The use of house arrest continues to expand, affecting a growing number of offenders. Even at this early stage of implementation, problems have arisen regarding cost, supervision, reduction of prison overcrowding, and the general purposes of home confinement. Although revocation and recidivism statistics from these initial programs apparently indicate that home detention is a viable alternative to traditional incarceration, cost-saving claims and administrative ease should be viewed with caution. Even if financial viability was guaranteed, cost efficiency should not have priority over justice. House arrest is not per se unconstitutional, but limitations must attach to the restrictions imposed on the confinee. Particular attention must be given to the detainee's first amendment rights of freedom of religion and association. Judges and probation departments must carefully tailor the conditions of house arrest to ensure that the impact on the offender's constitutional rights is minimally intrusive and serves both the rehabilitative and retributive goals of this intermediate-level penal sanction. 271 footnotes.