<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<record
    xmlns:xsi="https://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance"
    xsi:schemaLocation="https://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim https://www.loc.gov/standards/marcxml/schema/MARC21slim.xsd"
    xmlns="https://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim">

  <leader>01806nam a2200241   4500</leader>
  <controlfield tag="001">23095</controlfield>
  <datafield tag="090" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">23095</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="100" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">20100201c2009       y0pory50      ba</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="101" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">eng</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="200" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">Rationalizing the use of electronic monitoring</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="330" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">- Two recent studies suggest that adding EM to the mix of treatment components can enhance public safety while reducing both the monetary and human costs of recidivism and incarceration. - In a few well-publicized cases, EM has permitted police to identify and eliminate potential suspects by real-time integration of police reports and GPS-recorded tracks of offender movements. If EM becomes more widespread, it could emerge as a tool of investigation. - In conventional evaluation research, arrests, revocations, and reconvictions are represented as failures. Yet some agency users of EM regard such "failures" as evidence that monitoring is actually succeeding. - People who have run EM monitoring centers develop a sense of what sorts of deviations from the norm will result in eventual failure. - At least in some situations, EM seems to be able to suppress criminal behavior for its duration. - The best prospect for use  of EM as a tool for rehabilitation is in combination with other program elements carefully matched to offender characteristics and needs.</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="461" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="v">V.22,n.1</subfield>
    <subfield code="d">2009</subfield>
    <subfield code="p">p.5-11</subfield>
    <subfield code="t">The Journal of Offender Monitoring</subfield>
    <subfield code="c">Kingston</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="606" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">DIREITO PROCESSUAL PENAL</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="606" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">VIGIL&#xC2;NCIA ELECTR&#xD3;NICA</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="606" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">REINSER&#xC7;&#xC3;O SOCIAL</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="606" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">CANAD&#xC1;</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="700" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">RENZEMA</subfield>
    <subfield code="b">Marc</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="852" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="j">P.308</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="995" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="1">0</subfield>
    <subfield code="4">P__308_000000000000000</subfield>
    <subfield code="5">2021-12-17</subfield>
    <subfield code="9">26424</subfield>
    <subfield code="a">DGRSP</subfield>
    <subfield code="c">DGRSP</subfield>
    <subfield code="k">P.308</subfield>
    <subfield code="n">2021-12-17</subfield>
    <subfield code="o">0</subfield>
    <subfield code="r">AP</subfield>
  </datafield>
</record>
