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.
Wisconsin
Lawyer
