In its context, home confinement with electronic monitoring was at first seen as an effective method of denying freedom to the convicted offenders. However, in actual sense, this form of technology has failed to deliver on its promises for a number of reasons. Electronic monitoring is faced with serious administrative and technical challenges. In some cases, the signal is likely to be disrupted by issues such as constructions. In addition, a report by the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) observed that, the EM system can end up triggering a false sense of security that does not pay attention to the chances of the offenders interfering with the gadget or some simple mechanical problems. In that regard, the justice system is faced with a new problem of failure by the electronic monitoring. It fails in detecting any violations on parole or probation conditions, and in most cases, the offenders are taken back to prison. In that regard, one can conclude that, home confinement with electronic monitoring is not a deterrent.
Numerous cons are associated with confinement to one’s home. Firstly, home confinement deprives the offender some human contact and thus it can turn out to be a solitary confinement. At the same time, the offender losses civil liberties, and is always put under warrantless searches, drug tests, and privacy is not a guarantee.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The types of people that should be on home confinement are the less violent and low-risk offenders. The offender should have been sentenced in a jail within the county. They should have access to a residence within the county of conviction. The other requirement of an individual who should be in home confinement is having a phone that one can use while in the residence. The offender is subjected to home confinement on condition that they have met all the afore-listed condition and can afford it.
