Recent from talks
Contribute something
Nothing was collected or created yet.
House arrest
View on WikipediaThis article needs additional citations for verification. (May 2010) |

House arrest (also called home confinement, or nowadays 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.
Since the introduction of electronic tagging, a person under house arrest 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 is much criticism of the effectiveness of house arrest.
History
[edit]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
[edit]The examples and perspective in this section deal primarily with the United States and do not represent a worldwide view of the subject. (December 2020) |
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.[4]
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
[edit]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
[edit]This section may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. The specific problem is: quotations need attribution and context. (November 2024) |
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".[13] "House arrest officers also meet with ‘‘collateral contacts’’ and make unannounced on-site visits to places of employment and residences."[13] 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."[3] 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
[edit]This section has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. (Learn how and when to remove these messages)
|
Algeria
[edit]- Ahmed Ben Bella, former president of Algeria, deposed by Houari Boumédiènne in 1965. He was held under house arrest before being exiled in 1980.
Argentina
[edit]- Jorge Videla, former dictator of Argentina (was held by house arrest only for a period)
- Cristina Kirchner
Australia
[edit]- Derryn Hinch, New Zealand media personality based in Melbourne, Australia; he was placed under house arrest for five months for breaching gag orders by naming two sex offenders.
Brazil
[edit]- Jair Bolsonaro, former President of Brazil
Myanmar (Burma)
[edit]- Aung San Suu Kyi, winner of the 1991 Nobel Peace Prize and leader of her country's pro-democracy movement, was punished with house arrest for most of the period from July 1989 to November 2010. After being released from her initial confinement after six years in 1995, she was convicted again and imprisoned in 2000. Two years later, she was again released. She was convicted and jailed for the third time under house arrest for her criticism of the government following the infamous Depayin Massacre in 2003. After her 14th year of prison, she was released to her dilapidated home in Rangoonhe. She had to serve another 18 months in prison, convicted by a Burmese regional court in August 2009 after an American swam across Inya Lake to her house.[14] The United Nations has declared all of her periods under house arrest as arbitrary and unjust. She was released on 13 November 2010.
- Ne Win, former military commander of Burma from 1962. He was believed to be behind the coup d'état of 1988 which officially deposed him. Following his son-in-law's effort to regain power, Ne Win was sentenced to house arrest in 2001, serving until he died in December 2002.
Cambodia
[edit]- Pol Pot, former premier of Cambodia. He was placed under house arrest in 1998 by Ta Mok, a rival Khmer Rouge leader.
Chile
[edit]- On January 5, 2005, former dictator Augusto Pinochet was placed under house arrest by orders of the Supreme Court of Chile.
People's Republic of China (PRC)
[edit]The People's Republic of China continues to use soft detention, a traditional form of house arrest used by the Chinese Empire.[15]
- Zhao Ziyang, purged General Secretary of the Chinese Communist Party, was put under house arrest for the last 16 years of his life after the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests and massacre. The Chinese Communist Party's Central Office approved all of his movements outside his home; he was restricted to quiet travel to different places inside China and to play golf.
- Jiang Yanyong, physician who revealed SARS incident in China. He was put under house arrest after requesting the government to investigate the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests and massacre.
- Gendhun Choekyi Nyima, an alleged reincarnation or Tulku of the Gelug sect of Tibetan Buddhism was recognized by the present Dalai Lama. The Chinese took him into custody and sentenced him to house arrest.[16]
- Liu Xiaobo and his wife Liu Xia.
Republic of China (ROC)
[edit]- Zhang Xueliang, ordered by Chiang Kai-shek to be kept under house arrest after the Xi'an Incident in 1936. Even after the Nationalists' retreat to Taiwan, he remained in house arrest until Chiang Ching-kuo's death in 1988.
Egypt
[edit]- Ibn al-Haytham (Alhacen), Iraqi scientist working in Egypt. In 1011, he feigned madness in fear of angering the Egyptian caliph Al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah. He was kept under house arrest until the caliph's death in 1021.
- Mohamed Naguib, former president of Egypt. He led a military coup in 1953 and deposed the former King Farouk. He was deposed by Gamal Nasser in 1954 and placed under house arrest.
Hawaii
[edit]- The last Hawaiian queen Liliuokalani persuaded leaders of the Republic of Hawaii to commute her prison sentence to house arrest. She was confined to an upstairs bedroom of Iolani Palace until she was released in 1896.
Hong Kong
[edit]- The pro-democracy media tycoon Jimmy Lai was granted bail by High Court of Hong Kong pending trial for charges under the Hong Kong national security law. The conditions for his bail included a term prohibiting Lai from leaving his residence except going to police station and court. It implied that Lai was put under a de facto house arrest.[17]
Indonesia
[edit]- Sukarno, first president of Indonesia. He was deposed in 1967 by General Suharto (see: Transition to the New Order).
- Suharto, second president of Indonesia, was placed under house arrest for his corruption charges in May 2000. However, he was freed due to health problems in September 2000.[18]
Iran
[edit]- Mohammad Mosaddegh, former premier of Iran was deposed by coup in 1953 with support of the United States. Following three years of imprisonment, he was placed under house arrest until his death.[19]
- Grand Ayatollah Hossein-Ali Montazeri was sentenced to house arrest from 1997 to 2003.[20][21]
- Mehdi Karroubi, an influential Iranian reformist politician, democracy activist, mojtahed, and chairman of the National Trust Party, Chairman of the parliament from 1989 to 1992 and 2000 to 2004, and a presidential candidate in the 2005 and 2009 presidential elections. He has been under house arrest since February 2011.[citation needed]
- Mir-Hossein Mousavi is an Iranian reformist politician, painter and architect who served as the 79th and last prime minister of Iran from 1981 to 1989. He was a candidate for the 2009 presidential election. He has been under house arrest since February 2011.[citation needed]
- Googoosh is a famous Iranian singer and actress. After the Iranian Revolution she was under a 21-year ban from performing and was assumed to be under house arrest for much of the time.
Italy
[edit]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:
- Erich Priebke, former SS captain, condemned for war crimes (Ardeatine massacre in Rome on 24 March 1944, when 335 Italian civilians were killed by Nazi force of occupation) to life imprisonment in 1996, spent under house arrest for the last part of his life, from 1998 to 2013 (when he died age of 100).
- Adriano Sofri, journalist and former far left political leader, convicted in 1997 for the murder of Police Officer Luigi Calabresi (1972), spent under house arrest, for health reasons, the period between 2005 and 2012.
- Silvia Baraldini, activist of Black Liberation Army in the US (sentenced to 43 years by Federal Court under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) for conspiring to commit two armed robberies, driving a secondary getaway car during the prison break of murder convict and fellow political activist Assata Shakur, and contempt of court), transferred to Italy in 1999, spent the sentence on house arrest from 2001 to 2006, for health reasons.
- Giovanni Scattone and Salvatore Ferraro, convicted for manslaughter of Marta Russo, spent a period of their sentence under house arrest and community service.
New Zealand
[edit]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. As of 2015[update] over three thousand persons were serving home detention sentences under GPS surveillance.
- Phil Rudd, drummer for Australian rock group AC/DC, was sentenced to eight months' home detention at his waterfront mansion in Tauranga for charges relating to methamphetamine possession and making death threats.[22]
Nigeria
[edit]- Shehu Shagari, President of Nigeria was placed under house arrest on December 31, 1983, following a military coup which ousted his government (see: Nigerian Second Republic).
- General Muhammadu Buhari, Military Head of State was confined to his residence following the palace coup which ejected him from office.
- MKO Abiola, was placed under house arrest after he declared himself the rightful winner of the 1993 presidential elections, against the wishes of the Ibrahim Babangida military junta. He was detained for five years until his death in 1998.[23]
Pakistan
[edit]- Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, 9th Prime minister and 4th President of Pakistan. He was deposed in 1977 in a military coup – Operation Fair Play – led by Chief of Army Staff General Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq. Bhutto was put to trial and hanged later in 1979.
- Navaz Sharif, 12th Prime minister. Sharif was deposed in 1999 in a similar military coup led by Chief of Army Staff and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee General Pervez Musharraf. Sharif was put in a forced trial, but due to foreign pressure exerted by Saudi Arabia and the United States, Sharif was exiled to Saudi Arabia which narrowly spared his life to face the same fate as of Bhutto.
- Imran Khan, former captain of Pakistan cricket team and chairman of Pakistan Movement of Justice (PTI), was placed under house arrest at the declaration of a state of emergency by Chief of Army Staff General Pervez Musharraf on November 3, 2007.
- Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, Chief Justice of Pakistan, was put under house arrest on November 3, 2007, by General Pervez Musharraf. His arrest led to mass protest and Lawyers' Movement.
- Dr. Abdul Qadeer Khan, Pakistan's top scientist and founder of Pakistan's Gas-centrifuge program of the Pakistan's nuclear device was also put under house arrest for a long time by General Pervez Musharraf. Khan was forced to attend continuous military debriefings by Musharraf and was put in house arrest for a long time. Later, he was released from imprisonment in 2008 by the order of Islamabad High Court and the Supreme Court of Pakistan.
Catholic Church
[edit]- Galileo Galilei was put under house arrest for his advocacy for Copernicus's theory of the Sun in the middle of the universe and the Earth in motion about the Sun. He stayed under house arrest from 1634 until his death in 1642.
Singapore
[edit]- Chia Thye Poh, a former leftist populist Member of Parliament, was arrested without charges and held under detention without trial between 1966 and 1989 under the Internal Security Act for allegedly conducting pro-communist activities against the government, with the intention of causing a communist revolution. 22 years later, he was released and placed under house arrest for another nine years in a guardhouse on the resort island of Sentosa and made to pay the rent, on the pretext that he was now a "free" man. All restrictions were eventually lifted in 1998.
- S Iswaran, a former People's Action Party Member of Parliament and cabinet minister, was prosecuted in January 2024 for involvement in 35 charges for corruption relating to businessman Ong Beng Seng and obstruction of justice.[24] He was imprisoned for a year starting October 7, 2024,[25][26] before commuting to house arrest four months into his imprisonment on February 8, 2025.[27]
South Africa
[edit]House arrest was a common tool of the South African apartheid government, used to silence their opponents, along with banning orders.
- Helen Joseph was the first person put under house arrest, on 13 October 1962, and was not released until a cancer diagnosis in 1971.[28][29]
- Bram Fischer, after being diagnosed with cancer while in Pretoria Local Prison after being sentenced to life for furthering Communism in apartheid-era South Africa, was released to be placed under house arrest due to pressure from the anti-apartheid groups.
- Ahmed Kathrada ("Kathy")[28]
- Walter Sisulu[28]
- Winnie Mandela[30]
- Frances Baard[30]
- Robert Sobukwe
Soviet Union
[edit]
- Nicholas II, his wife, four daughters, one son and four retainers were placed under house arrest for over a year before communist revolutionaries murdered them on 17 July 1918.
- Former premier Nikita Khrushchev was placed under house arrest for the seven years before his death after being deposed in 1964.
- Academician Andrey Sakharov was placed under house arrest in 1980 and released in 1987. In 1991 The president of the Soviet Union, Mikhail Gorbachev, was placed under house arrest during the 1991 Soviet coup d'état attempt on August 19, 1991.
Tunisia
[edit]- Habib Bourguiba, former president of Tunisia. He was deposed in a military coup in 1987 and held in house arrest.
- Muhammad VIII al-Amin, former king of Tunisia, was deposed in 1957 by Habib Bourguiba and restrained to house arrest.
United Kingdom
[edit]- The Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 (repealed 2011) provided that suspected terrorists could be detained under house arrest without trial.[31] This was repealed on the grounds that it was a breach of the Human Rights Act 1998.
United States
[edit]- 6ix9ine, a rapper known for "Gummo", and Day69. He was released from his 2-year prison sentence for racketeering and drug trafficking, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and was placed in house arrest until November 2020.
- Sami Al-Arian, a professor and prominent advocate for human rights, named by Newsweek as a "premier civil rights activist" for his efforts to repeal the use of secret evidence in trials, was held under house arrest in Northern Virginia from 2008 until 2014 when federal prosecutors filed a motion to dismiss charges against him. Al-Arian had visited the White House several times, had met Bill and Hillary Clinton, and had met and campaigned for George W. Bush.
- William Calley, U.S. Army officer responsible for the My Lai massacre, served 3+1⁄2 years under house arrest when the president commuted his original sentence of life imprisonment.
- Dr. Dre (born Andre Romelle Young), one of the founding fathers of gangsta rap and former member of the influential hip-hop group N.W.A, was sentenced to house arrest after being convicted of assaulting a record producer.
- Rodney King, motorist who served a short sentence under house arrest for reckless driving.[32]
- Debra Lafave, a former middle-school teacher, was sentenced to three years of house arrest on November 22, 2005, for "lewd and lascivious battery" on a 14-year-old student.[33]
- Adrian Lamo, served six months under house arrest following his convictions for hacking into The New York Times and Microsoft.
- Boosie Badazz (born Torrence Hatch); the rapper was held under house arrest awaiting trial after East Baton Rouge sheriff's deputies found marijuana and a Glock in his car.
- Lindsay Lohan in 2011, served house arrest for violating her probation.
- Bernard Madoff, after his investment scandal was discovered, and $50 billion went missing.
- Paul Manafort, under house arrest awaiting trial for various charges related to the Special Counsel investigation into Donald Trump's presidential campaign. He was returned to jail on June 15, 2018, on suspicion of obstruction of justice and witness tampering.[34]


- Leonard Peltier was given house arrest by US President Joseph Biden January 19, 2025.
- John G. Rowland, former governor of Connecticut, spent four months under house arrest after serving 10 months in federal prison for corruption while in office.
- Jerry Sandusky, former college football coach, spent 10 months under house arrest during his sex abuse trial. He was placed on house arrest in December 2011 after he posted $250,000 bail on the sex abuse charges, because a judge ruled that he was too dangerous to be outside his home. Sandusky caused public concern, as his backyard bordered a school playground, and he was often seen on his back porch watching school kids play during break times, which many found inappropriate for a man who was awaiting trial on charges of abusing children.[36] Sandusky was convicted of the charges in June 2012, but remained on house arrest until his sentencing on October 9, 2012, when he was sentenced to a prison term of 30 to 60 years, a practical life sentence.[37] Sandusky was not given credit for the time he served under house arrest, meaning his earliest possible release date is exactly 30 years from the day of his sentencing.[38]
- Donté Stallworth, an NFL wide receiver, was sentenced on June 16, 2009, to two years under house arrest for killing a pedestrian with his vehicle due to driving while intoxicated in Miami, Florida.
- Martha Stewart was sentenced to five months under house arrest following her release from prison on March 4, 2005.
- Dominique Strauss-Kahn was held under house arrest on bail as an alternative to detention at Riker's Island before his trial for sexual assault. Strauss-Kahn was released from house arrest on 1 July 2011.[39]
- Lionel Tate was sentenced to one year under house arrest under the terms of the plea bargain offered in January 2004.
- T.I. (born Clifford Joseph Harris), an American rapper and co-CEO of Grand Hustle Records, was sentenced to house arrest after gun charges.
- Michael Vick, former Atlanta Falcons quarterback, was approved for transition to home confinement from his federal incarceration on February 26, 2009.
- Norman Whitfield, former Motown producer and songwriter, was convicted in 2005 of tax evasion for failing to report more than $4 million worth of royalties to the Internal Revenue Service, fined $25,000 and sentenced to six months under house arrest in lieu of jail time because of health issues, including diabetes. Whitfield died of diabetes three years later.
- Tay-K (born Tamor McIntyre), an American rapper, was under house arrest, awaiting trial for capital murder and aggravated burglary charges. He cut off his ankle monitor and fled from his hometown of Arlington, Texas to Elizabeth, New Jersey. While a fugitive, he recorded his biggest hit single to date, "The Race", before his capture on June 30, 2017.[40]
- Austin Jones, American former YouTuber and singer placed on home confinement three days after he was arrested on June 12, 2017, for producing child pornography. As a part of his release, he was barred from using the Internet and social media while he awaits trial.
- Lewis A male Polydactyl Long-haired black and white cat who was placed under house arrest in March of 2006[41]
Yugoslavia
[edit]- Aloysius Stepinac, Cardinal Archbishop of Zagreb sentenced to 16 years imprisonment for collaboration with the Nezavisna Država Hrvatska (Independent State of Croatia) regime, was released to house arrest after five years.
In popular culture
[edit]Literature
[edit]Film
[edit]- Cherish (film)
- Disturbia (film)
- House Arrest (1996 film)
- The Nines
- 100 Feet
- Ant-Man and the Wasp
- Tower Heist
- Isle of Dogs
Television
[edit]- Goode Behavior (TV series)
- The Sopranos – "House Arrest" episode
- Family Guy – "Mind Over Murder" episode
- Shameless (American TV series) – multiple episodes (season 4)
- American Vandal
- 24 (season 6) – former US President Charles Logan
- White Collar (TV series)
See also
[edit]References
[edit]- ^ Richter, Marina; Ryser, Barbara; Hostettler, Ueli (December 2021). "Punitiveness of electronic monitoring: Perception and experience of an alternative sanction". European Journal of Probation. 13 (3): 262–281. doi:10.1177/20662203211038489. ISSN 2066-2203.
- ^ Juliet Lapidos (January 28, 2009). "You're Grounded! How do you qualify for house arrest?". Slate Magazine.
- ^ a b Martin, Jamie S.; Hanrahan, Kate; Bowers, James H. (2009-08-07). "Offenders' Perceptions of House Arrest and Electronic Monitoring". Journal of Offender Rehabilitation. 48 (6): 547–570. doi:10.1080/10509670903081359. ISSN 1050-9674.
- ^ a b Levinson, David. (2002). Encyclopedia of Crime and Punishment: Volumes I-IV. SAGE Publications. p. 859. ISBN 978-0-7619-2258-2
- ^ Spohn, Cassia. (2008). How Do Judges Decide?: The Search for Fairness and Justice in Punishment. SAGE Publications Inc. p. 52. ISBN 978-1-4129-6104-2
- ^ Karen Freifeld, Chris Dolmetsch and Don Jeffrey (20 May 2011). "Strauss-Kahn May Have Spent Last Night in Jail After Bail". Bloomberg.com.
- ^ Mele, Christopher. (2005). Civil Penalties, Social Consequences. Routledge. p. 139. ISBN 978-0-415-94823-4
- ^ Jupp, James; Nieuwenhuysen, John; Dawson, Emma. (2007). Social Cohesion in Australia. Cambridge University Press. p. 183. ISBN 978-0-521-70943-9
- ^ "Q&A: Terrorism laws". BBC News Online. July 3, 2006
- ^ http://www.digitaltechnologies-2000.com/?page_id=459[permanent dead link]
- ^ "Decades later, electronic monitoring of offenders is still prone to failure". Brookings. Retrieved 2024-10-26.
- ^ Bales, William D.; Piquero, Alex R. (2012-03-01). "Assessing the impact of imprisonment on recidivism". Journal of Experimental Criminology. 8 (1): 71–101. doi:10.1007/s11292-011-9139-3. ISSN 1572-8315.
- ^ a b c 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. 18 (1): 1–20. doi:10.1007/s10612-009-9089-5. ISSN 1572-9877.
- ^ Marshall, Andrew (2009-08-11). "Burma Court Finds Aung San Suu Kyi Guilty". TIME. Archived from the original on August 14, 2009. Retrieved 2010-11-15.
- ^ Tatlow, Didi Kirsten (March 9, 2011). "Out of Jail in China, but Not Free". The New York Times.
- ^ Norman, Alexander (2008). Holder of the White Lotus: the Lives of the Dalai Lama. London: Little, Brown. p. 165. ISBN 978-0-316-85988-2.
- ^ "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.
- ^ Mydans, Seth (30 May 2000). "Suharto Under House Arrest During Corruption Inquiry". The New York Times. Retrieved 5 January 2020.
- ^ Eccentric Nationalist Begets Strange History, The New York Times 7 December 2009.
- ^ "Iran releases dissident cleric". BBC News. 2003-01-30. Retrieved 2007-06-08.
- ^ "Dissident Ayatollah Demands Iran's Rulers Be Elected". FOX News. Associated Press. 2003-09-17. Archived from the original on 2007-05-30. Retrieved 2007-06-08.
- ^ "AC/DC's Phil Rudd Sentenced to House Detention for Eight Months". Us Weekly. 9 July 2015.
- ^ Background note: Nigeria. U.S. Department of State
- ^ "Ong Beng Seng's 'buddy-buddy' ties with Singapore minister in spotlight amid probe". South China Morning Post. 14 July 2023. Retrieved 17 July 2023.
- ^ "Live: Iswaran gets jail after pleading guilty to 5 offences". CNA. Retrieved 3 October 2024.
- ^ Chin, Hui Shan; Sin, Carmen; Lee, Li Ying; Chia, Osmond (3 October 2024). "Iswaran sentenced to 12 months' jail". www.straitstimes.com. Retrieved 3 October 2024.
- ^ "Singapore: Jailed ex-minister Iswaran moved to house arrest". www.bbc.com. 7 February 2025. Retrieved 12 February 2025.
- ^ a b c Joseph, Helen (1986). "Chapter XV - House arrest". Side by Side. Morrow. Retrieved 17 July 2019 – via South African History Online.
- ^ Saunders, Blair Dickman (2011). Conflict of Color: White Activists in the SouthAfrican Anti-Apartheid Movement (Thesis). Undergraduate honors thesis. Retrieved 17 July 2019.
- ^ a b "Banned People in Apartheid-era South Africa". South Africa: Overcoming apartheid, building democracy. Retrieved 17 July 2019.
- ^ "Anti-terrorism law row rumbles on". BBC News Online. March 12, 2005
- ^ "Rodney King Gets House Arrest for Reckless Driving". NBC News. Retrieved 6 May 2014.
- ^ "CNN.com - Guilty of sex with student, teacher avoids prison - Nov 23, 2005". CNN. Retrieved 2023-06-23.
- ^ LaFraniere, Sharon (15 June 2018). "Judge Orders Manafort Jailed Before Trial, Citing New Obstruction Charges". The New York Times. Retrieved 2018-06-15.
- ^ "The Hunt for Leonard Peltier FBI Wanted Poster (Dec. 3, 1975)". January 26, 2012. Archived from the original on June 3, 2012.
- ^ "Jerry Sandusky heads back to court to resolve juror dispute and bail conditions". CBS News. 10 February 2012.
- ^ "Jerry Sandusky gets 30-60 years for molesting boys". 9 October 2012.
- ^ "Inmate/Parolee Locator".
- ^ "Ex-IMF head Dominique Strauss-Kahn freed without bail". BBC News. 1 July 2011. Retrieved 1 July 2011.
- ^ Coscarelli, Joe (22 August 2017). "Tay-K Was a 17-Year-Old 'Violent Fugitive.' then His Song Went Viral". The New York Times.
- ^ "Crazy Cat Terrorizes Connecticut Town". FoxNews. March 29, 2006. Archived from the original on June 28, 2008. Retrieved 2025-01-31.
House arrest
View on GrokipediaDefinition and Legal Framework
Core Definition and Principles
House arrest constitutes a judicially imposed form of detention wherein an individual is restricted to their residence for a designated duration, serving either as a pretrial measure or a sentence following conviction, in lieu of institutional incarceration. This confinement typically permits limited egress for essentials such as medical appointments, court appearances, or employment, subject to court-specified conditions and oversight by probation officers or electronic monitoring.[1][2] The underlying principles of house arrest emphasize proportionate restriction of liberty to achieve punitive, deterrent, and rehabilitative objectives while mitigating the societal and fiscal burdens of full imprisonment. Courts apply it to nonviolent offenders or those deemed low flight risks, aiming to preserve community ties, sustain employment, and facilitate family responsibilities, thereby potentially reducing recidivism through structured reintegration rather than total isolation. Empirical assessments indicate lower escape and reoffending rates compared to standard probation, predicated on the causal link between maintained social structures and behavioral compliance.[6][9] Violations, however, trigger escalation to incarceration, underscoring the principle that house arrest enforces accountability via graduated sanctions rather than leniency.[10][1]Legal Purposes and Eligibility Criteria
House arrest functions primarily as a custodial alternative to incarceration, enabling courts to impose confinement within an offender's residence rather than a correctional facility, thereby addressing prison overcrowding and associated fiscal burdens.[6] This measure supports public safety by restricting movement while permitting limited exceptions for essentials like medical care or employment, fostering offender accountability without full institutionalization.[2] It also facilitates rehabilitation by preserving community connections, such as family responsibilities and job retention, which empirical data links to lower recidivism compared to traditional imprisonment.[6] Eligibility for house arrest hinges on assessments of risk to society and compliance likelihood, typically favoring non-violent offenders convicted of misdemeanors or low-level felonies, such as white-collar crimes including fraud or embezzlement.[11] Courts prioritize individuals with minimal or no prior criminal history, as extensive records signal heightened reoffending potential, reducing judicial inclination toward leniency.[12] Juveniles under parental supervision or adults with stable housing may qualify, provided they pose low flight risk and demonstrate reliability through factors like employment stability.[13] Additional criteria often include compassionate considerations, such as advanced age or serious medical conditions where institutional confinement could exacerbate health declines or violate humane standards.[11] In federal contexts, eligibility excludes violent or high-risk cases, emphasizing verifiable low threat levels via pretrial assessments or sentencing guidelines.[14] Jurisdictional variations exist; for instance, California's Penal Code 1203.016 permits house arrest for qualifying non-violent sentences up to one year, contingent on electronic monitoring and court approval.[15] Overall, determinations rely on judicial discretion informed by probation reports, ensuring the sanction balances punitive intent with resource efficiency.[16]Historical Development
Ancient and Pre-Modern Origins
In ancient Rome, confinement to one's residence, often under guard, served as a privileged form of pre-trial detention known as custodia militaris or custodia libera, distinguishing it from harsher publica custodia in facilities like the Tullianum, which were reserved for temporary holding before execution or trial.[17][18] This approach reflected Roman legal distinctions based on citizenship and status, where elites and citizens avoided dungeon-like conditions, instead enduring supervised home restriction to ensure court appearance, with punishment—such as exile, fines, or death—administered separately upon conviction.[19] Such measures were not punitive incarceration but coercive tools for compliance, applicable also to debtors confined privately.[19] A documented instance occurred circa 60–62 CE, when the Apostle Paul, invoking his Roman citizenship, received permission to reside in rented quarters in Rome under house arrest, chained to a rotating Praetorian guard while awaiting imperial trial; this allowed him to host visitors, preach, and continue ministry for two years, illustrating the relative leniency of custodia militaris for high-status detainees.[17][20] Roman sources confirm this as standard for citizens, prioritizing personal surety over institutional imprisonment, which lacked capacity for long-term housing amid Rome's million inhabitants.[21] Pre-modern applications remained sporadic and informal, primarily targeting nobility or political figures to avoid public scandal or rebellion, rather than as codified criminal sanction. In medieval Europe, where prisons functioned mainly for pretrial detention or debt collection, house confinement echoed Roman precedents for elites but was not systematized, often blending with castle imprisonment or exile for lords; empirical records show it enforced via oaths or guards rather than law, with corporal penalties dominating common punishments.[22] By the early modern threshold, such as Galileo's lifelong house arrest post-1633 Inquisition trial, the practice gained traction for suppressing dissent, bridging ancient detention tactics with emerging absolutist controls.[22]Emergence in Modern Criminal Justice Systems
House arrest, as a structured sanction within modern criminal justice frameworks, originated in the United States during the 1970s as an innovative response to escalating incarceration rates and resource constraints in correctional systems. Initially implemented as a pretrial release mechanism, it allowed defendants to remain in their residences under strict supervision rather than in jail, reflecting a shift toward community-based alternatives amid critiques of traditional imprisonment's inefficacy and high costs.[23][6] This development paralleled broader penal reforms emphasizing rehabilitation over pure custody, with early programs relying on self-reporting and periodic check-ins by probation officers.[24] The sanction's enforceability advanced significantly in the 1980s through the advent of electronic monitoring technology, marking its transition from ad hoc to systematic application. In 1984, Florida pioneered the use of radio frequency devices for home detention, enabling real-time verification of compliance and reducing reliance on human oversight.[7] This technological integration addressed prior limitations, such as evasion risks, and facilitated broader adoption; by the late 1980s, states like California and New Mexico had established similar systems, often coupling house arrest with conditions like employment mandates or restitution.[25] Federal guidelines under the U.S. Sentencing Commission further codified home confinement by 1987, positioning it as a viable intermediate punishment for nonviolent offenders eligible for probation.[26] Internationally, parallel evolutions occurred, though later and less uniformly. In Sweden, secure home detention via electronic monitoring was introduced in 1994, prioritizing enforcement for short-term sentences and integrating it into probationary frameworks to curb recidivism.[27] These advancements were driven by empirical pressures, including prison overcrowding—U.S. inmate populations doubled from 1970 to 1980—and fiscal analyses demonstrating house arrest's lower per-offender costs compared to incarceration, estimated at one-eighth the expense by some studies.[24] However, adoption varied by jurisdiction, with skeptics noting enforcement challenges absent technology, underscoring causal links between monitoring innovations and the sanction's institutional entrenchment.[28]Operational Mechanics
Standard Conditions and Restrictions
Standard conditions of house arrest mandate confinement to an approved residence, typically limiting the offender's presence outside the home to pre-authorized exceptions such as employment, education, medical appointments, religious services, or court-ordered programs.[29][2] Violations of these movement restrictions can result in revocation and escalation to incarceration.[14] Electronic monitoring is a core requirement in most programs, often involving GPS-enabled ankle bracelets that track location in real-time and alert authorities to unauthorized departures or tamper attempts.[30][16] Curfews are frequently imposed, requiring the individual to remain indoors during designated hours, such as overnight or non-work periods, to minimize community risk.[31][32] Additional restrictions prohibit substance use, mandating abstinence from alcohol and illicit drugs with provisions for random testing; association with co-defendants, victims, or other prohibited contacts is barred to prevent recidivism-enabling interactions.[16][32] Probation officers conduct regular home visits or virtual check-ins to verify compliance, and participants may be required to participate in rehabilitative counseling or community service within approved parameters.[2][31] These terms, while standardized across many U.S. jurisdictions under statutes like California's Penal Code § 1203.016, allow judicial discretion based on offense severity and offender history, ensuring proportionality to public safety needs.[29][1]Role of Electronic Monitoring and Technology
Electronic monitoring (EM) technologies have become integral to enforcing house arrest by verifying compliance with confinement orders, detecting violations in real time, and enabling remote supervision without constant physical oversight. These systems typically involve wearable devices, such as tamper-resistant ankle or wrist bracelets, paired with base stations or cellular networks to transmit location data or proximity signals. Radio frequency (RF) monitoring, one of the earliest forms, uses a transmitter on the offender to communicate with a receiver unit installed at the residence, confirming presence during curfew periods through periodic signal checks rather than continuous tracking.[33] GPS-enabled devices, introduced later, provide active or passive location tracking via satellite signals, allowing authorities to monitor movements beyond the home and set geofence alerts for prohibited areas.[34] The development of EM for house arrest accelerated in the 1980s following initial experiments in the late 1970s, driven by the need for cost-effective alternatives to incarceration amid rising prison populations. Early systems, like those prototyped using repurposed military radio equipment, focused on basic home verification, with Florida implementing one of the first statewide programs in 1984.[35] By the mid-1990s, over 70,000 units were deployed in U.S. correctional systems, expanding to include voice verification adjuncts that require offenders to answer calls with biometric confirmation to prevent proxy compliance.[33] Modern iterations integrate hybrid RF-GPS units with smartphone apps for automated check-ins, though core reliance remains on hardware to minimize evasion risks. Empirical assessments indicate EM enhances house arrest enforcement by reducing technical violations, such as unauthorized absences, through immediate alerts to supervising officers. A National Institute of Justice analysis found that offenders under EM experienced a 31% lower risk of failure (including rearrest or absconding) compared to those on standard community supervision, attributing this to heightened deterrence from constant monitoring.[36] However, effects on long-term recidivism vary; while some programs report sustained reductions tied to preserved family and employment ties, others, including a Canadian evaluation, show no significant difference in reoffending rates versus non-monitored house arrest, suggesting EM primarily curbs immediate non-compliance rather than addressing underlying criminal propensities.[27][37] GPS variants demonstrate fewer violations than RF-only systems, particularly for high-risk cases like domestic violence offenders, by enabling proactive geofencing.[38] Despite these benefits, implementation challenges include signal interference in rural areas and false positives from device malfunctions, necessitating backup verification protocols.[39]Empirical Evaluation
Recidivism and Reoffending Data
Empirical studies on recidivism under house arrest, often involving electronic monitoring (EM), generally indicate lower reoffending rates compared to incarceration, particularly for short sentences or lower-risk offenders, though results vary by jurisdiction, offender profile, and measurement (e.g., rearrest vs. reconviction). A meta-analysis of 11 studies (14 effect sizes, N=3,165 adult offenders) found that home confinement with EM reduces recidivism overall, supporting deterrence and reintegration effects, though heterogeneity across studies suggests context-specific factors like supervision intensity influence outcomes.[40] In the United States, federal data from the CARES Act (2020-2023) showed post-release recidivism (defined as re-arrest or return to Bureau of Prisons custody within one year) at 3.7% for approximately 11,000 home-confined individuals, compared to 5.0% for non-CARES home confinement placements; violent recidivism was 0.9% versus 1.3%. This contrasts with broader federal prisoner rearrest rates of 27% within two years post-release. A Florida study reported EM reduced failure risk (including reoffense) by 31% relative to other community supervision.[41][42][36] International evidence reinforces these patterns. In Sweden, a causal difference-in-differences analysis of a 1997 EM expansion for sentences up to three months found EM lowered recidivism compared to short prison terms, preserving employment ties as a key mechanism. A UK study replacing four-month or shorter prison sentences with EM reduced one-year recidivism by 5 percentage points. In Norway and Australia, EM yielded 10% and 16% reoffending reductions, respectively, within 24 months relative to incarceration baselines. France observed lower five-year reconviction probabilities under EM than prison.[27][43][42]| Study/Context | Recidivism Measure | House Arrest/EM Rate | Incarceration/Comparison Rate | Reduction |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CARES Act (U.S., post-release, 1 year) | Re-arrest or return to custody | 3.7% | 5.0% (non-CARES home conf.); 27% (2-year federal baseline) | 26% relative to non-CARES; substantial vs. prison |
| Sweden EM Expansion | Criminal recidivism (unspecified follow-up) | Lower (causal reduction) | Short prison sentences | Not quantified; employment-mediated |
| UK Short-Sentence Replacement | 1-year recidivism | Reduced by 5 pp | Prison (≤4 months) | 5 percentage points |
| Norway/Australia EM | Reoffending (24 months) | Varied | Incarceration | 10-16% |
Cost-Effectiveness and Resource Allocation
House arrest, particularly when augmented by electronic monitoring (EM), substantially reduces governmental expenditures compared to traditional incarceration. In the United States, the average daily cost of incarcerating a federal prisoner in a Bureau of Prisons facility was approximately $120.59 in fiscal year 2020, encompassing expenses for housing, security, medical care, and administration. By contrast, home confinement programs, which often incorporate house arrest protocols, averaged $55.26 per day per participant under the CARES Act implementation, yielding daily savings of about $65.59 per offender or roughly $23,940 annually. These figures derive from Department of Justice assessments and highlight EM's role in minimizing overhead, as it shifts burdens from institutional maintenance to technology-driven oversight, though home confinement may include supplemental services not universal to all house arrest applications.[45] State-level implementations further underscore cost advantages, with non-EM house arrest programs costing $1,500 to $7,000 annually per offender (equivalent to $4–$19 daily), while EM variants add modest increments for device and monitoring fees borne largely by governments or offset by participant contributions.[46] A National Institute of Justice evaluation of Florida's EM programs found imprisonment costs roughly six times higher than EM supervision, enabling resource reallocation toward intensive case management for higher-risk individuals rather than low-level offenders.[36] This efficiency extends to pretrial and probationary contexts, where EM averages $10–$25 daily to agencies, versus $100+ for detention, allowing jurisdictions to supervise broader caseloads without proportional budget increases.[47] Resource allocation benefits amplify through recidivism mitigation, as EM has been shown to decrease supervisory failures by 31% among medium- and high-risk offenders, preserving savings by averting rearrests and reincarceration cycles.[36] GPS-enabled variants yield even stronger outcomes, reducing arrests by 12% relative to standard parole despite a slight daily premium ($8.51 over traditional supervision), netting positive returns when scaled against prison alternatives.[48] However, effectiveness hinges on selective application; indiscriminate use for violent offenders may erode savings if violations necessitate fallback incarceration, underscoring the need for risk-based triage to optimize fiscal and public safety returns.[36]| Supervision Type | Average Daily Cost (Government) | Key Source |
|---|---|---|
| Federal Incarceration | $120.59 | BOP FY2020 |
| Home Confinement/EM | $55.26 | DOJ CARES Act |
| State EM House Arrest | $10–$25 | NIJ Florida Study[36] |
Comparative Analysis with Incarceration
House arrest functions as an intermediate sanction, restricting offenders to their residences under supervision, often augmented by electronic monitoring (EM), in contrast to incarceration's total physical confinement within correctional facilities. Empirical comparisons focus on economic efficiency, reoffending risks, incapacitation effects, and broader societal outcomes, with data drawn from controlled studies and meta-analyses indicating house arrest's viability for select non-violent cases but limitations for high-risk individuals.[49][5] Financially, incarceration imposes significantly higher per diem costs than house arrest. In the United States, average daily incarceration expenses range from $100 to $150 per inmate, encompassing facility operations, staffing, and healthcare, while house arrest with EM averages $10 to $55 daily, primarily for monitoring equipment and oversight.[45][50] This disparity yields savings of up to 10-fold when substituting supervision for detention, with one fiscal analysis estimating net benefits of $4,600 per participant annually from reduced arrests alone.[51][52] Broader social returns amplify this, as EM-linked house arrest boosts employment and education, generating benefits estimated at seven times direct fiscal gains through lower future crime costs.[27] Regarding recidivism, meta-analytic evidence favors house arrest with EM over traditional incarceration for many offenders. A review of 14 studies on adult home confinement found EM reduces reoffending, with effect sizes indicating lower relapse rates than prison baselines, attributable to preserved community ties and employment.[40] Another synthesis of 18 evaluations confirmed overall favorable recidivism impacts from EM, though results vary by offender risk level and program fidelity.[53] Converting prison terms to EM has demonstrated sustained recidivism drops, contrasting with incarceration's potential criminogenic effects from institutionalization.[5][54] Caveats persist: unmonitored house arrest correlates with elevated probation revocations in some cohorts, suggesting EM's necessity for equivalence.[55] Public safety comparisons hinge on incapacitation versus reintegration. Incarceration fully neutralizes offending during sentence terms, averaging 1-3 years for comparably sentenced individuals, but house arrest offers partial restraint with real-time violation detection, enabling swift intervention.[49] Post-release, house arrest yields superior outcomes, with EM participants showing reduced violent recidivism and enhanced family stability, outperforming short prison stints in community supervision studies.[27][56] For low-to-moderate risk offenders, such as non-violent property criminals, this balances safety without prison's long-term harms like skill atrophy; however, for violent or predatory actors, incarceration's stricter isolation better mitigates immediate threats, as partial confinement risks undetected breaches absent rigorous EM.[57]| Comparison Metric | Incarceration | House Arrest with EM |
|---|---|---|
| Daily Cost (US Avg.) | $100–150 | $10–55 [45][50] |
| Recidivism Impact | Baseline; potential increase from institutional effects | Often lower; 20–30% reduction in select meta-analyses [40][5] |
| Incapacitation | Complete during term | Monitored restriction; rapid response to violations |
| Reintegration Factors | Disrupted employment/family ties | Preserved; boosts labor/education outcomes [27] |