Probationers Sentenced to Home Confinement with Electronic Monitoring: Integrating Individual, System, and Community Concerns

  • Ralph B. Taylor
  • Dorothy K. Kagehiro


We consider the psycholegal implications of probationers sentenced to house confinement with electronic monitoring (HCEM). We set HCEM in context by considering it as a particular variant of intensive-supervision probation (ISP). To date, there has been little psycholegal research on HCEM. We review the potential benefits and costs of HCEM for probationers from the perspective of the individual, the community, and the criminal justice system, mentioning relevant research as available. Case law has concentrated on balancing the needs of the criminal justice system and the rights of the offender. We discuss theories suggesting costs to individuals and communities not yet considered by case law. A framework is needed to permit the joint articulation of community, offender, and system concerns.


Criminal Justice Criminal Justice System Public Safety Electronic Monitoring Social Impact Assessment 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Altman, I. (1975). The environment and social behavior. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.Google Scholar
  2. Anderson, E. (1990, May 13). State using electronic device to monitor prisoners at home. New York Times, p. 12NJ-1.Google Scholar
  3. Ball, R.A., Huff, C.R., & Lilly, J.R. (1988). House arrest and correctional policy: Doing time at home. Google Scholar
  4. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Baumer, T.L., Maxfield, M.G., & Mendelsohn, R.I. (1990, November). A Comparative analysis of three electronically monitored home detention programs. Paper presented at the annual meetings of the American Society of Criminology, Baltimore, MD.Google Scholar
  5. Baumer, T.L., & Mendelsohn, R.I. (in press). Electronically monitored home confinement: Does it work? In J.M. Byrne, & A. Lurigio (Eds.), Smart sentencing: An examination of the emergence of intermediate sanctions. Newbury Park: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  6. Baumer, T.L., Mendelsohn, R.I., & Rhine, C. (1990). Executive summary: The electronic monitoring of nonviolent convicted felons: An experiment in home detention. Indianapolis: Indiana University, School of Public and Environmental Affairs.Google Scholar
  7. Berry, B. (1985). Electronic jails: A new criminal justice concern. Justice Quarterly, 2(1), 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brantingham, P.L., & Brantingham, P.J. (1981). Notes on the geometry of crime. In P.J. Brantingham & P.L. Brantingham (Eds.), Environmental criminology (pp. 27–54). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  9. Byrne, J.M. (1986). The control controversy: A preliminary examination of intensive probation supervision programs in the United States. Federal Probation, 50(2), 4–16.Google Scholar
  10. Carley, M.J. (1983). A review of selected methods. In K. Finsterbusch, L.G. Llewellyn, & C.P. Wolf (Eds.), Social impact assessment methods (pp. 35–54). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  11. Comment (1984). Electronic monitoring of probationers: A step toward Big Brother? Golden State University Law Review, 14, 431–446.Google Scholar
  12. Comment (1987). House arrest: A critical analysis of an intermediate-level penal sanction. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 135, 771–811.Google Scholar
  13. Commonwealth v. Kriston, 568 A.2d 1306 (Pa. Super. 1990).Google Scholar
  14. Commonwealth v. McBride, 433 A.2d 509 (Pa. Super. 1981).Google Scholar
  15. Cullen, F.T., Clark, G.A., & Wozniak, J.F. (1985). Explaining the get tough movement: Can the public be blamed? Federal Probation, 49, 16–24.Google Scholar
  16. Dear Wing Jung v. United States, 312 F.2d 73 (9th Cir. 1962).Google Scholar
  17. del Carmen, R.V., & Vaughn, J.B. (1986). Legal issues in the use of electronic surveillance in probation. Federal Probation, 50(2), 60–69.Google Scholar
  18. Doob, A.N., & Roberts, J. (1988). Discordant images of public sentiments toward criminal sanctions. In N. Walker & M. Hough (Eds.), Public attitudes to sentencing (pp. 111–133). Aldershot, England: Gower.Google Scholar
  19. Drollinger v. Martin, 552 F.2d 1220 (7th Cir. 1977).Google Scholar
  20. Erwin, B.S., & Bennett, L.A. (1987, January). New dimensions in probation: Georgia’s experience with intensive probation supervision (IPS). U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice Research in Brief. Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  21. Finsterbusch, K. (1980). Understanding social impacts: Assessing the effects of public projects. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  22. Ford, D., & Schmidt, A.K. (1985, November). Electronically monitored home confinement. [National Institute of Justice] NIJ Reports (SNI 194). Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  23. Friel, C.M., & Vaughan, J.B. (1986). A consumer guide to the electronic monitoring of probationers. Federal Probation, 50(3), 3–15.Google Scholar
  24. Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778 (1973).Google Scholar
  25. Gottfredson, S.D., & Taylor R.B. (1983). America’s correctional crisis: Prison crowding and public policy. Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  26. Gottfredson, S.D., & Taylor R.B. (1988). Community contexts and criminal offenders. In T. Hope & M. Shaw (Eds.), Communities and crime reduction (pp. 62–83). London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office.Google Scholar
  27. Gottfredson, S.D., Warner, B., & Taylor, R.B. (1988). Conflict and consensus about criminal justice in Maryland. In N. Walker & M. Hough (Eds.), Public attitudes to sentencing (pp. 16–55). Aldershot England: Go wer.Google Scholar
  28. Greenberg, B. (1981). Probation conditions and the First Amendment: When reasonableness is not enough. Columbia Journal of Law and Social Problems, 17, 45–97.Google Scholar
  29. Greenfield, L.A. (1987). Probation and parole, 1985. Washington DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.Google Scholar
  30. Harland, A.T., & Rosen, C.J. (1987). Sentencing theory and intensive supervision probation. Federal Probation, 57(4), 33–42.Google Scholar
  31. Harris v. Pernsley, 699 F. Supp. 1137 (E.D. Pa. 1988).Google Scholar
  32. Hester, T. (1987). Probation and parole in 1986. Washington DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.Google Scholar
  33. Higdon v. United States, 627 F.2d 893 (9th Cir. 1980).Google Scholar
  34. Hyland v. Procunier, 311 F. Supp. 749 (N.D. Cal. 1970).Google Scholar
  35. In re Mannino, 92 Cal. Rptr. 880 (1971).Google Scholar
  36. Inman v. State, 124 Ga. App. 190, 183 S.E.2d 413 (1971).Google Scholar
  37. Kurtz, J. (1989, December 31). New growth in a captive market. New York Times, section 3, p, 12.Google Scholar
  38. Latessa, E.J. (1986). The cost effectiveness of intensive supervision. Federal Probation, 50(2), 70–74.Google Scholar
  39. Lilly, J.R., & Ball, R.A. (1987). A brief history of house arrest and electronic monitoring. Northern Kentucky Law Review, 13, 343–374.Google Scholar
  40. Malcolm, A.H. (1990, February 22). For some felons, signals replace cells. New York Times, p. A-l.Google Scholar
  41. Malone v. United States, 502 F.2d 554 (9th Cir. 1974).Google Scholar
  42. Maxfield, M.G., & Baumer, T.L. (1990). Home detention with electronic monitoring: Comparing pretrial and postconviction programs. Crime & Delinquency, 36, 521–536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Morales v. State, 541 S.W.2d 443 (Tex. Crim. App. 1976).Google Scholar
  44. Morris, N., & Tonry, M. (1990). Between prison and probation. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  45. New Jersey Criminal Disposition Commission. (1987). Crime and the criminal justice system: A public information booklet. Newark, NJ: Author.Google Scholar
  46. Nichols, W. (1980). Mental maps, social characteristics, and mobility. In D. Georges-Abeyie & K.D. Harris (Eds.), Crime: A spatial perspective (pp. 156–166). New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  47. Owens v. Kelly, 681 F.2d 1362 (11th Cir. 1982).Google Scholar
  48. People v. Dominguez, 65 Cal. Rptr. 290 (1967).Google Scholar
  49. People v. Mills, 81 Cal. App.3d 171, 146 Cal. Rptr. 411 (1978).Google Scholar
  50. People v. Norris, 152 Cal. Rptr. 134 (App. Dept. Super. 1978).Google Scholar
  51. Petersilia, (1985). House arrest. National Institute of Justice Crime File Study Guide (NCJ 104559) Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  52. Petersilia, J. & Turner, S. (1990). Intensive supervision for high risk probationers. Santa Monica: Rand.Google Scholar
  53. Pprth v. Templar, 453 F.2d 330 (10th Cir. 1971).Google Scholar
  54. Rengert, G.F. (1989). Spatial justice and criminal victimization. Justice Quarterly, 6(4), 543–564.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Rush, F.L. (1987). Deinstitutional incapacitation: Home detention in pretrial and postconviction contexts. Northern Kentucky Law Review, 13, 375–408.Google Scholar
  56. Schaumberg v. Citizens for a Better Environment, 444 U.S. 620 (1980).Google Scholar
  57. Schmidt, A.K. (1986). Electronic Monitoring. Federal Probation, 50 (2), 55–59.Google Scholar
  58. Schmidt, A.K. (1989, January/February). Electronic monitoring of offenders increases. NIJ Reports (No. 212). Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  59. Schmidt, A.K., & Curtis, C.E. (1987). Electronic monitors. In B.R. McCarthy (Ed.), Intermediate punishments: Intensive supervision, home confinement, and electronic surveillance (pp. 137 – 152). Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press.Google Scholar
  60. Schwitzgebel, R.K. (1969). Development of an electronic rehabilitation system for parolees. Law and Computer Technology, 2, 9–12.Google Scholar
  61. Shaw, C.R., & McKay, H.D. (1942). Juvenile delinqency and urban areas. University of Chicago Press: Chicago.Google Scholar
  62. Shelton v. Tucker, 364 U.S. 479 (1960).Google Scholar
  63. Smith, S.J. (1986). Crime, space, and society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  64. Springer v. United States, 148 F.2d 411 (9th Cir. 1945).Google Scholar
  65. State v. Credeur, 328 So.2d 59 (La. 1976).Google Scholar
  66. State v. Martin, 580 P.2d 536 (Or. Sup. 1978).Google Scholar
  67. Taylor, R.B. (1988). Human territorial functioning. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Thomson, D.R. (1988, June). Discordant images of public sentiments toward criminal sanctions. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Law and Society Association, Denver, CO.Google Scholar
  69. Thomson, D.R., & Ragona, A.J. (1987). Popular moderation versus governmental authoritarianism. Crime and Delinquency, 33, 337–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. United States v. Consuelo-Gonzalez, 521 F.2d 259 (9th Cir. 1975).Google Scholar
  71. United States v. Furukawa, 596 F.2d 921 (9th Cir. 1979).Google Scholar
  72. United States v. Pastore, 537 F.2d 675 (2nd Cir. 1976).Google Scholar
  73. United States v. Pierce, 561 F.2d 735 (9th Cir. 1977).Google Scholar
  74. United States v. Rea, 678 f.2d 382 (2nd Cir. 1982).Google Scholar
  75. United States v. Tonry, 605 F.2d 144 (5th Cir. 1979).Google Scholar
  76. Vaughn, J.B. (1989). A survey of electronic monitoring and home confinement programs. Juvenile and Family Court Journal, 40, 1–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Wish, E.D., Cuadrado, M., & Martorana, J.A. (1986). Estimates of drug use in intensive supervision probationers: Results from a pilot study. Federal Probation, 50(4), 4–16.Google Scholar
  78. Wolf, C.P. (1983). Social impact assessment: A methodological overview. In K. Finsterbusch, L.G. Llewellyn, & C.P. Wolf (Eds.) Social impact assessment methods (pp. 15–34). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  79. Wooley v. Maynard, 430 U.S. 705 (1977).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ralph B. Taylor
  • Dorothy K. Kagehiro

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations