English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

This paper compares the use of electronic monitoring in three European jurisdictions – Belgium, England and Wales and the Netherlands. It suggests that rates of use, the accepted method of comparison in relation to imprisonment and a proxy measure of ‘punitiveness’ provide a misleading picture when applied to electronic monitoring. This paper transforms Crewe's concept of ‘tightness’ from a dimension of weight to encompass the overlapping elements of length, breadth, depth and weight to provide a framework for analysing how electronic monitoring regimes are designed to disrupt the lives of monitored individuals. Electronic monitoring regimes are diverse and ‘tightness’ varied as much, if not more, within as between jurisdictions. Comparisons of ‘tightness’ also inverted the scale of ‘punitiveness’ produced using rates of use.

Comparing electronic monitoring regimes: Length, breadth, depth and weight equals tightness