Vol. 70, No. 7, July
1997
Videoconferencing
In Criminal Proceedings:
A New Wrinkle In An Old System
Videoconferencing is a workable, cost-effective tool
that improves the criminal justice system and enhances prison security.
By Rep. Robert G. Goetsch
In upholding the constitutional principles implicit in our laws, courts
maintain a delicate balance between the rights of a person accused or convicted
of a crime and the interest of the state in providing a safe, secure environment
for its residents. The use of videoconferencing technology in the criminal
justice system adds some interesting wrinkles to the practical factors that
influence that balance.
Two-way videoconferencing is a practical
way to present live courtroom testimony of witnesses from remote locations. |
Interactive videoconferencing technology is a tool that can be used to
provide services and to conduct certain criminal justice proceedings commonly
associated with incarcerated inmates. As a tool, videoconferencing presents
enormous potential as a cost-effective security enhancement to help prisons
provide routine inmate services and proceedings.
The Department of Corrections already uses interactive videoconferencing
between University Hospital in Madison and the Waupun and Dodge correctional
institutions to save substantial costs in transporting prisoners for medical
consultation. Videoconferencing in many cases eliminates the need to physically
transport an inmate from the institution to University Hospital, which can
require the use of specially equipped vehicles and a major part of three
correctional officers' work day (often resulting in overtime pay). Besides
saving those costs, the state also benefits from enhanced institutional
security because the correctional personnel remain to monitor the prison,
rather than transport and monitor the inmate.
Using videoconferencing in pretrial hearings also can save costs and
enhance prison security concerns. Current law requires inmates accused of
crimes within a particular prison to be prosecuted in the county where the
institution is located. The counties, rather than the Department of Corrections,
bear the cost for those prosecutions.
For several years circuit court judges and county supervisors statewide
have expressed concern about the extra court security and secured transportation
costs needed to bring inmates to the courts for pretrial hearings. Pilot
projects funded by federal grants in Kenosha and Portage counties have shown
that in those cases, videoconferencing is a secure, cost-saving alternative
to transporting inmates. Although the pilot videoconferencing equipment
demonstrated some technical flaws, it showed that the system could resolve
many security and fiscal concerns.
Some counties - including Dodge and Columbia - have budgeted to develop
videoconferencing technology within their justice systems. With the availability
of refined video equipment, enhanced telephone lines and fiber optic cables,
they should experience fewer technical problems than encountered by Kenosha
and Portage counties. Once the equipment is installed, it will allow judges
to conduct videocon-ferencing for pretrial and other inmate hearing procedures
when it is not essential for an inmate to be physically present, and to
network with other sites for other educational and professional purposes.
The Parole Commission, faced with the ever-increasing numbers of inmates
who are eligible for parole, also has experimented with videoconferencing
for some of its hearings. Parole Commission chair John Husz and the inmates
themselves generally have reacted favorably. Videoconferencing has saved
parole commissioners the time and expense of travelling to various institutions
and gives inmates a break from their usual daily routines.
So far, I know of no legal barriers that might hamper the continued use
of videoconferencing as described above. Fax and email communications have
been integrated successfully into videoconferencing systems, enabling essential
documents to be made available to all parties during medical examinations
and pretrial or parole hearings. Attorneys either for the state or the inmate
have the option of being present with the inmate or in the court, whichever
is most expedient. As we seek more widespread use of videoconferencing technology,
case law certainly will develop as certain aspects are challenged and litigated.
The state has a duty to investigate the implementation of all available
resources, including developing communication technology, in the interest
of maintaining secure, efficient prison management. So far, I think the
new procedures that are developing to use videoconferencing technology are
workable and cost-effective, and they contribute to an improved justice
system.
Rep. Robert G. Goetsch represents the 39th Assembly
District. He chairs the Criminal Justice and Corrections Committee. |