The Spatiality of parole
Though the public’s perception of corrections generally centers on prisons and jails, many defendants serve time in the community. One type of “community corrections” is parole. According to the National Institute of Corrections, parole is a procedure by which a board administratively releases incarcerated individuals from prison and provides for post-release supervision. (1) “Parole” comes from the French word parol, which means “word,” as in giving one’s word of honor or a promise. It has come to mean a formerly imprisoned individual’s promise to conduct himself in a law-abiding manner and according to certain rules in exchange for release. (2) In other words, parole is a community based component of the Department of Corrections that supervises adult community residents who have been assessed for release by a Parole Board. The aim of parole is to provide community safety while also rehabilitating offenders as they are reintroduced to the community. (3) The tension between these two goals, as we will see, creates contradictions that have an impact on the administration of parole. While rehabilitation has always been and remains a part of parole rhetoric, increasingly parole has become more focused on its control-oriented component. (4)
Individuals on parole are closely supervised by a parole officer who ensures that they comply with the numerous, stringent conditions that parole imposes. These are similar across most jurisdictions and generally include periodic drug tests, maintaining a job, regular contact with a parole officer, no contact with other parolees or individuals with a criminal record, and some form of electronic monitoring. (5) This last component of parole, also known as EM, sets strict spatial and geographical limitations on parolees; it is the focus of this paper.
This project has several aims. A first goal is to analyze how spatial restrictions enforced on parolees affect how this demographic lives and experiences the city. Second, I grapple with the assumptions that underlie geographic constraints on parolees so as to measure their implications. Third, I assess whether the spatial limitations that challenge parolees’ ability to freely move in and about space are beneficial to their successful reintegration into society.
This paper is divided into three parts. Part one sets the broader context within which parolees’ experience must be understood. Considerations on national carceral trends are presented here. Part two provides details and specifics on the technicalities of electronic monitoring, the spatial component of parole. Finally, part three examines the effects and implications of EM’s geographic constraints.
1. CONTEXT
It is common knowledge that one in every one hundred adults in the United States is currently in prison. (6) While much discussion has centered around the dramatic rise in incarceration rates across the country over the past thirty years, rates that specifically target poor, young, male African Americans, less attention has focused on the process of reintegrating formerly incarcerated individuals into society. (7) Yet this, too, is a pressing issue. The increase in the number of individuals behind bars comes with a concomitant increase of those on parole. Multiple studies have shown that heightened incarceration rates are traceable to policies centered on the War on Drugs. (8) This means that the majority of the incarcerated are not “lifers;” in other words, they will eventually be released. Indeed, about 625,000 prisoners are released each year in the United States and many of them are placed on parole. In Louisiana, for example, approximately 90% of the incarcerated individuals released each year are placed on parole supervision. (9) A slightly higher statistic applies in the state of Michigan. (10)
An important feature of mass incarceration reflected in these numbers and that must inform the discussion on the spatiality of parole presented here, is the widespread abandonment of the notion of rehabilitation as a main aim of criminal justice. Its substitute, as one might guess, is punishment. The political culture of hyper-punitiveness that is pervasive in the United States is evident not only in the staggering figures concerning prison populations but, also in the shift in the core aspect of post-release policy from counseling and support to control and surveillance (11) (12).
Because people of color comprise the majority of the prison population, predictably, they also comprise the majority of those on parole. In 2010, 39% of those on parole were Black and 26% were Latino. These numbers, as mentioned, reflect those of the prison population at large. Indeed, though African Americans make up only 13% of the general population, they represent 40% of those in state and federal prisons. This means that on a per capita basis they are incarcerated at a rate six times that of whites (the figure was calculated in 2010). While these striking disparities characterize the racial make-up of those behind bars, the prison population is in general largely uniform with regards to class. The majority of the incarcerated, independently of race, come from the low income levels of the working class. As one would expect, the numbers run parallel for persons released to parole; the majority come from the lower class. (13)
Because people of color comprise the majority of the prison population, predictably, they also comprise the majority of those on parole. In 2010, 39% of those on parole were Black and 26% were Latino. These numbers, as mentioned, reflect those of the prison population at large. Indeed, though African Americans make up only 13% of the general population, they represent 40% of those in state and federal prisons. This means that on a per capita basis they are incarcerated at a rate six times that of whites (the figure was calculated in 2010). While these striking disparities characterize the racial make-up of those behind bars, the prison population is in general largely uniform with regards to class. The majority of the incarcerated, independently of race, come from the low income levels of the working class. As one would expect, the numbers run parallel for persons released to parole; the majority come from the lower class. (13)
The socio-economic background of most individuals on parole is a factor that strongly contributes to their difficulty in making a successful reintegration into society — in any case a difficult accomplishment. The obstacles ex-felons face to re-enter society are challenging regardless of their economic background because of the stigma that almost always comes with a felony conviction. A criminal record is associated with sanctions that can and often do hinder one’s opportunities once he or she is released. Federal and state statues often set barriers for parolees to access certain types of jobs as well as public housing, food stamps and other types of benefits and services. Thus, the stigma associated with a felony conviction makes the reintegration process all the more difficult. Private landlords and employers frequently require applicants to disclose their criminal history and are reluctant to accept individuals with a record. (14) For those who have served longer sentences, ties to family and friends in the community might have deteriorated. Support from a familial network does not always exist. These institutional and administrative obstacles compound the socioeconomic disadvantage that is a common characteristic of most parolees. Finally, these challenges are exacerbated by the typical conditions of parole. (15)
Prior to examining the technicalities of electronic monitoring and the spatial limitations it imposes, it is essential to note specific geographical patterns related to incarceration and parole. A first pattern has been subsumed in the term “million dollar blocks.” This phrase describes the phenomenon by which individual city blocks, usually in poor urban communities, suffer from such high incarcerations rates that the government spends more than one million dollars per year to imprison its residents. This statistic strikingly shows how impoverished urban areas bear a disproportionate share of the national rates of imprisonment. This general trend has given rise to what has been called the “geography of incarceration.” (16)
As there is a “geography of incarceration,” similarly there is also a “geography of return.” Studies have shown that the majority of individuals released from prison go back to metropolitan areas and specifically that they cluster within a select few neighborhoods. (17) Research by the Urban Institute revealed that in 2001 more than half of the prisoners released from Illinois prisons returned to Chicago. One third of them, moreover, were concentrated in only six communities within the city. Similar studies were conducted in other states (including Ohio, Maryland, and New Jersey) and yielded comparable results. (18)
In a parallel fashion to the geography of incarceration, the geography of return sees parolees go back to neighborhoods that are among the most socially and economically disadvantaged of a city. This spatial pattern in which former prisoners cluster in a few concentrated areas within a city can be partially explained by the fact that many states legally require parolees to return to their county of conviction or their last residence upon release, which means most individuals on parole are attempting reintegration in difficult environments. Indeed, research suggests that parolees who return to the same areas where they lived before their incarceration (which are likely to be disadvantaged) are at higher risk of recidivating. The cause is thought to be the re-encounter with the same criminogenic influences that are likely to have contributed to prior offenses. Another contributing factor is that in these communities resources and services are often lacking. In those cases in which the parolee does not return to his or her pre-prison neighborhood, he usually returns to a similar neighborhood context, that is one classified in the same category of poverty. (19)
To fully comprehend the circumstances of the average parolee it is crucial to understand the broader context and dynamics that shape his trajectory. As a subcategory at a later stage of corrections, parole must be understood in parallel with the carceral trends currently characterizing the United States. Because of institutional structures and procedures, a typical trajectory sees the parolee flow from city to prison and back to the same area of the city that he left. Too often the path is back to prison again. This effectively means that those who get caught up in the criminal justice system, and subsequently in community supervision, are affected by a “coercive mobility” which churns them back and forth between the two contexts. (20) One sees that the majority of the prison and parole population lacks the freedom to operate as independent agents within the city because they are denied the ability to guide their own affairs. Put differently, this demographic finds itself “made” by the city and the forces established by dominant classes within it. (21)
2. The Technicalities of electronic monitoring
Since its introduction in criminal justice practice in the 1980s, electronic monitoring (EM) has become an increasingly common condition of being on parole. This is a reflection both of advances in technology and of the shift in parole towards supervision and surveillance as opposed to guidance and support. The acceptance of EM in the field of criminal justice was fueled by the fact that it is an effective tool to reduce the overcrowding of prisons and the high costs associated with incarceration. It is also a means of making community supervision tougher. Though many definitions of EM exist, in the broadest sense it can be understood as a technology used to track and monitor offenders in the community. (22) When a parolee is on electronic monitoring he is required to wear an ankle bracelet that electronically confirms his whereabouts. (23) Thanks to an electronic box set up in the parolee's place of residence, and thanks to the aid of GPS technology, the electronic box sends information to the monitoring authority who can track in real-time that the parolee complies with the conditions of parole. (24)
When paroled different types of offenders with different histories will be assigned one of a number of types of electronic monitoring. The selection as to type is usually made by the Parole Board which also usually sets special conditions for particular offenders based on their individual case. Special conditions are provisions that are added to the general ones that apply to all parolees. These might include components like drug, alcohol, or mental health counseling. Sex offenders, for instance, are placed under enhanced accountability and so are closely monitored in order to meet public safety concerns. (25)
The technology embedded in an electronic monitoring device allows it to be used in three main ways.
The technology embedded in an electronic monitoring device allows it to be used in three main ways.
- Restriction to a specific place for a specific number of hours per day over a specific period of time. The place of restriction is usually the offender’s place of residence. This could be his home, a hostel, or a halfway house. The rationale behind this type of confinement is that by restricting the offender to one place he is by definition prevented from offending elsewhere. This type of EM is usually classified as home confinement or home detention.
- Restriction from a specified place for a temporary period of time or permanently. The place of restriction might be the home of a victim, an area where the offender has offended regularly, or an area where it is thought he might offend in the future. This type of restriction, thanks to the aid of GPS satellites, essentially creates exclusion zones where the parolee is not authorized to go.
- Mobility monitoring is a system that entails keeping track of an offender’s movements in real time or retrospectively. (26)
Based on this underlying control premise of parole, individuals who violate the conditions of parole can be re-incarcerated. The reasons parolees might return to prison include not only committing a new crime but also a “technical violation.” A technical violation is when the parolee fails to respect the conditions of parole. If the violation is minor, an intermediate sanction might be the outcome. These sanctions are intended to stop the parolee’s “out of line” behavior from escalating to more serious violations. An intermediate sanction might entail getting sent to a drug treatment program, if the parolee is suspected of using drugs. (29) However, technical violations can also lead to re-incarceration. Missing curfew or entering an exclusion zone can lead to revocation of parole. The decision about what type of sanction to administer is usually at the discretion of the parole officer or the parole board supervising the parolee. Additionally, parole is associated with a fee. Individuals on parole are required to pay a “supervision fee” but if an individual is unable to afford it, the fee can be reduced or waived. (30)
3. Remarks on the effects and implications of Em's spatial constraints
The tension between the two objectives of parole — completing the remainder of a sentence under supervision in the community and facilitating the parolee’s reintegration into society — make it a thorny issue. (31) As noted, and as is true of other aspects of corrections, parole as currently conceived in the United States is targeted more at punishment than at rehabilitation. This explains why rates of recidivism of those on parole have been rising to 40%, or as high as 60% in some states in 2011. (32) Though the general public commonly considers parole as a defendant-friendly institution that allows incarcerated individuals to be “let out early,” as currently administered one has to ask if it truly works in the interest of the incarcerated. (33) In particular, the spatial limitations parole imposes through electronic monitoring may be called into question. Therefore, what follows is an analysis of the geographic restrictions of parole. An examination of how parolees experience the city environment, specifically compared to the rest of society, will be helpful in determining whether the present system does effectively foster rehabilitation into society. Certainly the statistics argue to the contrary.
The following discussion is based on a series of basic premises concerning parolees. First, one must bear in mind that a parolee’s release into society is determined after scrutiny by a parole board. The parole board takes into account the seriousness of the offense, conduct while imprisoned and considers the prisoner’s ability to successfully reintegrate. A second premise is that the individual has already completed a significant portion of his sentence. And finally, given that the majority of the prison population is convicted for non-violent, drug offenses, most of those on parole will be from this demographic. (34)
When electronic monitoring comes into play it is its own form of punishment to the extent that it is a form of confinement and exclusion by prohibiting free movement. At its core, as a form of technology that enables remote surveillant control, electronic monitoring is a way to regulate the spatial and temporal dimensions of a parolee’s life. In its function of restricting an individual to a certain place or set of places, and prohibiting him from accessing certain spaces, electronic monitoring creates invisible barriers, enclosing the parolee in defined spaces — a fixed and limited geography that excludes most areas of the city. Most individuals live and operate within a fixed geography in the sense that they predominantly move in space according to definite patterns, but their geography of course is much broader compared to that of a parolee. The parolee instead lives within a space characterized by zones of exclusion (like the similarly marginalized category of the homeless) and is punished for breaching the boundaries of his “fixed geography.” Though electronic monitoring can be conceived as a virtual and almost intangible form of supervision, the limitations it imposes and the repercussions that can incur if the parolee violates its conditions are concrete. (35)
An individual on parole experiences the city in a completely different way compared to most individuals in the lived environment. Under constant surveillance in a ‘controlled geography,’ surrounded by “prohibited spaces,” with the exception of those few locations he is allowed to access (grocery store, laundromat, parole office, place of employment) one has to wonder about the real chances that the parolee will be able to re-organize his life. Inevitably, the parolee’s inability to move freely across space inhibits his ability to create a new space for himself. He is denied power over his own actions, which is a fundamental right. Though it seems that electronic monitoring could offer the possibility of surveillance while guaranteeing the parolee’s free agency and unrestricted access to the city, this is not the philosophy underlying the administration of EM currently.
When electronic monitoring comes into play it is its own form of punishment to the extent that it is a form of confinement and exclusion by prohibiting free movement. At its core, as a form of technology that enables remote surveillant control, electronic monitoring is a way to regulate the spatial and temporal dimensions of a parolee’s life. In its function of restricting an individual to a certain place or set of places, and prohibiting him from accessing certain spaces, electronic monitoring creates invisible barriers, enclosing the parolee in defined spaces — a fixed and limited geography that excludes most areas of the city. Most individuals live and operate within a fixed geography in the sense that they predominantly move in space according to definite patterns, but their geography of course is much broader compared to that of a parolee. The parolee instead lives within a space characterized by zones of exclusion (like the similarly marginalized category of the homeless) and is punished for breaching the boundaries of his “fixed geography.” Though electronic monitoring can be conceived as a virtual and almost intangible form of supervision, the limitations it imposes and the repercussions that can incur if the parolee violates its conditions are concrete. (35)
An individual on parole experiences the city in a completely different way compared to most individuals in the lived environment. Under constant surveillance in a ‘controlled geography,’ surrounded by “prohibited spaces,” with the exception of those few locations he is allowed to access (grocery store, laundromat, parole office, place of employment) one has to wonder about the real chances that the parolee will be able to re-organize his life. Inevitably, the parolee’s inability to move freely across space inhibits his ability to create a new space for himself. He is denied power over his own actions, which is a fundamental right. Though it seems that electronic monitoring could offer the possibility of surveillance while guaranteeing the parolee’s free agency and unrestricted access to the city, this is not the philosophy underlying the administration of EM currently.
By limiting the parolee’s access to space, EM not only seeks to inflict an exclusionary punishment, but it also aims to control the parolee’s behavior. (36) The belief is that prohibiting an offender from accessing certain areas will prevent him from committing new crimes. Embedded in this belief we find the idea that space influences one’s behavior. Criminological theories like “Broken Windows,” which holds that evidence of social disorder invites crime, rely on this same spatial logic. The assumption behind EM and Broken Windows, essentially, is that there is a geography of crime, of places characterized by criminogenic conditions, as expressed in the “million dollar blocks.” Here we can see that (due to structural factors and patterns mentioned above) a contradiction embedded in parole and EM as they currently function is that they end up limiting a parolee to a what is in fact a crime area, or at least one of poverty associated with the risk of recidivism.
Within the geography of crime there are two types of actors. An “us” versus “them” dichotomy prescribes that there are “normal” and “abnormal” users of space. According to this rationale, parolees of course fall in the abnormal category and thus must be kept out of certain spaces. While there is truth to the idea that spatial contexts matter in terms of conduct and that geography affects social behavior, this theory alone cannot explain the connection between space and social behavior. Indeed, the notion is overly simplistic in that it does not account for structural factors that might impact one’s behavior in space. Thus, the logic behind restrictive electronic monitoring does not justify the exclusion of the “abnormal,” in this case parolees, from designated spaces. (37)
The notion that parolees must be excluded from certain areas so as to prevent them from committing new offenses suggests also that they are seen as inherently deviant. But this idea works directly against one of the convictions that technically underpins parole and electronic monitoring, namely that individuals who commit crimes are capable of change if helped through rehabilitation and that they are not criminals deserving only of punishment and control. (38) By imposing restrictions that prevent parolees from moving across the city freely, implicitly they are deemed as untrustworthy and suspicious, a factor that is demeaning and that undermines their capacity for betterment. (39)
The geographical restrictions imposed on parolees are also predicated on an ideal of socio-spatial order from which those who are seen as “other” must be banned. Here we can see that the city is hostile to difference and that it seeks to establish sanitized spaces. Specifically, exclusionary impulses inherent in ideas about crime lead to a regimented management of space that creates divisions between the law-abiding and the law-breaking. (40) (This type of exclusion also stems from divisions based on class). By extension, the authoritarian control of space imposed by EM leads to the production of undemocratic spaces within the city. Yet the value of public space is precisely to facilitate encounters with that which is different and to provide a platform for inclusiveness. The way in which electronic monitoring regulates access to public space, therefore, denies parolees essential rights as it inhibits their freedom, autonomy, and access to democratic spaces. (41) (42)
The provisions of electronic monitoring do not foster reintegration so much as they replicate a jailspace in the urban community. (43) As early as the 1990s, just ten years after EM was introduced to the criminal justice system, it was labeled the “electronic ball and chain.” (44) By its very nature, electronic monitoring hinders parolees’ ability to exercise active agency in their own transformation because of its strict geographical constraints. To remake one’s self, in fact, access to the city is necessary. (45) Ironically, and paradoxically, EM dehumanizes the parolee who is not only stripped of his agency but is also reduced to a decontextualized dot on a map to be surveilled. (46)
The considerations above illustrate how at a theoretical level geographical constraints imposed by electronic monitoring inhibit the parolee’s successful rehabilitation in a number of ways. And, obstacles to reintegration also play out at a more concrete level. For example, the rules of EM make it difficult for the parolee to seek and maintain employment or to build relationships, two factors that are crucial to successful re-entry to society. The limit of electronic monitoring, in practical terms, is that if fails to take into account the actual conditions most parolees face and the complexity and fluidity that life in a city entails. Clearly, the rules of electronic monitoring impede ordinary living, which is precisely what parolees strive to achieve. The words of a parolee commenting on this topic are telling, “we need as much freedom as we can get to get our crap together.” (47) Though of course many prefer EM to prison (48), efforts should be made to reorient this aspect of parole so that it may effectively facilitate reintegration and communication rather than foster punishment, control, and in many cases recidivism. (49)
In sum, the current use of electronic monitoring as a provision of parole must be revisited. The way it blocks parolees from public space cannot be justified either as a means of punishment or as a preventative measure. Access to public space is a right to which everyone is entitled based on ideas of the democratic city. (50) The marginalized who aim to integrate into society, and who the justice system deems capable of doing so, should be able to exercise this right. Further, access to public space helps to develop and sustain a sense of belonging to a neighborhood and a larger community. Finally, a democratic society allows that parolees do not inherently contribute to disorder, that they are entitled to public space the free use of which can be maintained by prohibiting harmful or undesirable behavior and punishing perpetrators after they commit a crime. As things stand, exclusion from public space by electronic monitoring assumes the form of a retributive punishment and is used as a preventative measure on the basis of ill-founded predictions of behavior. Hence, a relaxation of the exclusionary and restrictive spatial provisions of electronic monitoring should be adopted. (51)
WORKS CITED
- http://nicic.gov/parole
- Petersilia, Joan. (1999). “Parole and Prisoner Reentry in the United States.” Crime and Justice 26, 479-529.
- http://www.doc.ri.gov/probation/intro.php
- Petersilia, “Parole and Prisoner Reentry in the United States.”
- http://www.doc.ri.gov/probation/intro.php
- Pew Center on the States. (2009). One in 31: The Long Reach of American Corrections. Washington, DC: Pew Charitable Trusts. http://www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/legacy/uploadedfiles/pcs_assets/2009/pspp1in31reportfinalweb32609pdf.pdf
- Harding, David J., Jeffrey D. Morenoff and Claire W. Herbert. (2013). “Home Is Hard to Find: Neighborhoods, Institutions, and the Residential Trajectories of Returning Prisoners.” The Annals of the American Academy of Political Science and Social Science 647(1), 214-236.
- Kilgore, James. (2013). Progress or More of the Same? Electronic Monitoring and Parole in the Age of Mass Incarceration. Critical Criminology 21(1), 123-139.
- Kirk, David S. (2015). “A Natural Experiment of the Consequences of Concentrating Former Prisoners in the Same Neighborhoods.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 112(22), 6943-6948.
- Harding, “Home Is Hard to Find: Neighborhoods, Institutions, and the Residential Trajectories of Returning Prisoners.”
- Kilgore, Progress or More of the Same? Electronic Monitoring and Parole in the Age of Mass Incarceration.
- Herbert, Steve and Elizabeth Brown. (2006). “Conceptions of Space and Crime in the Punitive Neoliberal City.” Antipode 38(4), 755-777.
- Kilgore, Progress or More of the Same? Electronic Monitoring and Parole in the Age of Mass Incarceration.
- Harding, “Home Is Hard to Find: Neighborhoods, Institutions, and the Residential Trajectories of Returning Prisoners.”
- Kilgore, Progress or More of the Same? Electronic Monitoring and Parole in the Age of Mass Incarceration.
- http://www.spatialinformationdesignlab.org/projects.php%3Fid%3D16\
- Kirk, “A Natural Experiment of the Consequences of Concentrating Former Prisoners in the Same Neighborhoods.”
- http://www.urban.org/research/publication/portrait-prisoner-reentry-illinois/view/full_report
- Harding, “Home Is Hard to Find: Neighborhoods, Institutions, and the Residential Trajectories of Returning Prisoners.”
- Ibid.
- Harvey, David. (2003) “The Right to the City.” International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 27(4), 939-941.
- Nisevic, Anita Jandric, Nena Franic, and Sasa Rajic. (2015). “An Overview of the Research into the Effectiveness of Electronic Monitoring as an Alternative Sanction.” Criminology and Social Integration Journal 23(1), 51-71.
- http://www.doc.ri.gov/probation/intro.php
- Kilgore, Progress or More of the Same? Electronic Monitoring and Parole in the Age of Mass Incarceration.
- http://www.doc.ri.gov/probation/intro.php
- Nellis, Mike, Kristel Beyens and Dan Kaminski. (2013). Electronically Monitored Punishment: International and Critical Perspectives.
- http://www.doc.ri.gov/probation/intro.php
- Kilgore, Progress or More of the Same? Electronic Monitoring and Parole in the Age of Mass Incarceration.
- Harding, “Home Is Hard to Find: Neighborhoods, Institutions, and the Residential Trajectories of Returning Prisoners.”
- http://www.doc.ri.gov/probation/intro.php
- Pew Center on the States, One in 31: The Long Reach of American Corrections.
- Kilgore, Progress or More of the Same? Electronic Monitoring and Parole in the Age of Mass Incarceration.
- Jacobi, Tonja, Song Richardson, and Gregory Barr. (2014). “The Attrition of Rights Under Parole.” Southern California Review 87(4), 1-67.
- http://criminal.lawyers.com/parole-probation/parole-an-early-release-from-prison.html
- Nellis, Electronically Monitored Punishment: International and Critical Perspectives.
- Ibid.
- Herbert, “Conceptions of Space and Crime in the Punitive Neoliberal City.”
- Kilgore, Progress or More of the Same? Electronic Monitoring and Parole in the Age of Mass Incarceration.
- Nellis, Electronically Monitored Punishment: International and Critical Perspectives.
- Herbert, “Conceptions of Space and Crime in the Punitive Neoliberal City.”
- Blomley, Nicholas. (2010). “The Right to the Pass Freely: Circulation, Begging, and the Bounded Self.” Social and Legal Studies 19(3), 331-346.
- Purcell, Mark. (2013). “The Right to the City: the Struggle for Democracy in the Urban Public Realm.” Policy and Politics 43(3), 311-327.
- Nellis, Electronically Monitored Punishment: International and Critical Perspectives.
- Kilgore, Progress or More of the Same? Electronic Monitoring and Parole in the Age of Mass Incarceration.
- Harvey, “The Right to the City.”
- Kilgore, Progress or More of the Same? Electronic Monitoring and Parole in the Age of Mass Incarceration.
- Ibid.
- Nellis, Electronically Monitored Punishment: International and Critical Perspectives.
- Kilgore, Progress or More of the Same? Electronic Monitoring and Parole in the Age of Mass Incarceration.
- Purcell, “The Right to the City: the Struggle for Democracy in the Urban Public Realm.”
- Nellis, Electronically Monitored Punishment: International and Critical Perspectives.
IMAGE SOURCES (in order of appearance)
1. https://points.datasociety.net/hostile-architecture-electronic-monitoring-716dd03b44f5#.68agw8c7v
2.http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=kfdetail&iid=491
3. http://www.prisonpolicy.org/graphs/raceinc.html
4. http://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/income.html
5. http://c4sr.columbia.edu/projects/million-dollar-blocks
6. http://c4sr.columbia.edu/news/architecture-and-justice-exhibited-design-and-elastic-mind-moma-2008
7. http://www.urban.org/research/publication/portrait-prisoner-reentry-illinois/view/full_report
8. http://www.urban.org/research/publication/portrait-prisoner-reentry-illinois/view/full_report
9. http://www.canoncitydailyrecord.com/ci_22974058/colorado-docs-slow-response-ebels-parole-break-reflects
10. http://www.advantage-monitoring.com/monitoring.asp
11. http://www.blog.criminalu.co/tag/school-to-prison-pipeline/
12. https://points.datasociety.net/hostile-architecture-electronic-monitoring-716dd03b44f5#.68agw8c7v
1. https://points.datasociety.net/hostile-architecture-electronic-monitoring-716dd03b44f5#.68agw8c7v
2.http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=kfdetail&iid=491
3. http://www.prisonpolicy.org/graphs/raceinc.html
4. http://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/income.html
5. http://c4sr.columbia.edu/projects/million-dollar-blocks
6. http://c4sr.columbia.edu/news/architecture-and-justice-exhibited-design-and-elastic-mind-moma-2008
7. http://www.urban.org/research/publication/portrait-prisoner-reentry-illinois/view/full_report
8. http://www.urban.org/research/publication/portrait-prisoner-reentry-illinois/view/full_report
9. http://www.canoncitydailyrecord.com/ci_22974058/colorado-docs-slow-response-ebels-parole-break-reflects
10. http://www.advantage-monitoring.com/monitoring.asp
11. http://www.blog.criminalu.co/tag/school-to-prison-pipeline/
12. https://points.datasociety.net/hostile-architecture-electronic-monitoring-716dd03b44f5#.68agw8c7v