The Electronic Ball and Chain? The Operation and Impact of Home Detention with Electronic Monitoring in New Zealand
| Author | Anita Gibbs,Denise King |
| Published date | 01 April 2003 |
| DOI | 10.1375/acri.36.1.1 |
| Date | 01 April 2003 |
The Electronic Ball and Chain?
The Operation and Impact of Home
Detention with Electronic Monitoring
in New Zealand
Anita Gibbs and Denise King
University of Otago, New Zealand
In New Zealand,Amendment No. 9 (1999) of the Criminal Justice Act
1985 introduced Home Detention Orders as an early release from
prison option, implemented on the 1st October 1999. The orders, with
electronic monitoring, were available to convicted offenders who had not
committed serious offences and who were sentenced to, or serving,
varying lengths of imprisonment.The purpose of the new scheme was to
ease the transition of prison inmates back into the community. It was
also hoped that home detention would result in a reduction in overall
time spent in prison, as well as addressing offending behaviour through
the intensive supervision and programs accompanying the home confine-
ment. After reviewing the literature on home detention, and outlining the
development and operation of home detention in New Zealand, we will
discuss research undertaken by the authors during 2001. The research
aimed to ascertain the impact of home detention on offenders, and their
families, and to explore the views of other stakeholders, for example,
probation officers and prison board members.We interviewed 21 offend-
ers, 21 sponsors, 6 probation officers, 2 security staff and observed over
20 members of district prison boards. Eleven key findings were identified:
including factors of suitability, impacts on behaviour and relationships,
gender issues and the effectiveness of home detention.We conclude with
a brief discussion of the implications of the research: the need to support
families and sponsors, ongoing ethical and legal issues, and the acceptance
of surveillance as the norm in New Zealand.
Literature Rev i ew
The use of home detention as a means of confinement and control within the
home can be traced back to biblical times when Paul, the apostle, was placed under
Address for correspondence: Dr Anita Gibbs and Denise King, Department of Com-
munity and Family Studies, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand. Email:
anita.gibbs@stonebow.otago.ac.nz
THE AUSTRALIAN AND NEW ZEALAND JOURNAL OF CRIMINOLOGY
1
VOLUME 36 NUMBER 1 2003 PP. 1–17
crim36_1 4/1/03 10:02 AM Page 2
ANITA GIBBS AND DENISE KING
house arrest by the Romans. The modern form of home detention (house arrest, or
home incarceration) aligned to electronic monitoring has its origins in the mid-
1980s in the United States (US) (Fox, 1987; Whitfield, 1997). Schemes now exist
in over 45 US states, the United Kingdom (UK), Europe, Asia, Australia and
Canada. The international literature has explored home detention and electronic
monitoring from several angles: philosophical and ethical (Ball & Lilly, 1986; Enos
et al., 1992; Garland, 1996; Mainprize, 1992; Moore & Haggarty, 2001; Payne
& Gainey, 2000; Pratt, 2000; Rose, 2000; Whitfield, 1997); operational and
practice issues (Bishop, 1996; Fox, 1987; Lilly & Nellis, 2001; Mortimer & Mair,
1997; Nellis, 2000; Payne & Gainey, 1998, 2000; Walter et al., 2001; Whitfield,
1997); and research (Bishop, 1996; Dodgson et al., 2000, 2001; Doherty, 1995;
Gainey & Payne, 2000; Lilly et al., 1993; Mainprize, 1995; Mortimer, 2001; Payne
& Gainey, 1998; Schultz, 1995; Smith, 2001).
Philosophical and Ethical Issues
Any form of social control brings with it fresh concerns of punishment, surveillance
and undue intrusion. In this respect home detention with electronic monitoring
poses a number of specific concerns:
• Home detention with electronic monitoring has extended the control and
surveillance of the offender from prison to the community — “prisons in the
home” or “the electronic ball and chain”.
• There is a challenge to the legal basis for electronic monitoring. Can it legally
be right to punish or confine people to their homes, or encroach upon their
privacy rights?
• Home detention has facilitated the involvement of offenders’ families and
personal support networks in regulatory practices. Such practices were previ-
ously undertaken by the State.
• Home detention does not reduce the prison population significantly but tends
to net-widen to include those who would not necessarily have been imprisoned.
Low-risk offenders who do not require such a restrictive regime to deal with
their offending tend to be those for whom home detention is granted.
• While home detention may be cheaper than imprisonment, the financial and social
costs can increase for offenders, their families and personal support networks.
These particular issues have been detailed and debated in the literature (Ball
& Lilly, 1986; Enos et al., 1992; Lilly, 1992; Moore & Haggarty, 2001; Payne
& Gainey, 2000; Pratt, 2000; Rose, 2000). While the issues have not resulted in
any notable decline in the use of home detention and electronic monitoring they
are a constant reminder that home detention is an intrusive method of supervising
offenders and an even greater intrusion into the lives of offenders’ families.
Operational and Practice Issues
A variety of purposes and uses for home detention with electronic monitoring exist.
It is used as an alternative to imprisonment, or as a stand-alone sentence. It can
provide monitoring for bail conditions, and is used to reduce prison numbers
by releasing prisoners early. It is often used as a means to rehabilitate offenders, and
2
THE AUSTRALIAN AND NEW ZEALAND JOURNAL OF CRIMINOLOGY
crim36_1 4/1/03 10:02 AM Page 3
THE OPERATION AND IMPACT OF HOME DETENTION WITH ELECTRONIC MONITORING
to allow them to maintain relationships with their families. Home detention also
enables offenders to participate in programs of supervision or employment, with the
ultimate aim of reducing re-offending.
The literature on the use of home detention suggests that one problem has been
the lack of clear goals and purpose for the sanction. Home detention has attempted
to fulfil too many purposes — to punish, to incapacitate, to deter, and to rehabili-
tate — when it can only fulfil some of these (Payne & Gainey, 2000). With all
these purposes, it is no surprise to find that there have been many types of monitor-
ing schemes, targeting different kinds of offenders and involving various levels of
support from sponsors (or families), probation and security staff.
The typical offender on home detention is male, with few previous convictions
and is usually convicted of property-related offending. He is normally over 30 years
of age and often employed or attending a training course (Whitfield, 1997, 2001).
Offenders who receive home detention also tend to be assessed as being at a low-risk
of re-offending, and typically they have family or friends available to support them.
In relation to the actual operation of home detention schemes, practice issues
highlighted include:
• Problems with technology, particularly monitoring and equipment (e.g., techni-
cal faults, poor monitoring coverage, equipment failure and uncomfortable
tags). Proving breaches has raised legal and ethical issues, where the reliability
of equipment has been questioned.
• The lack of programs, activities, intensive supervision and adequate support for
the offender or their families/sponsors.
• Probation staff have been reluctant to participate in monitoring schemes and
security staff have not been employed or skilled to deal with the social work
requests of offenders (Mortimer & Mair, 1997; Nellis, 2000).
• There has been an increase in the control and surveillance functions of proba-
tion officers supervising those on home detention, but also some new opportu-
nities to practice social work due the increased frequency of contact and home
visiting of offenders.
Research Findings
The issues surrounding home detention have also been highlighted in the research
in this field, particularly in the United States, and more recently in Britain, Europe
and Australasia. Recidivism and re-offending rates associated with home detention
and monitoring schemes vary from scheme to scheme, and have been as low as 30%
(Mortimer, 2001) and as high as 70–80% (Sugg et al., 2001). These rates have
depended on what is defined as recidivism (and when it is measured) and whether
home confinement with monitoring, or monitoring and supervision, are used as
sentences alone, or as part of pre-release or parole options. Recidivism rates show
they are lower for older offenders and for those monitored as part of an early release
from imprisonment option. Younger offenders and those with longer criminal
records do worse (Smith, 2001) than, for example, drink drivers and lower-risk
offenders (Bishop, 1996, Whitfield, 1997). However, Bonta (1999) has noted that
electronic monitoring has not especially reduced the re-offending of low-risk
THE AUSTRALIAN AND NEW ZEALAND JOURNAL OF CRIMINOLOGY
3
crim36_1 4/1/03 10:02 AM Page 4
ANITA GIBBS AND DENISE KING
offenders. Many electronic monitoring programs target such offenders, so it may be
an ineffective use of home detention resources for this group.
Completion rates have been at a high level for home detention, particularly
when home detention has been used as an option for release from custody. Up to
95% completion rates have been reported (Mortimer, 2001; Smith, 2001). For
other types of monitoring programs and options used as an alternative to custody,
completion rates have been as low as 30% (Whitfield, 1997). It may be that for
specific target groups (e.g., drink drivers) that home detention is particularly effec-
tive. For example, Lilly et al. (1993) completed a...
To continue reading
Request your trial