skip navigation


Register for Latest Research

Stay Informed
Register with NCJRS to receive NCJRS's biweekly e-newsletter JUSTINFO and additional periodic emails from NCJRS and the NCJRS federal sponsors that highlight the latest research published or sponsored by the Office of Justice Programs.

NCJRS Abstract

The document referenced below is part of the NCJRS Virtual Library collection. To conduct further searches of the collection, visit the Virtual Library. See the Obtain Documents page for direction on how to access resources online, via mail, through interlibrary loans, or in a local library.


NCJ Number: 99052 Find in a Library
Title: Home as Prison - The Use of House Arrest
Journal: Federal Probation  Volume:49  Issue:1  Dated:(March 1985)  Pages:13-17
Author(s): R P Corbett; E A L Fersch
Date Published: 1985
Page Count: 5
Sponsoring Agency: National Institute of Justice/
Rockville, MD 20849
NCJRS Photocopy Services
Rockville, MD 20849-6000
Sale Source: National Institute of Justice/
NCJRS paper reproduction
Box 6000, Dept F
Rockville, MD 20849
United States of America

NCJRS Photocopy Services
Box 6000
Rockville, MD 20849-6000
United States of America
Document: PDF
Language: English
Country: United States of America
Annotation: This paper proposes the use of 'house arrest' as an alternative to imprisonment for certain offenders, thereby reducing prison populations.
Abstract: House arrest involves restricting offenders to their houses except for specified activities, such as work, doctor visits, and participation in rehabilitative programs. Responsibility for enforcing the home confinement would be given to surveillance probation officers who would have reduced caseloads of house arrestees. The probation officers would be responsible for daily, random checks by phone and in person. A violation of the court order would result in a return to court and in most cases, imprisonment. The primary benefits of such a program would be cost savings compared to imprisonment, the offender's continuing to support his family, and the offender's maintaining existing employment and family bonds. The primary disadvantage is less public protection compared to imprisonment. For this reason, house arrest should be limited to offenders who do not pose a significant threat to the public, such as nonviolent property offenders and those convicted of manslaughter while driving drunk. House arrest programs have been tried in Florida, California, and Illinois; their success has been due to careful screening and close monitoring. The paper provides three examples of how house arrest might be used. Twenty footnotes are provided.
Index Term(s): Alternatives to institutionalization; Home detention; Prison overcrowding
To cite this abstract, use the following link:

*A link to the full-text document is provided whenever possible. For documents not available online, a link to the publisher's website is provided. Tell us how you use the NCJRS Library and Abstracts Database - send us your feedback.