Back to top

Offender computer restrictions

If you are a community corrections officer you should read this article. This article offers an efficient way to effectively monitor your supervisees’ computer use. Sections of this article cover: the issue of computer use and disuse by offenders such as gang members and sex offenders; the five major components of computer management—know what computer(s) the supervisee has or has access to, deciding how to monitor computer or Internet use, going online to check unauthorized use, using complementary technologies like location monitoring, and continued field visits; computer searches versus computer monitoring; and training. “The complexity and diversity of criminal and delinquent activities enabled and accelerated by technology can be daunting but that cannot be used as an excuse for a “wait and see” strategy. Expertise is developed over time and agencies are encouraged to start with the major components and to develop their expertise by focusing on specific strategies and offense types. Starting the process now will help prepare agencies for future challenges that will continue to occur as probationers or parolees find new and innovative ways to exploit developing technologies” (p. 46).

Managing the Risks Posed by Offender Computer Use: An APPA Technology Committee Issue Paper Cover

This two-part series discussing issues and developments in the use of information technologies by inmates and offenders in the community. Part 1 looks at: the problems in general; access to computers; information from the internet; and the Trust Fund Limited Inmate Computer System (TRULINCS) used by federal prisons. Part 2 looks at supervised Internet access; cell phones and the Internet; parolees and the Internet; sex offenders and the Internet; and some suggestions for allowing limited electronic communication and Internet access.

Prisoners, Parolees, Sex Offenders, Computers, and the Internet cover

Recent court cases (2013) concerning the restricted use of the Internet by sex offenders are reviewed. These cases are: Doe v. Nebraska; Doe v. Prosecutor, Marion County, Indiana; and Bykov v. Rosen. “Restricting Internet access has always been seen primarily as a risk management condition … Internet conditions/restrictions on community corrections cases (probation, parole, supervised release), properly crafted have been repeatedly upheld. The Bykov case signifies that separate and apart from managing cyber-risk, an Internet restriction can be punishment that deters future Internet misconduct” (p. 2).

Taking it on the Chin Cover
Subscribe to Offender computer restrictions