If the technical aspects of electronic monitoring devices can be perfected, why wouldn’t home detention be an excellent- and inexpensive- alternative to incarceration?
Home detention provides an alternative to incarceration however, there are several issues being raised against its implementation. Due to our technological advancement, home detention or confinement can be used as a sanction or penalty to offenders by monitoring them constantly their curfews and check-in times.
Home detention would be an excellent alternative to incarceration because of certain legal, technical, and correctional issues that needs to be addressed before it can be used as a standard of punishment.
First, according to the constitution under the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches and seizure, the constitutional right of a person is violated by an unreasonably invasion in the privacy of a person if these electronic monitoring devices used as a surveillance is attached to their homes.
Second, although the technical aspects of these monitoring devices can be perfected, the process is extensive and expensive as well. In addition, the device can only be availed by those who can afford to pay $25-$100 per week. The system is also only available to those who own telephones therefore; it is really costly and inconvenient.
Thirdly, there is no assurance that the offender will obey the probationary rules because it will be a lot easier to commit crimes such as child abuse, drug sales and assaults while the offender is at home. Therefore, it is not at all effective and home detention can not be used as an excellent alternative to incarceration due to its constitutional, technical and financial flaws.
References
Cole, G.F & Smith, C.E. Home Confinement. The American System of Criminal Justice. Pp. 468-469.
