NCJ Number
129047
Journal
New England Journal on Criminal and Civil Confinement Volume: 16 Issue: 1 Dated: (Winter 1990) Pages: 53-66
Date Published
1990
Length
14 pages
Annotation
The three standard alternatives to incarceration have been fines, probation, and suspended sentences; although these may reduce prison overcrowding, they can decrease public safety and may not be cost effective. Another alternative, house arrest, has gained a large measure of support in recent years.
Abstract
Proponents of house arrest cite its cost-effectiveness both in direct and indirect savings. Offenders are usually required to work and must pay taxes as well as victim restitution and probation supervision fees. Two potential social benefits involve maintenance of family integrity and avoidance of the stigma of imprisonment. The option of house arrest is flexible and can be easily applied to offenders with special needs. House arrest can help offenders readjust to being in the community; the recidivism and escape rates of offenders are quite low. Detractors of the concept argue that house arrest negates the retributive and deterrent purposes of punishment. There has been concern that this type of sentence will be overused with offenders who would normally have been sentenced to routine probation. Other arguments center on the increasing use of electronic surveillance of offenders. House arrests must be designed so that they comply with fourth amendment protections of privacy and prohibitions against unreasonable searches and seizures. 108 notes