Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Between the ‘Home’ and ‘Institutional’ Worlds: Tensions and Contradictions in the Practice of House Arrest

  • Published:
Critical Criminology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this paper we argue that the theoretical work of Goffman (1961) on “total institutions,” Foucault’s (1977) insights into the workings of disciplinary power, and an account of contemporary forms of punishment and social control in postmodern society (Staples 2000) help us better understand the experiences of those individuals sentenced to house arrest. Based on face-to-face interviews with twenty-three people being electronically monitored in a Midwestern metropolitan area, our analysis identifies three themes that illustrate the ways in which electronic monitoring is experienced as a complex amalgam of what Goffman (1961, p. 13) saw as the distinct “home world” and the “institutional world”. These themes include (1) “Home is Where the Machine Is,” (2) “Producing Docile Bodies,” and (3) “Threat of Sanctions”. We reassert our claim (Staples 1994, 2000) that contemporary forms of social control such as electronic monitoring reflect an ongoing struggle to deal with problems and issues set in motion with the birth of modernity.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The research protocol was conducted within the ethical and procedural guidelines set out by the Human Subjects Committee of the University of Kansas, the American Correctional Association, and the American Sociological Association.

  2. For an investigation of interpreting the contradictory remarks of research participants, see Power (2004).

  3. The original and commonly used form of electronically monitoring involves deploying a small radio transmitter that is typically attached to the ankle of the offender. A monitoring box is placed in the home and the arrestee cannot stray more than 150 feet or so from the box without triggering a violation that is recorded by a central computer. Sometimes called “tagging,” the idea is credited to a New Mexico district court judge who was supposedly inspired by the use of a similar device in a 1979 Spiderman comic strip (Klein-Saffran 1992).

  4. The results have been mixed. In a recent meta-analysis of this literature, Layton MacKenzie (2006, p. 322) concludes that, “A large body of research, including random assignment studies, consistently shows the failure of ISP [Intensive Supervision Programs] and EM [Electronic Monitoring] programs to lower recidivism… The increased surveillance may actually increase the probability of detection and, thus, result in more technical violations”.

  5. Postmodern social control techniques may be characterized as: (1) systematic, methodical, impersonal, technologically-driven and automatic in operation; (2) often involving the body and enhance visibility to others and make the human body infinitely more accessible to official scrutiny and assessment; (3) often impose a framework of accountability on an individual in everyday life; and finally, (4) as they are localized in everyday life, many new forms of social control blur the distinction between the official deviant and the likely offender (for more detail, see Staples 2000, pp. 1–13).

  6. In the year 2000, 1,048 adult clients participated in the program with about 80–100 individuals monitored at any given time but with relatively high turnover; the typical house arrest sentence lasted between 30 and 90 days. Males accounted for 81% of the cases. The majority, 68%, were sentenced directly to the house arrest program. Other participants were placed on house arrest as a condition of a bond, pending a probation violation hearing, as an internal sanction of the Intensive Supervision Probation program, or as part of a conditional release agreement from a residential/work release program. Felony offenders accounted for 34% of the 1,048 adult clients (n = 361), 30% of which were DUI cases, 19% burglary/theft, and 18% drug possession. Of the misdemeanor cases served (n = 687), 50% were DUI, 18% were theft/larceny, and 16% were drug possession charges. Clients were charged $12.00 per day for the house arrest monitoring and $17.00 per drug test. The program collected more than $211,000 in “fees” from clients in 2000.

References

  • Ansay, S. J. (1999). When home is a prison cell: The social construction of compliance in house arrest. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Gainesville: University of Florida.

  • Ball, R. A., Huff, R. C., & Lilly, J. R. (1988). House arrest and correctional policy: Doing time at home. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buckholdt, D. R., & Gubrium, J. F. (1979). Caretakers: Treating emotionally disturbed children. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Byrant, G. (1998). How does law matter?. Evanston: Northwestern University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, S. (1979). The punitive city: Notes on the dispersal of social control. Contemporary Crises, 3(4), 339–357.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, S. (1985). Visions of social control: Crime, punishment and classification. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Courtright, K. E., Berg, B. L., & Mutchnick, R. J. (1997a). The cost effectiveness of using house arrest with electronic monitoring for drunk drivers. Federal Probation, 61(3), 19–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Courtright, K. E., Berg, B. L., & Mutchnick, R. J. (1997b). Effects of house arrest with electronic monitoring on DUI offenders. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 24(3/4), 35–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Courtright, K. E., Berg, B. L., & Mutchnick, R. J. (2000). Rehabilitation in the new machine? Exploring drug and alcohol use and variables related to success among DUI offenders under electronic monitoring—some preliminary outcomes. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 44(3), 293–311.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Donzelot, J. (1997 [1979]). The policing of families (Trans. by R. Hurley). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

  • Emerson, R. M., & Messinger, S. L. (1977). The micro-politics of trouble. Social Problems, 25(2), 121–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ericson, R. V., & Haggerty, K. D. (1997). Policing the risk society. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ewick, P., & Silby, S. (1988). The common place of law: Stories from everyday life. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feeley, M., & Simon, J. (1992). The new penology: Notes on the emerging strategy of corrections and it implications. Criminology, 30(4), 449–474.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fontana, A., & Prokos, A. H. (2007). The interview: From formal to postmodern. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foucault, M. (1995 [1977]). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison (Trans. by A. Sheridan). New York: Vintage Books.

  • Foucault, M. (2001 [1961]). Madness and civilization: A history of insanity in the age of reason. New York: Routledge.

  • Frederickson, G. M., & Lasch, C. (1967). Resistance to slavery. Civil War History, 13, 315–329.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gainey, R., & Payne, B. (2000). Understanding the experience of house arrest with electronic monitoring: An analysis of quantitative and qualitative data. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 44(1), 84–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garland, D. (2003). Penal modernism and postmodernism. In T. Blomberg & S. Cohen (Eds.), Punishment and social control (2nd ed., pp. 45–74). New York: Aldine de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glaser, D., & Watts, R. (1992). Electronic monitoring of drug offenders on probation. Judicature, 76(3), 112–117.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goffman, E. (1961). Asylums: Essays on the social situation of mental patients and other inmates. Garden City, NY: Anchor.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gubrium, J. F., & Holstein, J. A. (1990). What is family?. Mountain View, CA: Mayfield Publishing Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gubrium, J. F., & Holstein, J. A. (1995). Qualitative inquiry and the deprivatization of experience. Qualitative Inquiry, 1(2), 204–222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gubrium, J. F., & Holstein, J. A. (Eds.). (2003). Postmodern interviewing. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hacking, I. (2004). Between Michel Foucault and Erving Goffman: Between discourse in the abstract and face-to-face interaction. Economy and Society, 33(3), 277–302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harrison, P. M., & Karberg, J. C. (2003). Prison and Jail Inmates at Midyear 2002, Bureau of Justice Statistics Bulletin. Washington, D.C: U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holman, J. E., & Quinn, J. F. (1992). Dysphoria and electronically monitored home confinement. Journal of Deviant Behavior, 13(1), 21–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jolin, A., & Stipak, B. (1992). Drug treatment and electronically monitored home confinement: An evaluation of a community-based sentencing option. Crime and Delinquency, 38(2), 158–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, M., & Ross, D. (1997). Electronic house arrest and boot camp in North Carolina: Comparing Recidivism. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 8(4), 383–403.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kemshall, H. (2002). Effective practice in probation: An example of ‘advanced liberal’ responsibilisation? Howard Journal of Criminal Justice, 41(1), 41–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klein-Saffran, J. (1992). Electronic monitoring versus halfway houses: A study of federal offenders. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Maryland.

  • Layton MacKenzie, D. (2006). What works in corrections: Reducing the criminal activities of offenders and delinquents. New York: Cambridge University Press.

  • Lee, M. (2007). Inventing fear of crime: Criminology and the politics of anxiety. Devon, UK: Willan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lemke, T. (2002). Foucault, governmentality, and critique. Rethinking Marxism, 14(3), 49–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lilly, J. R., Ball, R. A., Curry, D. G., & McMullen, J. (1993). Electronic monitoring of the drunk driver: A seven-year study of the home confinement alternative. Crime and Delinquency, 39(4), 462–484.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maidment, M. R. (2002). Toward a ‘woman-centered’ approach to community-based corrections: A gendered analysis of electronic monitoring (EM) in Eastern Canada. Women & Criminal Justice, 13(4), 47–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mauer, M., & Chesney-Lind, M. (Eds.). (2002). Invisible punishment: The collateral consequences of mass imprisonment. New York: New Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maxfield, M. G., & Baumer, T. L. (1990). Home detention with electronic monitoring: Comparing pretrial and postconviction programs. Crime and Delinquency, 36(4), 521–536.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mele, C., & Miller, T. A. (2004). Civil penalties, social consequences. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newman, G. (1999). The global report on crime and justice. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Malley, P. (2001). Risk, crime and prudentialism revisited. In K. Stenson & R. Sullivan (Eds.), Crime, risk and justice: The politics of crime control in liberal democracies (pp. 89–103). Devon, UK: Willan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Payne, B. K., & Gainey, R. R. (1998). A qualitative assessment of the pains experienced on electronic monitoring. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 42(2), 149–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Power, E. M. (2004). Toward understanding in postmodern interview analysis: Interpreting the contradictory remarks of a research participant. Qualitative Health Research, 14(6), 858–865.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, G. (2002). Exploring risk management in probation practice: Contemporary developments in England and Wales. Punishment and Society, 4(1), 5–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sandhu, H. S., Dodder, R. A., & Mathur, M. (1993). House arrest: Success and failure rates in residential and nonresidential community-based programs. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 19(1/2), 131–144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sarat, A. (1998). Crossing boundaries: Traditions and transformations in law and society research. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon, J. (1993). From confinement to waste management: The post-modernization of social control. Focus on Legal Studies, 2(4), 6–7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon, J., & Feeley, M. (2003). The forms and limits of the new penology. In T. Blomberg & S. Cohen (Eds.), Punishment and social control (2nd ed., pp. 75–116). New York: Aldine de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Staples, W. G. (1994). Small acts of cunning: Disciplinary practices in contemporary life. The Sociological Quarterly, 35(4), 645–664.

    Google Scholar 

  • Staples, W. G. (2000). Everyday surveillance: Vigilance and visibility in postmodern life. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Staples, W. G. (2005). The everyday world of house arrest: Collateral consequences for families and others. In C. Mele & T. Miller (Eds.), Civil penalties, social consequences (pp. 139–159). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Staples, W. G., & Decker, S. K. (2008). Technologies of the body, technologies of the self: House arrest as Neo-liberal governance. In M. Deflem (Ed.), Surveillance and governance: Crime control today, sociology of crime, law and deviance (Vol. 10, pp. 131–149). Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Sykes, G. M. (1958). The society of captives. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ulmer, J. T. (2001). Intermediate sanctions: A comparative analysis of the probability and severity of recidivism. Sociological Inquiry, 71(2), 164–193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wakeford, J. (1969). The cloistered elite; A sociological analysis of the english public boarding school. New York: Praeger.

    Google Scholar 

  • Warren, C. A. B., & Kivet, D. (2002). Social control in a group home for delinquent boys. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 31(1), 3–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Gary Marx and the anonymous reviewers for their helpful suggestions and Lizette Peter for her editorial assistance.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Sociology, University of Kansas, 1415 Jayhawk Blvd. Room 716, Lawrence, KS, 66045-7556, USA

    William G. Staples & Stephanie K. Decker

Authors
  1. William G. Staples
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Stephanie K. Decker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to William G. Staples.

Appendix #1 Interview Guide

Appendix #1 Interview Guide

  1. 1.

    Is this the first time you have been on House Arrest?

  2. 2.

    How long have you been on House Arrest (this time)?

  3. 3.

    Please describe the conditions of your House Arrest (curfew hours, work/school schedule, etc.)

  4. 4.

    Describe for me what it is like living under house arrest. How do you feel about it?

  5. 5.

    Do you ever feel nervous or anxious on House Arrest?

  6. 6.

    Do you feel “watched” or “controlled” by House Arrest?

  7. 7.

    Are you resentful about it?

  8. 8.

    If you live with someone, do you think they are affected by the monitoring? If yes, How so?

  9. 9.

    Do you think others (family, friends etc.) have become “watchers” of you?

  10. 10.

    “Compare house arrest with being in jail.” How are they similar? Different?

  11. 11.

    Do you have any final thoughts or feeling about your experience with House Arrest that you would like to share?

Optional: How do you feel about the UA’s, drug testing?

Background information: age, married, live with (self, family, etc.), occupation.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Staples, W.G., Decker, S.K. Between the ‘Home’ and ‘Institutional’ Worlds: Tensions and Contradictions in the Practice of House Arrest. Crit Crim 18, 1–20 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10612-009-9089-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10612-009-9089-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation