Editing Electronic tagging (section)

== History ==
The [[electronic monitoring]] of humans found its first commercial applications in the 1980s. Portable transceivers that could record the location of volunteers were first developed by a group of researchers at [[Harvard University]] in the early 1960s. The researchers cited the psychological perspective of [[B. F. Skinner]] as underpinning for their academic project. The portable electronic tag was called ''behavior transmitter-reinforcer'' and could transmit data two-ways between a ''base station'' and a volunteer who simulated a ''young adult offender''. Messages were supposed to be sent to the tag, so as to provide [[positive reinforcement]] to the young offender and thus assist in [[Rehabilitation (penology)|rehabilitation]]. The head of this research project was Ralph Kirkland Schwitzgebel and his twin brother collaborator, Robert Schwitzgebel (family name later shortened to Gable).<ref>{{Cite book|title= Probation and Parole | editor = Dan Phillips|publisher = Routledge |year=1995 |isbn= 9781317993483 |pages=95}}</ref><ref name=gable-2016>Robert S. Gable, Ralph Kirkland Gable, "Remaking the electronic tracking of offenders into a 'persuasive technology{{'"}}, ''Journal of Technology in Human Services'', 2016, vol. 34, pp. 13-31</ref> The main base-station antenna was mounted on the roof of the [[Old Cambridge Baptist Church]]; the minister was the dean of the [[Harvard Divinity School]].<ref name=gable-2016/><ref>Robert S. Gable, "The ankle bracelet is history: An informal review of the birth and death of a monitoring technology", ''The Journal of Offender Monitoring'', 2015, vol. 27, pp. 4-8.</ref>

Reviewers of the prototype electronic tagging strategy were sceptical. In 1966, the ''[[Harvard Law Review]]'' ridiculed the electronic tags as ''Schwitzgebel Machine'' and a myth emerged, according to which the prototype electronic tagging project used brain implants and transmitted verbal instructions to volunteers. The editor of a well-known U.S. government publication, ''Federal Probation'', rejected a manuscript submitted by Ralph Kirkland Schwitzgebel, and included a letter which read in part: "I get the impression from your article that we are going to make automatons out of our parolees and that the parole officer of the future will be an expert in telemetry, sitting at his large computer, receiving calls day and night, and telling his parolees what to do in all situations and circumstances [...] Perhaps we should also be thinking about using electronic devices to rear our children. Since they do not have built-in consciences to tell them right from wrong, all they would have to do is to push the 'mother' button, and she would take over the responsibility for decision-making."<ref>Evjen, V.H., 1966, Nov.16. Letter to R.Schwitzgebel from Victor H Evjen, Assistant Chief of Probation, Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, Washington, D.C.</ref> [[Laurence Tribe]] in 1973 published information on the failed attempts by those involved in the project to find a commercial application for electronic tagging.<ref>{{Cite book |title= Probation and Parole | editor = Dan Phillips |publisher= Routledge |year=1995|isbn= 9781317993483 |pages= 96}}</ref>

In the U.S., the 1970s saw an end of rehabilitative sentencing, including for example discretionary parole release. Those found guilty of a [[criminal offense]] were sent to prison, leading to sudden increase in the prison population. [[Probation]] became more common, as judges saw the potential of electronic tagging, leading to an increasing emphasis on [[surveillance]]. Advances in computer-aided technology made offender monitoring feasible and affordable. After all, the Schwitzgebel prototype had been built out of surplus missile tracking equipment.<ref name=ProbationandParolepg97>{{Cite book |title= Probation and Parole | editor = Dan Phillips|publisher= Routledge |year=1995|isbn=9781317993483 |pages= 97}}</ref> A collection of early electronic monitoring equipment is housed at the National Museum of Psychology in [[Akron, Ohio]].<ref>National Museum of Psychology, Center for the History of Psychology, University of Akron, 73 S. College St, Akron, OH 44325, http://www.uakron.edu/chp</ref>

The attempt to monitor offenders became [[wikt:moribund#Adjective|moribund]] until, in 1982, Arizona state district judge, Jack Love, convinced a former sales representative of [[Honeywell Information Systems]], Michael T. Goss, to start a monitoring company, National Incarceration Monitor and Control Services (NIMCOS).<ref>Cassidy, J. District judge tests electronic monitor, Albuquerque Journal, 1983, 18 March, p. A1</ref> The NIMCOS company built several credit card-sized transmitters that could be strapped onto an ankle.<ref name="ProbationandParolepg97" /> The electronic ankle tag transmitted a [[radio signal]] every 60 seconds, which could be picked up by a receiver that was no more than {{Convert|45|m||abbr=}} away from the electronic tag. The receiver could be connected to a [[telephone]], so that the data from the electronic ankle tag could be sent to a [[mainframe computer]]. The design aim of the electronic tag was the reporting of a potential [[home detention]] breach.<ref name=ProbationandParolepg98>{{Cite book|title= Probation and Parole | editor= Dan Phillips|publisher= Routledge |year= 1995|isbn= 9781317993483 |pages= 98}}</ref> In 1983, judge Jack Love in a state district court imposed home curfew on three offenders who had been sentenced to probation. The home detention was a probation condition and entailed 30 days of electronic monitoring at home.<ref>{{Cite book|title= Probation and Parole | editor = Dan Phillips |publisher= Routledge |year= 1995|isbn= 9781317993483 |pages=97–98}}</ref> The NIMCOS electronic ankle tag was trialed on those three probationers, two of whom re-offended. Thus, while the goal of home confinement was satisfied, the aim of reducing crime through probation was not.<ref name="ProbationandParolepg98" />