Whether these devices have marked effects in reducing prison overcrowding and costs has yet to be shown. Although electronic surveillance, whether a 'front-end' alternative to incarceration or a 'back-door' mechanism for early release, is considered less intrusive, less cruel and less costly than incarceration, there is reason to doubt its fairness. Moreover, its psychological impact is not understood; a shift in goals from rehabilitation to surveillance could result in reduction and dehumanization of services as communication becomes detached, automated, and mechanical. Until followup evidence, comparative studies, and cost-benefit analyses are available, jurisdictions should be skeptical about the benefits of electronically monitored home detection. It should be applied for only short periods, and standards for its use should be set legislatively. 54 footnotes and 33 references.