01790     2200229   4500001000700000090001100007100004100018101000800059102000700067200012700074330103100201461007601232606003501308606003001343606001301373606001701386675001101403700001701414801001201431852001001443995010701453408220  a408220  a20231227d        kkky0pory50      ba  aeng  aRO  aSurveillance and confinementeexplaining and understanding the experience of electronically monitored curfewsfMike Nellis  aElectronic monitoring (EM) is now widely used in Western Europe, but its precise nature as a distinct form of penal sanction remains unclear. Since its advent in the USA in the 1980s, it has been most commonly characterized as a form of confinement and seen as an analogue of imprisonment. The names it had been given - “home detention”, “community custody” and “curfew”, for example - reflect this view. The surveillant aspects of EM have been vaguely acknowledged, but have relied on dubious ocular
metaphors, and remain undertheorised. This paper will argue that EM should be understood primarily as a particular form and experience of surveillance, because the precise regulatory regime which it imposes on offenders (including the element of
confinement) is only made possible by remote sensing technology, and has collateral effects alongside confinement. The paper concludes by tentatively placing this new,surveillant conceptualization of EM within contemporary debates on the changing nature
of penalty. 
  cBucharestd2009pp. 41-65tEuropean Journal of ProbationvVol. 1, nº 1  aMONITORIZAÇÃO ELETRÓNICA  aVIGILÂNCIA ELETRÓNICA  aCOVID-19  aCONFINAMENTO  a343.26  aNELLISbMike  aPTgRPC  jVE110  104VE_110_00000000000000052023-12-27692599479706aDGRSPcDGRSPfDGRSP9259kVE110n2023-12-27o0rAP