About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

50 Fed. Probation 142 (1986)
Exploring the Option of House Arrest

handle is hein.journals/fedpro50 and id is 144 raw text is: Exploring the Option of House Arrest BY JOAN PETERSILIA Senior Researcher, The Rand Corporation, Santa Monica, California Introduction N DECEMBER 1985, Maureen Murphy was sentenced by a Federal judge in New York to house arrest. The rarity of this sentence in U.S. criminal justice is suggested by the judge's remarks: The sentencing of Maureen Murphy requires, in the court's opinion, a sentence not heretofore used in this District and almost never used in the country in the federal court. It is used elsewhere in the world and is considered by some to be highly objectionable. The difference, however, is that in other countries it is used to repress political dis- sent and before trial. Here it will be used after a full trial where the defendant has been found guilty of a serious offense. The penalty is house arrest.1 With that pronouncement, Judge Weinstein ordered Ms. Murphy to remain in her apartment for the next 2 years. She is allowed to leave her apartment only for medical reasons, employment, religious services, or to conduct essential food shopping. If she violates these con- ditions, the probation department is ordered to commit her to prison, where she will be required to serve out her suspended (not cancelled) prison term. Ms. Murphy was not a minor offender. She was con- victed of a large insurance fraud and faced a maximum 50 years in prison and $50,000 fine for her crimes. In most instances, the Federal court would have imposed at least a year in custody. What motivated Judge Weinstein to make such an im- portant departure from traditional sentencing practice? Judge Weinstein says he was trying to balance the com- peting aims of public safety, humaneness, and accountability-against a backdrop of seriously crowded prisons. Probation didn't seem like enough for this 35-year old woman who willfully committed a major theft. On the other hand, prison for this relatively young person with no prior criminal record seemed too severe and would help destroy her. Given those conditions, he felt an alternative punishment was essential. Judge Weinstein and a growing number of his col- leagues are searching for reasonable middle-range sen- tencing options-programs tougher than probation but less harsh (and less expensive) than prison. Variations on the theme include intensive probation supervision, shock I From Judge Jack Weinstein's Sentencing Memorandum in the Maureen Murphy case (United States District Court, Eastern District of New York, December 1985). 2 Rand conducted a mail survey entitled Innovations in Probation which was com- pleted by 120 chief probation officers in fall, 1985. These particular individuals were selected to represent a nationwide sample of chiefs from large counties. Followup telephone interviews were conducted with about 50 of these persons who reported operating particularly innovative surveilance-oriented programs, including house arrest. In addition, the chiefs recommended others in parole or the private sector who operated similar programs. Complete results of this survey., sponsored by the Edna McConnell Clark Foundation, will be published in fall, 1986. While house arrest could be used pretrial, our discussion is limited to its use for con- victed felons, either as a condition of probation or parole, a direct sentence, or a condition of release after some period of incarceration (e.g., on work-release from jail). incarceration, community diversion centers, police- probation surveillance teams, community sponsors, and, increasingly, house arrest. Florida has the most ambitious house arrest program in the country, with more than 4,750 inmates locked up in their residence. As one Florida judge put it: If the State can't afford to provide constitutionally accept- able prison space for all those who deserve it, why not utilize the offender's home instead? It may well be that the best place for a convicted offender, given current prison conditions, may be confined to his own home. Many in the judiciary are echoing similar thoughts, and house arrest programs are beginning to spread not only in the Federal system but in state and local correc- tions as well. A recent survey of Innovations in Proba- tion shows that several states-including Oklahoma, Alabama, Connecticut, Delaware, Indiana, Georgia, Texas, and South Carolina-currently operate state-run home detention programs. Similar programs exist at the county level in several others. In total, 30 states are im- plementing some form of house arrest program, and a dozen more are planning programs to be implemented in the next year.2 This article summarizes the characteristics of house ar- rest programs and discusses their advantages and several important unresolved issues. It concludes by noting that probation's long-term survival may well depend on whether it succeeds in implementing house arrest and other intensive surveillance programs. If it can adapt its methods of supervision and service to deal with higher risk offenders in the community, probation may well find itself back in favor with the public and again the center of modern corrections policy. Characteristics of House Arrest While the goal of house arrest is easily under- stood-to restrict freedom-the mechanisms used to con- fine an offender to his home vary considerably. In some instances, curfews are simply added on to the offender's court-ordered parole or probation conditions.3 Typi- cally, offenders participating in an intensive probation supervision program are required to be in their residence during the evening hours and on weekends. For exam- ple, evening curfews are mandatory for participants in Georgia's intensive probation program. While curfews permit individual freedom in the community except for particular hours, more direct home incarceration pro- grams totally restrict the offenders freedom in all but court approved limited activities. The latter is much more intrusive than the former.

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most