000			01760 2200241 4500
001			408220
090			_a408220
100			_a20231227d kkky0pory50 ba
101			_aeng
102			_aRO
200			_aSurveillance and confinement _eexplaining and understanding the experience of electronically monitored curfews _fMike Nellis
330			_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.
461			_cBucharest _d2009 _pp. 41-65 _tEuropean Journal of Probation _vVol. 1, nº 1
606			_9402740 _aMONITORIZAÇÃO ELETRÓNICA
606			_9103037 _aVIGILÂNCIA ELETRÓNICA
606			_946137 _aCOVID-19
606			_9318225 _aCONFINAMENTO
675			_9402766 _a343.26
700			_914494 _aNELLIS _bMike
801			_aPT _gRPC
852			_jVE110