At the core of punishment via incarceration, there is the need to isolate the individual whose acts deviate from the societal conduct and deprive him from some of his rights to mirror the effect of his acts on the victim. Prisons also remin the society that the right to freedom can be taken back when abused, and some rights are part of the social constract existing between the members of the society and the state, and are subject to restrict ions if the said contract is violated. The practice of incarceration aims to show the society that citizenship is earned rather than granted and requires effort. This instructive function, if managed correctly, make prisons centers of rehabilitation. The education and vocational programs are proofs of that. Prisoners whose re-integrability to the society are tested within a limited crowd, thus have a second chance. On the other hand, prisons are places where dangerous criminals are kept from interacting with the society. This means that safeguarding practices employed at prisons require to be aptly balanced not to discourage prisoners from the aim of rehibilitation and returning into the society, and not to risk the security of the society. Of course, the pressing question here is “How?”
Prison security is an important component of societal harmony and peace. So, not to disrupt the rehabilitative process and not to communicate any lack of trust to people who strive to get better are of key importance. This requires a check on every individual and object coming from outside to break any possible connections with a criminal network to endure the criminal deed, and to ensure that nothing coming from outside intervenes the improvement of prisoners. This means that not only prisoners, but also visitors must undergo some searches and checks. In the traditional method, the visitors’ names, addresses, and their relation to the prisoner are recorded and manual searches are performed.
There are two main problems with this method; first, the demographic information of the visitors mean nothing if not contextualized properly, and of little use in cases of emergency. Plus, such manually-taken records are open to manipulation, may be misleading, or false. The second problem with the traditional möethod is that it is invasive.