Document Type : Research Paper
Authors
1 PhD Student in Criminal Law and Criminology, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran
2 Professor, Department of Criminal Law and Criminology, University of Judicial Sciences and Administrative Services, Tehran, Iran
3 Assistant Professor, Department of Criminal Law and Criminology, University of Judicial Sciences and Administrative Services, Tehran, Iran
Abstract
The Electronic Monitoring Authority, established under Article 62 of the Islamic Penal Code of 2013 (1392) and formalized through the 2018 (1397) Executive Regulations, has now commenced large-scale operations across Iran. Designed to supervise offenders outside traditional incarceration, the initiative aims to deliver both social and legal benefits. Central to assessing its success are two key issues: the quality of its implementation and the perceptions of the offenders subjected to electronic monitoring. To address these concerns, a structured questionnaire was administered to 100 individuals under electronic monitoring in Alborz and South Khorasan provinces, complemented by insights from legal experts to provide a comprehensive evaluation of the system’s effectiveness.
Methodology
The study adopted a mixed-methods approach, combining quantitative and qualitative analyses. Individual interviews captured personal experiences, family-related impacts, device performance, and the practical effects of mobility restrictions. The collected data were analyzed to identify both strengths and limitations of the electronic monitoring system.
Results
1) Financial Aspects: The system successfully enables participation by financially disadvantaged offenders, which is viewed as a significant advantage. However, supervisory restrictions on mobility prevent 88% of participants from engaging in employment while under monitoring—representing a major limitation.
2) Technical Aspects: Device reliability remains a critical challenge. More than half of respondents (52%) reported at least one technical malfunction, and 36% required device repair or replacement. These technical vulnerabilities significantly reduce system effectiveness.
3) Offender and Family Experience: Most offenders evaluated electronic monitoring positively: 75% rated it as good or very good, and 69% reported that their families shared this positive assessment. Additionally, 65% faced no major difficulties in securing temporary permissions to leave the monitoring area, offering a clear advantage over incarceration. Psychological well-being remained generally stable, with 95% of male participants reporting no need for professional intervention (noting that men traditionally underreport such needs). Furthermore, 61% did not view the system as a hindrance to daily routines—an outcome likely to improve further with expanded mobility permissions. Conversely, 46% of family members experienced some limitations, an inherent feature of the system but one that could be mitigated by strategic adjustments in mobility policy.
4) Rehabilitation Impact: Home confinement affected 65% of participants, suggesting reduced opportunities for rehabilitation. Expanding mobility ranges and issuing targeted supervisory instructions may significantly improve rehabilitative outcomes.
5) Preference for Electronic Monitoring Over Other Mitigation Measures: Electronic monitoring was preferred by 58% of participants over suspended sentences or parole, particularly among individuals with minimal criminal histories. Moreover, 93% ranked electronic monitoring above semi-liberty arrangements. If implemented with expanded mobility allowances under appropriate regulatory guidelines, electronic monitoring could offer stronger supervisory capacity while maintaining high levels of offender preference.
6) Supervision Practices: Monthly telephonic contact with supervising authorities was viewed as non-intrusive by 70% of participants. While this benefits offenders by reducing perceived supervisory pressure, the study recommends supplementary identification and monitoring mechanisms to enhance public safety and ensure continuous compliance.
Conclusion
Despite notable technical and procedural challenges, electronic monitoring has been positively evaluated by the majority of participants and shows promising potential within Iran’s judicial framework. Policy refinements—particularly differentiated mobility allowances for offenders with specialized capacities or outdoor skills—could further enhance both rehabilitative outcomes and administrative efficiency. These findings affirm electronic monitoring as a viable complementary alternative to traditional incarceration, supporting offender reintegration while safeguarding public security
Keywords
- "electronic monitoring "
- "alternative to imprisonment"
- "lenient institution"
- "electronic convict's opinion "
- "electronic anklet"
Main Subjects
)