Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Handbook of Psychology and Law pp 489–506Cite as

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

  • Chapter

  • 297 Accesses

Abstract

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.

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

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Altman, I. (1975). The environment and social behavior. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, E. (1990, May 13). State using electronic device to monitor prisoners at home. New York Times, p. 12NJ-1.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Berry, B. (1985). Electronic jails: A new criminal justice concern. Justice Quarterly, 2(1), 1–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Comment (1984). Electronic monitoring of probationers: A step toward Big Brother? Golden State University Law Review, 14, 431–446.

    Google Scholar 

  • Comment (1987). House arrest: A critical analysis of an intermediate-level penal sanction. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 135, 771–811.

    Google Scholar 

  • Commonwealth v. Kriston, 568 A.2d 1306 (Pa. Super. 1990).

    Google Scholar 

  • Commonwealth v. McBride, 433 A.2d 509 (Pa. Super. 1981).

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Dear Wing Jung v. United States, 312 F.2d 73 (9th Cir. 1962).

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Drollinger v. Martin, 552 F.2d 1220 (7th Cir. 1977).

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Finsterbusch, K. (1980). Understanding social impacts: Assessing the effects of public projects. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Friel, C.M., & Vaughan, J.B. (1986). A consumer guide to the electronic monitoring of probationers. Federal Probation, 50(3), 3–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778 (1973).

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Greenfield, L.A. (1987). Probation and parole, 1985. Washington DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harland, A.T., & Rosen, C.J. (1987). Sentencing theory and intensive supervision probation. Federal Probation, 57(4), 33–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harris v. Pernsley, 699 F. Supp. 1137 (E.D. Pa. 1988).

    Google Scholar 

  • Hester, T. (1987). Probation and parole in 1986. Washington DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Higdon v. United States, 627 F.2d 893 (9th Cir. 1980).

    Google Scholar 

  • Hyland v. Procunier, 311 F. Supp. 749 (N.D. Cal. 1970).

    Google Scholar 

  • In re Mannino, 92 Cal. Rptr. 880 (1971).

    Google Scholar 

  • Inman v. State, 124 Ga. App. 190, 183 S.E.2d 413 (1971).

    Google Scholar 

  • Kurtz, J. (1989, December 31). New growth in a captive market. New York Times, section 3, p, 12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Latessa, E.J. (1986). The cost effectiveness of intensive supervision. Federal Probation, 50(2), 70–74.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Malcolm, A.H. (1990, February 22). For some felons, signals replace cells. New York Times, p. A-l.

    Google Scholar 

  • Malone v. United States, 502 F.2d 554 (9th Cir. 1974).

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morales v. State, 541 S.W.2d 443 (Tex. Crim. App. 1976).

    Google Scholar 

  • Morris, N., & Tonry, M. (1990). Between prison and probation. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • New Jersey Criminal Disposition Commission. (1987). Crime and the criminal justice system: A public information booklet. Newark, NJ: Author.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Owens v. Kelly, 681 F.2d 1362 (11th Cir. 1982).

    Google Scholar 

  • People v. Dominguez, 65 Cal. Rptr. 290 (1967).

    Google Scholar 

  • People v. Mills, 81 Cal. App.3d 171, 146 Cal. Rptr. 411 (1978).

    Google Scholar 

  • People v. Norris, 152 Cal. Rptr. 134 (App. Dept. Super. 1978).

    Google Scholar 

  • Petersilia, (1985). House arrest. National Institute of Justice Crime File Study Guide (NCJ 104559) Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Petersilia, J. & Turner, S. (1990). Intensive supervision for high risk probationers. Santa Monica: Rand.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pprth v. Templar, 453 F.2d 330 (10th Cir. 1971).

    Google Scholar 

  • Rengert, G.F. (1989). Spatial justice and criminal victimization. Justice Quarterly, 6(4), 543–564.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rush, F.L. (1987). Deinstitutional incapacitation: Home detention in pretrial and postconviction contexts. Northern Kentucky Law Review, 13, 375–408.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schaumberg v. Citizens for a Better Environment, 444 U.S. 620 (1980).

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, A.K. (1986). Electronic Monitoring. Federal Probation, 50 (2), 55–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, A.K. (1989, January/February). Electronic monitoring of offenders increases. NIJ Reports (No. 212). Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Schwitzgebel, R.K. (1969). Development of an electronic rehabilitation system for parolees. Law and Computer Technology, 2, 9–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shaw, C.R., & McKay, H.D. (1942). Juvenile delinqency and urban areas. University of Chicago Press: Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shelton v. Tucker, 364 U.S. 479 (1960).

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, S.J. (1986). Crime, space, and society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Springer v. United States, 148 F.2d 411 (9th Cir. 1945).

    Google Scholar 

  • State v. Credeur, 328 So.2d 59 (La. 1976).

    Google Scholar 

  • State v. Martin, 580 P.2d 536 (Or. Sup. 1978).

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, R.B. (1988). Human territorial functioning. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Thomson, D.R., & Ragona, A.J. (1987). Popular moderation versus governmental authoritarianism. Crime and Delinquency, 33, 337–357.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • United States v. Consuelo-Gonzalez, 521 F.2d 259 (9th Cir. 1975).

    Google Scholar 

  • United States v. Furukawa, 596 F.2d 921 (9th Cir. 1979).

    Google Scholar 

  • United States v. Pastore, 537 F.2d 675 (2nd Cir. 1976).

    Google Scholar 

  • United States v. Pierce, 561 F.2d 735 (9th Cir. 1977).

    Google Scholar 

  • United States v. Rea, 678 f.2d 382 (2nd Cir. 1982).

    Google Scholar 

  • United States v. Tonry, 605 F.2d 144 (5th Cir. 1979).

    Google Scholar 

  • Vaughn, J.B. (1989). A survey of electronic monitoring and home confinement programs. Juvenile and Family Court Journal, 40, 1–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Wooley v. Maynard, 430 U.S. 705 (1977).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors
  1. Ralph B. Taylor
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Dorothy K. Kagehiro
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. 19130, Philadelphia, PA, USA

    Dorothy K. Kagehiro

  2. Department of Legal Studies, Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, 19104-6369, Philadelphia, PA, USA

    William S. Laufer

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1992 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Taylor, R.B., Kagehiro, D.K. (1992). Probationers Sentenced to Home Confinement with Electronic Monitoring: Integrating Individual, System, and Community Concerns. In: Kagehiro, D.K., Laufer, W.S. (eds) Handbook of Psychology and Law. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4757-4038-7_24

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4757-4038-7_24

  • Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4757-4040-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4757-4038-7

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation