Ankle monitors are not the bright, kind alternative to incarceration that they are made to be. Advocates propose them as a solution to overcrowded carceral sites and excessive federal expenditure on public corrections agencies. Their logic being we can release certain incarcerated people to reduce prison, jail, and detention center populations and require them to pay for their monitoring to reduce prison expenditures. While there is potential for ankle monitors to achieve these aspirations, it is necessary to recognize how and where they can produce harm. Rather than being an alternative to incarceration, ankle monitors are a method of incarceration. They serve the same functions and hold the same power as prisons and jails with a more elusive form. In the current implementation of ankle monitors, we see individual bodies being transformed into sources of data to be capitalized upon by the government and private companies. Along with this, there is a shift of the financial burden of incarceration from prisons to the person being punished. This acts to further perpetuate the cycles of poverty and financial oppression that are seen within traditional forms of incarceration. Ankle monitor advocates also claim ankle monitors allow incarcerated people to enjoy freedom beyond prison walls and reintegrate into society. In reality, this is an oversimplification of freedom. Individuals with ankle monitors find themselves to be limited in their freedoms by restricted movement and stigmatization. They are unable to live a “normal” life because their ankle monitors prevent them from doing so. These people cannot move as they please, they cannot find and hold employment, and they cannot interact with people like they normally would. Ankle monitor usage must be critically examined and altered if it is to be considered a meaningful, gentle alternative to incarceration.

Brundtland’s definition of sustainability is the ability to “meet the needs of the present<br/>without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs” (IISD, 2021). But<br/>what if there are no future generations? Social sustainability, the sector of sustainability that<br/>foregrounds the well-being and livelihoods of people (and thereby continuation of humanity), is<br/>included in definitions within the sustainability field, but less developed in sustainability<br/>practice. In an effort to bridge this gap of knowledge, 14 U.S. cities and over 100 sustainability<br/>policies were analyzed for their social sustainability performance. An eight-item analytical<br/>framework that deals with differing areas of social equity guided the analysis. Results found that<br/>most cities’ sustainability departments fell short of truly addressing social sustainability<br/>concerns. Out of the eight items, the most frequently addressed were housing security and racial<br/>and gender equality whereas few, if any, cities addressed the more specific social concerns of<br/>immigration, technology and media, or arts/cultural preservation. Future research is<br/>recommended to gain a better understanding of the ways existing cities can improve in this area.