House arrest explained

House arrest (also called home confinement, or electronic monitoring) is a legal measure where a person is required to remain at their residence under supervision, typically as an alternative to imprisonment. The person is confined by the authorities to their residence. Travel is usually restricted and may require prior approval, if allowed at all.

During house arrest, the individual may be monitored electronically, and their movements are typically tracked. House arrest is also used in some cases for individuals convicted of minor offenses. In certain situations, such as in authoritarian regimes, house arrest may be used to restrict the freedom of political governments against political dissidents, sometimes limiting or monitoring their communication with the outside world. If electronic communication is allowed, conversations may be monitored. There are many critiques on how effective house arrest is.

History

Judges have imposed sentences of home confinement, as an alternative to prison, as far back as the 17th century. Galileo was confined to his home following his infamous trial in 1633. Authorities often used house arrest to confine political leaders who were deposed in a coup d'état, but this method was not widely used to confine numerous common criminals. Over time, though, house arrest became more popular, especially as prisons and jails became overcrowded and expensive.

However, this method didn't become a widely used alternative to imprisonment in the United States and other Western countries until the 20th century, after it was introduced in the U.S. in 1984.[1] Around this time, newly designed electronic monitoring devices made it more affordable and easier for corrections authorities to manage. Although Boston was using house arrest for a variety of arrangements, the first-ever court sentence of house arrest with an electronic bracelet was in 1983.[2]

House arrest and electronic monitoring programs are among the most widely used alternatives to incarceration. It has been estimated that in 2005 roughly 20% of community-based supervision involved the use of electronic monitoring.[3]

The COVID-19 pandemic led to an increase in the use of house arrest as well. To stop the spread of the virus in crowded prisons, many governments allowed people to serve their sentences at home instead. This was mostly done for non-violent offenders or people close to finishing their prison terms.

Details

Home detention is an alternative to imprisonment; its goals are both to reduce recidivism and to decrease the number of prisoners, thereby saving money for states and other jurisdictions. It is a corrective to mandatory sentencing laws that greatly increased the incarceration rates in the United States.[4] It allows eligible offenders to retain or seek employment, maintain family relationships and responsibilities and attend rehabilitative programs that contribute towards addressing the causes of their offending.

The terms of house arrest can differ, but most programs allow employed offenders to continue to work, and confine them to their residence only during non-working hours. Offenders are commonly allowed to leave their home for specific purposes; examples can include visits to the probation officer or police station, religious services, education, attorney visits, court appearances, and medical appointments.[5] [6] Many programs also allow the convict to leave their residence during regular, pre-approved times in order to carry out general household errands, such as food shopping and laundry. Offenders may have to respond to communications from a higher authority to verify that they are at home when required to be. Exceptions are often made to allow visitors to visit the offender.[7]

The types of house arrest vary in severity according to the requirements of the court order. A curfew may restrict an offender to their house at certain times, usually during hours of darkness. "Home confinement" or detention requires an offender to remain at home at all times, apart from the above-mentioned exceptions.

The most serious level of house arrest is "home incarceration", under which an offender is restricted to their residence 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, except for court-approved treatment programs, court appearances, and medical appointments.

In some exceptional cases, it is possible for a person to be placed under house arrest without trial or legal representation, and subject to restrictions on their associates.[8] In some countries this type of detention without trial has been criticized for breaching the offender's human right to a fair trial.[9] In countries with authoritarian systems of government, the government may use such measures to stifle dissent.

Using technology for enforcement

In some countries, house arrest is enforced through the use of technology products or services. One method is an electronic sensor locked around the offender's ankle (technically called an ankle monitor, also referred to as a tether). The electronic sensor transmits an RF signal to a base handset. The base handset is connected to a police station or for-profit monitoring service.

If the offender goes too far from their home, the violation is recorded, and the police will be notified. To discourage tampering, many ankle monitors detect attempted removal. The monitoring service is often contracted out to private companies, which assign employees to electronically monitor many convicts simultaneously. If a violation occurs the unit signals the officer or officer in charge immediately, depending on the severity of the violation. The officer will either call or verify the participant's whereabouts.[10] The monitoring service notifies a convict's probation officer. The electronic surveillance together with frequent contact with their probation officer and checks by the security guards provides for a secure environment.

Another method of ensuring house arrest compliance is achieved through the use of automated calling services that require no human contact to check on the offender. Random calls are made to the residence. The respondent's answer is recorded and compared automatically to the offender's voice pattern. Authorities are notified only if the call is not answered or if the recorded answer does not match the offender's voice pattern.

Electronic monitoring is considered a highly economical alternative to the cost of imprisoning offenders. In many states or jurisdictions, the convict is often required to pay for the monitoring as part of his or her sentence.[11] However, it’s important to recognize that “compared with non-custodial sanctions, incarceration appears to have a null or mildly criminogenic effect on future criminal behavior.”[12] This means that while house arrest can be a better option than prison, its effectiveness in preventing reoffending prisoners can vary from person to person.

Critiques

House arrest, especially used as electronically monitored home confinement, has received criticism for many reasons. Critics argue that while the system is meant to provide a sense of freedom, it actually leads to limitations on personal choice and privacy. Erving Goffman, a Canadian Sociologist, talks about his ideas of total institutions, which leads to these critiques. "Goffman uses the term ‘‘total institutions’’ as a sensitizing concept to refer to organizations that separate certain types of people from the rest of society".[13] He describes total institutions as places that separate individuals from society and control their daily lives. The use of house arrest is direct description of what he talks about. Although house arrest allows individuals to stay at home, it uses similar restrictions that jails and prisons have through the electronic monitoring. "It would seem that those under house arrest would have the opposite experience, as they are actually confined to their home world. Yet, while a sentence to electronic monitoring means that clients still spend time with their family and domestic partners, the disciplinary regime of house arrest significantly shapes those relationships". "House arrest officers also meet with ‘‘collateral contacts’’ and make unannounced on-site visits to places of employment and residences." Residence checks by law enforcement in house arrest programs can be seen as invasive and cause privacy issues for people serving time. "Spelman (1995) had 128 convicted offenders rate the punitiveness of criminal sanctions. He found that 75% identified some intermediate sanctions as being more punitive than a sentence of incarceration." Many of these offenders felt that alternative punishments outside of prison were more difficult or restrictive than serving time behind bars. This could be due to the constant surveillance, loss of personal freedom, or the challenges of living under close restrictions. These strict rules have many critiques facing the system and look for a return of action.

Notable instances

Algeria

Argentina

Australia

Myanmar (Burma)

Cambodia

Chile

People's Republic of China (PRC)

The People's Republic of China continues to use soft detention, a traditional form of house arrest used by the Chinese Empire.[15]

Republic of China (ROC)

Egypt

Hawaii

Hong Kong

Indonesia

Iran

Italy

In Italy, house arrest (in Italian arresti domiciliari) is a common practice of detaining suspects, as an alternative to detention in a correctional facility, and is also commonly practiced on those felons who are close to the end of their prison terms, or for those whose health condition does not allow residence in a correctional facility, except some particular cases of extremely dangerous persons. As per article 284 of the Italian Penal Procedure Code, house arrest is imposed by a judge, who orders the suspect to stay confined in their house, home, residence, private property, or any other place of cure or assistance where they may be housed at the moment. When necessary, the judge may also forbid any contact between the subject and any person other than those who cohabit with them or those who assist them. If the subject is unable to take care of their life necessities or if they are in conditions of absolute poverty, the judge may authorize them to leave their home for the strict necessary time to take care of said needs or to exercise a job. The prosecuting authorities and law enforcement can check at any moment whether the subject, who is de facto considered in state of detention, is complying with the order; violation of house arrest terms is immediately followed by transfer to a correctional facility. House arrests cannot be applied to a subject that has been found guilty of escape within the previous five years.

Notable cases:

New Zealand

At sentencing, the judge may sentence an offender to home detention where they would otherwise receive a short-term prison sentence (i.e. two years or less). Home detention sentences range from 14 days and 12 months; offenders are confined to their approved residence 24 hours a day and may only leave with the permission of their probation officer.

Electronic monitoring equipment is extensively used by the New Zealand Department of Corrections to ensure that convicted offenders subject to home detention remain within approved areas. This takes the form of a Global Positioning System tracker fitted to the offender's ankle and monitoring units located at their residence and place of employment. over three thousand persons were serving home detention sentences under GPS surveillance.

Nigeria

Pakistan

Catholic Church

Singapore

South Africa

House arrest was a common tool of the South African apartheid government, used to silence their opponents, along with banning orders.

Soviet Union

Tunisia

United Kingdom

See also: Home Detention Curfew.

United States

Yugoslavia

In popular culture

Literature

Film

Television

See also

Notes and References

  1. Richter . Marina . Ryser . Barbara . Hostettler . Ueli . December 2021 . Punitiveness of electronic monitoring: Perception and experience of an alternative sanction . European Journal of Probation . en . 13 . 3 . 262–281 . 10.1177/20662203211038489 . 2066-2203.
  2. News: You're Grounded! How do you qualify for house arrest? . Slate Magazine . Juliet Lapidos . January 28, 2009.
  3. Martin . Jamie S. . Hanrahan . Kate . Bowers . James H. . 2009-08-07 . Offenders' Perceptions of House Arrest and Electronic Monitoring . Journal of Offender Rehabilitation . en . 48 . 6 . 547–570 . 10.1080/10509670903081359 . 1050-9674.
  4. Levinson, David. (2002). Encyclopedia of Crime and Punishment: Volumes I-IV. SAGE Publications. p. 859.
  5. Spohn, Cassia. (2008). How Do Judges Decide?: The Search for Fairness and Justice in Punishment. SAGE Publications Inc. p. 52.
  6. Web site: Strauss-Kahn May Have Spent Last Night in Jail After Bail. Karen Freifeld, Chris Dolmetsch and Don Jeffrey. 20 May 2011. Bloomberg.com.
  7. Mele, Christopher. (2005). Civil Penalties, Social Consequences. Routledge. p. 139.
  8. Jupp, James; Nieuwenhuysen, John; Dawson, Emma. (2007). Social Cohesion in Australia. Cambridge University Press. p. 183.
  9. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4715478.stm "Q&A: Terrorism laws"
  10. http://www.digitaltechnologies-2000.com/?page_id=459{{Dead link|date=October 2018 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }}
  11. Web site: Decades later, electronic monitoring of offenders is still prone to failure . 2024-10-26 . Brookings . en-US.
  12. Bales . William D. . Piquero . Alex R. . 2012-03-01 . Assessing the impact of imprisonment on recidivism . Journal of Experimental Criminology . en . 8 . 1 . 71–101 . 10.1007/s11292-011-9139-3 . 1572-8315.
  13. Staples . William G. . Decker . Stephanie K. . 2010-03-01 . Between the ‘Home’ and ‘Institutional’ Worlds: Tensions and Contradictions in the Practice of House Arrest . Critical Criminology . en . 18 . 1 . 1–20 . 10.1007/s10612-009-9089-5 . 1572-9877.
  14. Marshall. Andrew. 2009-08-11. Burma Court Finds Aung San Suu Kyi Guilty. dead. https://web.archive.org/web/20090814125025/http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1915693,00.html. August 14, 2009. 2010-11-15. TIME.
  15. News: Out of Jail in China, but Not Free . Didi Kirsten . Tatlow . The New York Times . March 9, 2011 .
  16. Book: Norman, Alexander. Holder of the White Lotus: the Lives of the Dalai Lama. Little, Brown. 2008. 978-0-316-85988-2. London. 165.
  17. News: National security law: prosecutors lose bid to overturn HK$10 million bail granted to Jimmy Lai, who is placed under house arrest. South China Morning Post . 23 December 2020 . en.
  18. News: Suharto Under House Arrest During Corruption Inquiry. The New York Times. 30 May 2000. 5 January 2020. Mydans. Seth.
  19. https://www.nytimes.com/library/world/mideast/041600iran-cia-mossadegh.html Eccentric Nationalist Begets Strange History
  20. News: Iran releases dissident cleric . 2007-06-08 . BBC News . 2003-01-30 .
  21. News: 2003-09-17. Dissident Ayatollah Demands Iran's Rulers Be Elected. FOX News. Associated Press. live. 2007-06-08. https://web.archive.org/web/20070530062030/http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,97567,00.html. 2007-05-30.
  22. Web site: AC/DC's Phil Rudd Sentenced to House Detention for Eight Months. Us Weekly. 9 July 2015.
  23. https://2009-2017.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/2836.htm Background note: Nigeria
  24. Book: Joseph, Helen. Side by Side. South African History Online. Chapter XV - House arrest. Morrow. 1986. 17 July 2019.
  25. Conflict of Color: White Activists in the SouthAfrican Anti-Apartheid Movement. Blair Dickman. Saunders. 2011. Undergraduate honors thesis. 17 July 2019.
  26. Web site: Banned People in Apartheid-era South Africa. South Africa: Overcoming apartheid, building democracy. 17 July 2019.
  27. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/4342717.stm "Anti-terrorism law row rumbles on"
  28. News: Rodney King Gets House Arrest for Reckless Driving . . 6 May 2014.
  29. Web site: CNN.com - Guilty of sex with student, teacher avoids prison - Nov 23, 2005 . 2023-06-23 . edition.cnn.com.
  30. News: Judge Orders Manafort Jailed Before Trial, Citing New Obstruction Charges. LaFraniere. Sharon. The New York Times. 15 June 2018. 2018-06-15. en.
  31. Web site: Jerry Sandusky heads back to court to resolve juror dispute and bail conditions. CBS News. 10 February 2012 .
  32. Web site: Jerry Sandusky gets 30-60 years for molesting boys. 9 October 2012.
  33. Web site: Inmate/Parolee Locator.
  34. News: Ex-IMF head Dominique Strauss-Kahn freed without bail . . 1 July 2011 . 1 July 2011.
  35. News: Tay-K Was a 17-Year-Old 'Violent Fugitive.' then His Song Went Viral. The New York Times. 22 August 2017. Coscarelli. Joe.