House arrest
House arrest is a legal alternative to incarceration that allows individuals convicted of crimes to serve their sentences within their homes rather than in prison. This approach is commonly used to alleviate the pressures of overcrowded correctional facilities. House arrest operates at three levels: curfew, home detention, and home confinement. The least restrictive, curfew, requires offenders to be at home by a specific time, often utilized in juvenile cases. Home detention imposes further restrictions, allowing limited time away from home for specific purposes like work or medical appointments. The most stringent, home confinement, mandates that offenders remain at home except for essential outings.
This system is often integrated with probation and requires effective monitoring mechanisms to ensure compliance. Advocates argue that house arrest is a cost-effective solution, as it typically incurs lower costs than traditional incarceration. Additionally, it can benefit families by enabling offenders to maintain employment and contribute to household stability. However, challenges exist, such as the potential for noncompliance and difficulties in monitoring, especially when oversight is outsourced to rotating staff. Overall, house arrest represents a complex intersection of criminal justice, community management, and personal accountability.
On this Page
Subject Terms
House arrest
SIGNIFICANCE: House arrests are an alternative to incarceration, one often used to help manage the strained resources of correctional facilities.
House arrest is a punitive sanction that allows people convicted of crimes to remain in their homes instead of going to prison. There are three levels of house arrest: curfew, home detention, and home confinement. Specific restrictions are imposed at all three levels. Curfew, the mildest version of house arrest, is frequently used in the juvenile justice system and requires that the offender be home by a certain time each day. The next level, home detention, is more restrictive in that it limits the amount of time that offenders may be away from their homes and also dictates where they may go. For example, travel is usually prohibited except for that which involves work, medical treatment appointments, or church. The most restrictive level of house arrest is home incarceration, calling for offenders to remain at their homes the majority of the time, with allowances only to attend specific and limited appointments.
House arrest can be used as a stand-alone sanction; however, it is commonly used in conjunction with adult probation and juvenile probation. For house arrest to be effective, there must be an organized and well-equipped system to monitor offenders. House arrest has been touted as an effective response to prison overcrowding by allowing nonviolent offenders and offenders convicted of minor offenses to serve their correctional time within their own community.
House arrest has also been considered an effective way to reduce the increasing costs of corrections. The average annual amount spent monitoring an offender on house arrest is typically significantly less than the cost to incarcerate an offender. In some court jurisdictions, certain expenses associated with house arrest are passed to the offender, making the financial aspect an attractive one to proponents of house arrest. Other benefits associated with house arrest extend beyond the offender and may positively affect the stability of the offender’s family. Because the offender is allowed to maintain employment, that person is better able to contribute to the family’s well-being.
Just as there are perceived benefits of using house arrest as an intermediate sanction, there are perceived problems. Although offenders may be ordered to be home daily by a prescribed time, opportunities exist for the offender to get around the mandate, particularly when telephone calls are used for tracking the offender’s compliance. Also, offenders are often admonished to refrain from socializing with people known to have committed felonies, but this mandate is difficult to monitor and control when the offender is under house arrest. Difficulties also arise when the monitoring of offenders is contracted to outside vendors who use rotating staff who have little personal knowledge of the offender.
Bibliography
Del Carmen, A. Corrections. St. Paul: Coursewise, 2000.
Glaser, April. "Incarcerated at Home: The Rise of Ankle Monitors and House Arrest During the Pandemic." NBC News, 5 July 2021, www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/incarcerated-home-rise-ankle-monitors-house-arrest-during-pandemic-n1273008. Accessed 5 July 2024.
"House Arrest." LII Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School, Feb. 2023, www.law.cornell.edu/wex/house‗arrest. Accessed 11 July 2024.
McShane, M., and W. Krause. Community Corrections. New York: Macmillan, 1993.
Rackmill, S. J. “An Analysis of Home Confinement as a Sanction.” Federal Probation, vol. 58, no. 1, 1994, pp. 45–53.
Schenwar, Maya. "The Quiet Horrors of House Arrest, Electronic Monitoring, and Other Alternative Forms of Incarceration." Mother Jones. Mother Jones and the Foundation for Natl. Progress, 22 Jan. 2015. Web. 26 May 2016.
Tiberiu, Dutu. "House Arrest as a Preventive Measure." Contemporary Readings in Law & Social Justice, vol. 6, no. 1, 2014, pp. 558–62.