Kevin McMahon
CCJS 330 4:30 class
Home detention seems to be a very necessary thing in today’s society. Crime rates are either rising or staying steady in most areas; at the same time longer prison sentences are being handed out. This leads to more prison overcrowding issues. There is less and less space in public prisons and more and more public demand for lower taxes. These two issues combine to form a very interesting problem. We now have criminals that need to be dealt with and at the same time we do not have the money to build prisons to house them. One method used extensively by judges in this county is home detention.
Home detention is done to a small degree by the government itself, and to a large degree by private entrepreneurs. Criminals (or suspects awaiting trial) are left under the supervision of these firms to ensure that they either stay in their homes, or go nowhere but home and work. The criminals pay money (roughly $250 per month) directly to the security firm. It seems like a win-win situation; taxpayers save money and are criminals are monitored. There are a several problems with the system the way it is set up right now.
One major obstacle is the inborn conflict of interest that the firms introduce. Since they are paid for each individual that they monitor, there is no incentive for them to turn in a rulebreaker for then they lose their income. There needs to be a system in place that allows for them to have some incentive for actually being meticulous about their “clients”.
Another impediment is two fold. Since the firms are not under any kind of contract with the government for their services, there are no minimum standards to which they need to adhere. This creates the opportunity for the criminal to shop around and find the firm that is least restrictive in nature. This will force the quality monitoring services out of business. The government needs to put these firms under strict contracts and also specify the minimum requirements for thoroughness. As John Kent said, “If we were all on a level playing field, then that would be great for us and great for the public.”
Another impediment to a successful program is that there is no external monitoring at all. There is no one keeping even a minimally watchful eye on these companies. There needs to be some government agency that keeps tabs on company records for losing track of inmates; also they need to keep an eye on what inmates commit more crimes while still on house arrest.
Several judges in Prince George’s county “routinely” order violent suspects into home monitoring programs. This should be done away with immediately. There is no reason to put a violent offender back on the streets until he has fully served his time. Home tracking does not, can not, and will not, ever, offer enough security to ensure that a violent offender will not become violent again and possibly hurt another innocent victim while they are still serving time for the last one. It is bad if a non-violent offender manages to repeat his property crime while on house arrest, but property can be replaced; that is, in some instances, an okay trade-off to make to save money on jails. We can not justify the same trade-off when it comes to life.
According to a recent article in the Washington Post, new regulations requiring the licensing and monitoring of detention firms went into effect on July 1 of this year. Unfortunately, one of the same firms blasted I the original article was again implicated after the new regulations went into effect. In a two month span, Home Tracking Inc. Lost track of it’s clients 625 times. The other five firms combined only lost track of their clients ten times. Home Tracking Inc. still has a license to operate, so obviously more needs to be done.
Bibliography
Pan, Philip P. “The Limits of Home Detention.”
Whitlock, Craig. “Detention Firm has MD’s Most Violations.”
Home Outdoors
Various School Projects Rat Babies Wacky
Test Results Contact Kevin McMahon