What are the goals of house arrest/electronic surveillance?

Question

I know what house arrest is and how is works, but what are the goals? Such as, what does the court system gain, and what does the person on house arrest have to gain? Please dont say "they're not in prison." I'm in law school, and I need to different opinions on the goals. NO STUPID ANSWERS PLEASE.

Answer 1

Best Answer - Chosen by Voters

Electronic monitoring, or as some refer to it - house arrest - is something often sought aggressively by "defense attorneys" in the interest of a client who is going to be sentenced to jail. The defendant 'chooses' the option of house arrest as a better option than serving time behind bars. The defendant does not 'have' to take that option, and can in most cases say no, I'd rather do my time in jail. Some of these defendanta are single parents, or have other serious matters going on in their lives where being allowed to stay home is better than jail.

But there's always some - those who live their lives in denial - or who always feel they have problems that no one else has, will eventually tire of the confinds of their own home and begin to complain about that too.

The court system 'might' gain something in that this is one more body not being fed and clothed and cared for in the jail system. But then someone has to monitor the defendant on the outside and service the device, or pay house visits if it looks like a violation occurs, and it will cost money if the defendant violates the restrictions and is remanded back into custody and charged for probation violation. So it's hard to determine benefits to the court system.

Answer 2

It strikes a balance between allowing them free access, versus being in jail. I'm sorry if "they're not in prison" isn't a good enough answer for you. But that's the reason.

The court determines that the person should not be allowed to roam freely, either pre-trial or as part of their sentece. But jail is too much. The middle ground, often worked out as part of a plea agreement, is house arrest or a halfway house with monitoring.

The person isn't in jail, and the govt spends far less money.

Answer 3

Alternative to housing non-violent offenders. Frees up space in prisons and puts the burden of support back on to the person under house arrest.

Answer 4

House arrest/electronic surveillance is based on the flawed, punishment/rehabilitation model of dealing with criminals. Simply put, incarceration is supposed to be punishing which encourages the criminal to avoid further criminal acts while interupting criminal behaviors and allowing an opportunity for reform. Because of budget constraints, the lowest risk (supposedly) criminals are allowed to do their time at home. This supposedly accomplishes the dual goals of being punishing, so as to influence future decisions as to engage in crime or not and interupt various behaviors that allow reform. For example, hanging out with gang members or going out scoring drugs are difficult to accomplish while under house arrest.

Note that the entire system, from top to bottom is a complete and dismal failure. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that the punishment/rehabilitation model is a fraudulent construct (ie the people implementing never had any intention of succeeding).

A better model, and one for which many legislative bodies are forcing the judiciary to adopt is the goal of protecting the public. That's the impetus behind 3 strikes your out, mandatory minimum sentencing, and LIMITING USE OF HOUSE ARREST in favor of jail. Simply put, a criminal in prison cannot victimize anyone....except other criminals, which they do with great agressiveness, I might add. This is what leads the push for more SuperMax style of prisons where contact with other prisoners is severely curtailed.

Also, I would like to add that the part of your question, "what does the person on house arrest have to gain" is COMPLETELY inappropriate and a leading cause of most of the problems in the criminal justice system. Prison is not welfare. It does not exist to meet the needs of criminals. Rather, it exists to attempt to deal with these people as a major problem for society. Mostly, this is accomplished by seperating the problem person from society. The person's needs are irrelevant. Meeting them has zero effect on the goal of stopping and reducing crime. This is not a debateble point but rather the result of careful measurement of the problem over an extended period of time. Criminals have needs. Prison, the police, the courts are not where they should get those needs met....ever.

Answer 5

The obvious answer is that the government is saving money by not having to feed, clothe, and house an inmate and they are not having to supervise the house arrestee other than monitoring the location of the ankle bracelet, or having the house arrestee call in twice a day.
The benefit of house arrest to the arrestee is not being subjected to the "hardened" criminals that are in the slammer and living in a familiar environment while awaiting trial or serving a sentence.
There's a good reason they call jail the Pokey!