in Google Scholar
Sampson, R. (2010). Gold standard myths: Observations on the experimental turn in quantitative criminology. Journal of Quantitative Criminology 26 (4), 489–500.10.1007/s10940-010-9117-3Search in Google Scholar
Schwedler, A. & Wößner, G. (2014). Aufstieg und Fall der elektronischen Fußfessel in Baden-Württemberg: Analysen zum Modellversuch der elektronischen Aufsicht im Vollzug der Freiheitsstrafe. Neue Kriminalpolitik 26 (1), 60–77.Search in Google Scholar
Schwedler, A. & Wößner, G. (2015). Elektronische Aufsicht bei vollzugsöffnenden Maßnahmen: Implementation, Akzeptanz und psychosoziale Effekte des baden-württembergischen Modellprojekts. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot.Search in Google Scholar
Schwedler, A. & Woessner, G. (2017). Identifying the rehabilitative potential of electronically monitored release preparation: A randomized controlled study in Germany. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 61 (8), 839–856.10.1177/0306624X15612060Search in Google Scholar
Seitz, W. & Rautenberg, M. (2010). Persönlichkeitsfragebogen für Inhaftierte. Göttingen: Hogrefe.Search in Google Scholar
Sugg, D., Moore, L. & Howard, P. (2001). Electronic monitoring and offending behaviour – reconviction results for the second year of trials of curfew orders. London: Great Britain Home Office Research Development and Statistics Directorate.Search in Google Scholar
Tennessee Board of Probation and Parole (2007). Monitoring Tennessee’s Sex Offenders Using Global Positioning Systems – A Project Evaluation; http://www.tn.gov/bop/Press%20Releases/2007 %20BOPP‑MTSU%20GPS%20Program%20Evaluation.pdf [27.06.2019].Search in Google Scholar
Treig, J. & Pruin, I. (2018). Kurze Freiheitsstrafen und Ersatzfreiheitsstrafen als Herausforderung an den Strafvollzug – Möglichkeiten und Grenzen. In B. Maelicke & S. Suhling (Hrsg.), Das Gefängnis auf dem Prüfstand (313–349). Wiesbaden: Springer. Search in Google Scholar
Vanhaelemeesch, D., Vander Beken, T. & Vandevelde, S. (2013). Punishment at home: Offenders’ experience with electronic monitoring. European Journal of Criminology 11 (3), 273–287. Search in Google Scholar
Weisburd, D. (2000). Randomized Experiments in Criminal Justice Policy: Prospects and Problems. Crime & Delinquency 46 (2), 181–193. 10.1177/0011128700046002003Search in Google Scholar
Yeh, S.S. (2010). Cost-benefit analysis of reducing crime through electronic monitoring of parolees and probationers. Journal of Criminal Justice 38 (5), 1090–1096. 10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2010.08.001Search in Google Scholar
Zimring, F.E. & Hawkins, G. (1995). Incapacitation – Penal Confinement and the Restraint of Crime. New York & Oxford: Oxford University Press. Search in Google Scholar
© 2019 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
