Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer
##common.pageHeaderLogo.altText##

Articles

Vol. 13 (2026): Revista de Estudos Empíricos em Direito

Da desencarcerização para a e-carcerização? : Realidades e desafios atuais da monitoração eletrônica na França, nos Estados Unidos e no Brasil

DOI
https://doi.org/10.19092/reed.v13.1090
Submitted
December 7, 2025
Published
2026-08-23

Abstract

Desde o início da década de 1970, os Estados Unidos vêm atravessando um ciclo punitivo de legislações “tolerância zero” que produziu, em 2009, uma população prisional superior a dois milhões de pessoas, levando os estados a recorrerem à monitoração eletrônica (ME) como alternativa de redução de custos. Em dezembro de 2015, a população sob supervisão eletrônica havia crescido quase 140% em uma década, alcançando cerca de meio milhão em 2022 e levantando questões fundamentais sobre se a ME de fato reduz o envolvimento com o sistema de justiça criminal ou, ao contrário, reconstrói o encarceramento em forma tecnológica. Na França, a ME evoluiu desde sua introdução, em 1997, de um experimento localizado para uma sanção incorporada nacionalmente, centrada na adaptação de penas e na execução da medida de liberdade vigiada, incluindo aplicações recentes baseadas em proximidade. Embora formuladores de políticas apresentem a ME como instrumento para reduzir o encarceramento, persistem preocupações quanto ao alargamento da malha penal (net-widening), proporcionalidade, privacidade e direitos humanos. O Brasil oferece uma terceira trajetória, adotando a ME principalmente como resposta pragmática à crônica superlotação prisional e à limitada capacidade de execução penal em meio aberto. Sob a iniciativa do Conselho Nacional de Justiça (CNJ), a ME se expandiu pelos estados nos contextos de prisão provisória, progressão de regime e livramento condicional, aliviando pressões sistêmicas, mas enfrentando uma implementação fragmentada e um enquadramento frágil em termos de reintegração social, o que pode comprometer sua legitimidade e expandir o controle penal. Este estudo apresenta uma análise comparativa da ME nos Estados Unidos, na França e no Brasil para examinar as semelhanças estruturais e as divergências que moldam seu uso. Ao situar essas trajetórias nacionais em um contexto global, o artigo questiona se a ME funciona como um instrumento de supervisão humano legítimo ou como uma expansão descontrolada do poder punitivo, concluindo que sua legitimidade depende menos do dispositivo em si do que da filosofia de justiça que orienta sua implementação.

References

  1. Abreu, J. V. F. D. (2019). A custódia das audiências: Uma análise das práticas decisórias na Central de Audiência de Custódia (CEAC) do Rio de Janeiro. [Dissertação de Mestrado]. Universidade Federal Fluminense.
  2. Abreu, J. V. F. D. (2025). Audiência de custódia: Uma análise da política pública judiciária e a organização dos tribunais de justiça. [Tese de Doutorado]. Universidade Federal Fluminense.
  3. Abreu, J. V. F. D., & Geraldo, P. H. B. (2019). A custódia nas audiências: Uma análise da política de transferência das audiências de custódia para a cadeia pública na cidade do Rio de Janeiro. Dilemas - Revista de Estudos de Conflito e Controle Social, 0(0), Artigo 0.
  4. Alexander, M. (2010). The new Jim Crow: Mass incarceration in the age of colorblindness. The New Press.
  5. American Immigration Council. (2023). Alternatives to immigration detention: An overview. American Immigration Council. https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org
  6. Assad, P. (2025, October 8). Com recorde de tornozeleiras eletrônicas, Brasil deveria ter dez vezes mais profissionais para acompanhar presos. O Globo.
  7. Aviram, H. (2015). Cheap on crime: Recession-era politics and the transformation of American punishment (1st ed.). University of California Press.
  8. Azevedo, R. G. de. (2025). Quem monitora os monitorados? A expansão do monitoramento eletrônico e a precariedade das condições institucionais de acompanhamento. Fontes Segura – Fórum Brasileiro de Segurança Pública. https://fontesegura.forumseguranca.org.br/quem-monitora-os-monitorados-a-expansao-do-monitoramento-eletronico-e-a-precariedade-das-condicoes-institucionais-de-acompanhamento/
  9. Bail for Immigration Detainees. (2022). Every move you make: The human impact of GPS tagging in immigration bail. Bail for Immigration Detainees.
  10. Bail Project. (2022, August 29). Policy position brief: On electronic monitoring. Bail Project. https://bailproject.org/policy/electronic-monitoring/
  11. Balakrishnan, V. (2024a). Mass surveillance as racialized control. UCLA Law Review, 71, 478–537.
  12. Balakrishnan, V. (2024b). No bleed: How pretrial electronic monitoring transforms the presumption of innocence. UCLA Law Review, 71.
  13. Becker, H. S. (1997). Outsiders: Studies in the sociology of deviance. Free Press.
  14. Beckett, K. (2018). Mass incarceration and its discontents. Contemporary Sociology, 47(1), 11–23. https://doi.org/10.1177/0094306117744801
  15. Beyens, K., Kaminski, D., & Nellis, M. (Eds.). (2013). Electronically monitored punishment: International and critical perspectives. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203103029
  16. Campello, R. U. (2019). O carcereiro de si mesmo. Tempo Social, 31(3), 81–97. https://doi.org/10.11606/0103-2070.ts.2019.161057
  17. Carson, E. A., & Kluckow, R. (2023). Prisoners in 2022 – Statistical tables (NCJ 307081). Bureau of Justice Statistics. https://bjs.ojp.gov
  18. CEP (Confederation of European Probation). (2024). 13th electronic monitoring conference proceedings. CEP.
  19. Citizens for Juvenile Justice. (2025, October). E-carceration: The impact of GPS monitoring in the Massachusetts criminal and juvenile legal systems. Citizens for Juvenile Justice.
  20. Cleveland, D., & Rosenblum, M. (2020). The case against electronic monitoring in immigration enforcement. Journal on Migration and Human Security, 8(1), 1–20.
  21. CNJ & UNDP. (2021). Fazendo Justiça: Electronic monitoring in Brazil. Conselho Nacional de Justiça & United Nations Development Programme.
  22. Congress of the United States. (2025, March 4). Testimony of Stephen Hankinson before the House Committee on Oversight. U.S. House of Representatives. https://www.congress.gov
  23. Confederation of European Probation (CEP). (2025, March). Holdsworth, E. Beyond control – Electronic monitoring and prevention: Report of the 13th European electronic monitoring conference, 3–5 December 2024, Cascais, Portugal. CEP. https://www.cep-probation.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/CEP-13th-Electronic-Monitoring-conference-report-2024.pdf
  24. Council of Europe. (2011). Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence (Istanbul Convention, CETS No. 210). Council of Europe. https://rm.coe.int/168046031c
  25. Council of Europe. (2014). Recommendation CM/Rec(2014)4 of the Committee of Ministers to member States on electronic monitoring. Council of Europe. https://rm.coe.int/16806cc1f4
  26. Council of Europe. (2023a). Conference on electronic monitoring and victim protection, Sofia. Council of Europe.
  27. Council of Europe. (2023b). Electronic monitoring in cases of interpersonal violence: A comparative study in the context of the Istanbul Convention. Council of Europe.
  28. Council of Europe. (2023c). Electronic monitoring in interpersonal violence cases: Standards, principles and state practice. Council of Europe. https://rm.coe.int/electronic-monitoring-arm-fra-publication-eng/1680ace74b
  29. Cour des comptes. (2025, March). Évaluation de deux peines alternatives à l’incarcération: travail d’intérêt général et détention à domicile sous surveillance électronique [Rapport public thématique]. Cour des comptes. https://www.ccomptes.fr/sites/default/files/2025-03/20250304-Evaluation-2-peines-alternatives-a-l-incarceration.pdf
  30. DeMichele, M., & Payne, B. (2009). Offender supervision with electronic technology: A community corrections resource(2nd ed.). Bureau of Justice Assistance.
  31. Destoc, N. (2016). La prison dans la ville: Réflexions sur le placement sous surveillance électronique. Prison Studies Blog.
  32. Direction de l’Administration pénitentiaire (DAP). (n.d.). Statistical data [Data set]. Ministère de la Justice (France).
  33. France. (1997, December 19). Law No. 97-1159 of 19 December 1997 on placement sous surveillance électronique.Journal officiel de la République française.
  34. Freedom for Immigrants. (2022). Alternatives to detention: A false solution. Freedom for Immigrants.
  35. Froment, J.-C., & Kaluszynski, M. (Eds.). (2010). Justice et technologies: Surveillance électronique en Europe. Presses Universitaires de Grenoble.
  36. Garland, D. (1991). Sociological perspectives on punishment. Crime and Justice, 14, 115–165. https://doi.org/10.2307/1147460
  37. Garland, D. (2001). Mass imprisonment: Social causes and consequences. SAGE.
  38. Goffman, E. (2009). Stigma: Notes on the management of spoiled identity. Simon & Schuster. (Original work published 1963)
  39. GovConWire. (2025). BI wins ICE ISAP V IDIQ contract award. GovConWire. https://www.govconwire.com/articles/bi-ice-isap-v-idiq-contract-award
  40. GovConWire. (2025, October 2). BI secures ICE Intensive Supervision Appearance Program V IDIQ contract.GovConWire. https://www.govconwire.com/articles/bi-ice-isap-v-idiq-contract-award
  41. GovTribe. (2025). Indefinite delivery contract 70CDCR25D00000062. GovTribe. https://govtribe.com/award/federal-idv-award/indefinite-delivery-contract-70cdcr25d00000062
  42. Grenet, J., Grönqvist, H., & Niknami, S. (2023, December). The effects of electronic monitoring on offenders and their families (SSRN Working Paper No. 5024702). Social Science Research Network. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5024702
  43. Hernández, C. C. G. (2019). Migrating to prison: America’s obsession with locking up immigrants. The New Press.
  44. Hucklesby, A., Beyens, K., & Boone, M. (2021). Comparing electronic monitoring regimes: Length, breadth, depth and weight equals tightness. Punishment & Society, 23(1), 88–106. https://doi.org/10.1177/1462474520915753
  45. Human Rights Watch. (2023). “Deported by data”: Migrant surveillance and the expansion of digital control. Human Rights Watch.
  46. Ingram, J. (2021). Immigration enforcement and electronic monitoring: Reification within a racialized state apparatus[Honors thesis]. Bucknell University.
  47. International Detention Coalition. (2024). Digital technology, detention and alternatives. International Detention Coalition.
  48. Investing.com. (2025). GEO Group subsidiary wins two-year ICE monitoring contract renewal. Investing.com.
  49. Jackson Wilson, L. R. (2022, September 29). Pretrial electronic monitoring of accused people harms families and communities. Shriver Center on Poverty Law. https://www.povertylaw.org/article/em-report-blog/
  50. James, P., Kilgore, J., Kirk, G., Mueller, G., Sanders, E., Staudt, S., & Jackson Wilson, L. (2022). Cages without bars: Pretrial electronic monitoring across the United States. Shriver Center on Poverty Law; Safety and Justice Challenge.
  51. Jones, R. (2014). The electronic monitoring of offenders: Penal moderation or penal excess? Crime, Law and Social Change, 62(4), 475–488.
  52. Kaluszynski, M. (2006). Le développement du placement sous surveillance électronique en Europe: Genèses, circulation des modèles et diversité des problématiques. In J.-C. Froment & M. Kaluszynski (Eds.), Justice et technologies: Surveillance électronique en Europe (pp. 13–28). Presses Universitaires de Grenoble.
  53. Kensey, A., Lévy, R., & Benaouda, A. (2010). Le développement de la surveillance électronique en France et ses effets sur la récidive. Criminologie, 43(2), 153–178. https://doi.org/10.7202/1001773ar
  54. Kilgore, J. (2015). Electronic monitoring is not the answer: Critical reflections on a flawed alternative. MediaJustice.
  55. Kilgore, J. (2019). E-carceration: The expansion of electronic monitoring and what it means. National Institute for Criminal Justice Reform.
  56. Kilgore, J. (2022a). Understanding e-carceration: Electronic monitoring, the surveillance state, and the future of mass incarceration. The New Press.
  57. Kilgore, J. (2022b, October 24). We need a new paradigm to halt the unprecedented growth of electronic monitoring. MediaJustice. https://mediajustice.org/news/we-need-a-new-paradigm-to-halt-the-unprecedented-growth-of-electronic-monitoring/
  58. Kilgore, J. (2022c, October 24). We need a new paradigm to halt the unprecedented growth of electronic monitoring. Truthout. https://truthout.org/articles/we-need-a-new-paradigm-to-halt-the-unprecedented-growth-of-electronic-monitoring/
  59. Law No. 2014-896 of 15 August 2014 on libération sous contrainte. (2014). Journal officiel de la République française.
  60. Law No. 2019-222 of 23 March 2019 on détention à domicile sous surveillance électronique (DDSE). (2019). Journal officiel de la République française.
  61. Law No. 2020-936 of 30 July 2020 introducing the Bracelet Anti-Rapprochement (BAR). (2020). Journal officiel de la République française.
  62. Lévy, R., & Pitoun, A. (2007). Le placement sous surveillance électronique en France: Bilan et perspectives. Champ pénal/Penal Field, 4(1). https://doi.org/10.4000/champpenal.123
  63. López, A. (2022). E-carceration: The digital expansion of immigration control. Yale Law & Policy Review, 40.
  64. Maciel, Welliton Caixeta. 2025. Corpos (des)governados em tempos e espaços (in)controláveis: percursos etnográficos multissituados em movimento, entre Brasil e França, e representações sociais da monitoração eletrônica. Tese de Doutorado. Universidade de Brasília (UnB), Brasília.
  65. Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation (MDRC). (2023). Pretrial reforms evidence review. MDRC.
  66. Mauer, M. (1992). America’s growing use of incarceration. The Sentencing Project.
  67. Mauer, M. (1999). Race to incarcerate. The New Press.
  68. Ministère de la Justice. (2025). Guide méthodologique de la détention à domicile sous surveillance électronique (DDSE).Direction de l’administration pénitentiaire.
  69. Nellis, M. (2014). Understanding the electronic monitoring of offenders in Europe: Expansion, regulation and prospects. Crime, Law and Social Change, 62(4), 457–480. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10611-014-9540-8
  70. Nellis, M. (2018, July 4). Clean and dirty electronic monitoring. Justice Trends Magazine. https://justice-trends.press/shaping-lives-the-use-of-electronic-monitoring/
  71. Oliveira, J. R., & Azevedo, R. G. de. (2011). O monitoramento eletrônico de apenados no Brasil. Revista Brasileira de Segurança Pública, 5(2), 100–119. https://doi.org/10.31060/rbsp.2011.v5.n2.100
  72. Ordinance No. 2019-950 of 11 September 2019 on juvenile justice reform (in force since 2021). (2019). Journal officiel de la République française.
  73. Payne, B. K., & Gainey, R. R. (2000). Electronic monitoring: Philosophical, systemic, and political issues. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 31(3–4), 93–111.
  74. Penal Reform International. (2020). Electronic monitoring and human rights: Expert meeting report. Penal Reform International.
  75. Peterson, M. (2021). Bird uncaged: An abolitionist’s freedom song. Bold Type Books.
  76. Pettit, B. (2018). Mass incarceration and racial inequality. Annual Review of Sociology, 44, 387–406. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-soc-073117-041245
  77. Pettit, B., & Gutiérrez, C. (2018). Mass incarceration and racial inequality. American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 77(3–4), 1153–1182.
  78. Phelps, M. S. (2011). Rehabilitation in the punitive era: The gap between rhetoric and reality in U.S. prison reform. Journal of Criminal Justice, 39(1), 93–103. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3762476/
  79. PICUM (Platform for International Cooperation on Undocumented Migrants). (2022). Digital technology, policing and migration. PICUM.
  80. Pimenta, I. L. (2015). A implementação da política de monitoração eletrônica no Brasil. Ministério da Justiça.
  81. Redden, M. (2017, March 7). “I’m paranoid all the time”: Surveillance and fear in a city of immigrants as White House ramps up deportations. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/mar/07/us-immigration-surveillance-deportations-undocumented-latinos
  82. Sanders, E. (2024, February 8). Vera releases national census on electronic monitoring. Prison Policy Initiative Blog.https://www.prisonpolicy.org/blog/2024/02/08/vera/
  83. Secretaria Nacional de Políticas Penais (Senappen). (2025). Levantamento de Informações Penitenciárias – 18º ciclo – 1º semestre de 2025. Ministério da Justiça e Segurança Pública.
  84. Schenwar, M., & Law, V. (2020). Prison by any other name: The harmful consequences of popular reforms. The New Press.
  85. Sentencing Project. (2024). Mass incarceration trends. Sentencing Project. https://www.sentencingproject.org/app/uploads/2024/05/Mass-Incarceration-Trends.pdf
  86. Sherman-Stokes, S. (2024). Immigration detention abolition and the violence of digital cages. Colorado Law Review, 95(1).
  87. Silva, T. J. C., Meneses, R. C. C., & Silva, R. A. M. (2023). “Pagando pelo mal cometido”: A cobrança da tornozeleira eletrônica à luz da expansão econômica do direito penal. Revista Brasileira de Segurança Pública, 17(1), 82–103. https://doi.org/10.31060/rbsp.2023.v17.n1.1475
  88. Silverman, S. J. (2021). Down that wrong road: U.S. immigration detention electronic monitoring “alternatives” as net-widening. SSRN Working Paper.
  89. Skog, A., & Lacoe, J. (2022). Pretrial electronic monitoring in San Francisco. California Policy Lab.
  90. Souza, Rafaelle Lopes. 2019. Controle e punição: a monitoração eletrônica em Minas Gerais. Tese de Doutorado em Sociologia. Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais (UFMG), Belo Horizonte.
  91. Souza, Rafaelle Lopes. 2022. “A percepção dos atores do sistema de justiça criminal sobre a monitoração eletrônica em Belo Horizonte (MG).” Revista de Estudos Empíricos em Direito 9: 1–31.
  92. Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC) Immigration. (2022). Alternatives to detention (ATD) population.TRAC Reports. https://trac.syr.edu/immigration/detentionstats/atd_pop_table.html
  93. TRAC. (2024, February 29). Number of detained migrants increases; number of migrants on ATD decreases. TRAC Reports. https://trac.syr.edu
  94. U.S. Government Accountability Office. (2022). Alternatives to detention: ICE needs to better assess program outcomes and contractor oversight (GAO-22-104529). U.S. Government Accountability Office.
  95. Vera Institute of Justice. (2020). People on electronic monitoring: The expansion of penal supervision [Fact sheet]. Vera Institute of Justice.
  96. Vera Institute of Justice. (2024a, January 30). Vera Institute of Justice issues report on the growth of electronic monitoring in the United States [Press release]. Vera Institute of Justice. https://www.vera.org/newsroom/vera-institute-of-justice-issues-report-on-the-growth-of-electronic-monitoring-in-the-united-states
  97. Vera Institute of Justice. (2024b). People in jail and prison in 2024. Vera Institute of Justice. https://www.vera.org/publications/people-in-jail-and-prison-in-2024
  98. Vera Institute of Justice. (2024c, January 30). Electronic monitoring is an extension of mass incarceration. Vera Institute of Justice. https://www.vera.org/news/electronic-monitoring-is-an-extension-of-mass-incarceration
  99. Virani, A. (2021). Pretrial electronic monitoring in Los Angeles County: 2015 through 2021. UCLA School of Law Criminal Justice Program.
  100. Wacquant, L. (2001). Deadly symbiosis: When ghetto and prison meet and mesh. Punishment & Society, 3(1), 95–133. https://doi.org/10.1177/14624740122228276
  101. Warren, E. (2022). Senate report on electronic monitoring fees and abuses. U.S. Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
  102. Weaver, V. M., & Lerman, A. E. (2020). The origins of mass incarceration: The racial politics of crime control in the United States. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 16, 375–394. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-110819-100304
  103. Wessler, N. F. (2020). Electronic monitoring is not freedom: Why digital tracking fails as an alternative to detention.American Civil Liberties Union.
  104. Yin, R. K. (2018). Case study research and design: Design and methods (6th ed.). SAGE.
  105. Zhang, J., Kang-Brown, J., & Kotler, A. (2024). People on electronic monitoring. Vera Institute of Justice. https://www.vera.org/publications/people-on-electronic-monitoring

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.