Bail/House Arrest

Houses arrest, also known as home confinement is a form of incarceration that mandates suspects or offenders in pre-trial detention to stay inside their houses except if they are engaged in activities that are approved by court such as volunteering activities, work, receiving medical care, or attending religious worship (Martin, Hanrahan, & Bowers, 2009). This method is desired more than jail as it allows a semblance of normality and a higher level of freedom. However, it does not allow for complete freedom, and a number of drawbacks come along with house arrest. For instance, suspects of offenders are not allowed to travel, and in most cases they are forced to wear monitoring devices (Martin, Hanrahan, & Bowers, 2009). Electronic bracelets are utilized in detecting violations of house arrest, in at least 20 states. Some of the benefits related to this method include the ease of implementation, timeliness, cost effectiveness, and its sensitivity to the needs of the offender and community.

Thesis statement: This paper argues that house arrest is not always a better option as many think. The paper will use the following journals to demonstrate this:

Journal of Medieval and Early Modern Studies
International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology
Journal of Offender Rehabilitation
Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency
Journal of Socio-Economics

Individuals who are under house arrest are normally given some minimal amount of freedom to run daily errands or work. However, there are cases where individuals are not given the freedom to leave their homes. The complete lack of freedom may be mentally disturbing for the individuals under house arrest (Yamamura, 2009). This is because the house arrest may last for several months, which is a great amount of time to stay confined in a house. Those confined are forced to wear ankle monitors, which is a kind of electronic monitoring. This is seen by some individuals as a hindrance in some circumstances such as going to public places as it might be embarrassing. Those subjected to house arrest are not allowed to get involved in things that are happening outside their homes. These may include sporting events, concerts, or wedding and having dinner in restaurants (Matthews & Agnew, 2008). Confinement to a boring daily schedule is not good for the individual.

The most evident disadvantage of house arrest is that individuals confined do not have total freedom as a lot of people perceive when they compare the method to jail. Except for the reasons mentioned, individuals are required to be in their homes every time. For the part of the criminal justice system, house arrest allows for less supervision unlike a cell where officers look at suspects and offenders at any time (Gainey, 2000). Therefore, house arrest may allow suspects and offenders to engage in unauthorized or illegal activities while in their homes. The method is perceived as being too lenient with the offender. This may not be a good enough method to deter crime as those who believe that they will be subjected to house arrest; they may be willing to commit offences or be involved in unlawful activities. Allowing offenders in public irrespective of how little freedom is granted can expose the surrounding regions to crimes if the perpetrator fails to comply with orders from court (Echard, 2000).

House arrest, therefore, have the potential to broaden the social control net, it is concerned more with surveillance instead of rehabilitation; it reduces the severity of punishment. There is a disadvantage on the intrusiveness of house arrest and probable illegality and racial and class prejudice in the selection of participants. House arrest, in general, may compromise the safety of the public.

References

Echard, S. (2000). House Arrest: Modern Archives, Medieval Manuscripts. Journal of Medieval and Early Modern Studies, 30(2), 185-210.

Gainey, R. R. (2000). Understanding the Experience of House Arrest with Electronic Monitoring: An Analysis of Quantitative and Qualitative Data. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 44(1), 84-96.

Martin, J., Hanrahan, K., & Bowers, J. (2009). Offenders’ Perceptions of House Arrest and Electronic Monitoring. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 48(6), 547-570.

Matthews, S. K., & Agnew, R. (2008). Extending Deterrence Theory: Do Delinquent Peers Condition the Relationship between Perceptions of Getting Caught and Offending?. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 45(2), 91-118.

Yamamura, E. (2009). Formal and Informal Deterrents of Crime In Japan: Roles of Police and Social Capital Revisited. Journal of Socio-Economics, 38(4), 611-621.