House Arrest

By Tonjaniq

ue Swaniga

n

Michigan’s Rates of Incapacitation

By the end of 2005, Michigan population consisted of 49,377 inmates. In the year 2010, Michigan’s prison population consisted of 44,113 inmates. Meaning that Michigan’s inmate population decreased by 5,264 within 5 years. (Heyns, 2010)

Michigan’s Increasing Budget

Michigan’s Increasing Budget…

But even though it has decreased, incapacitation is still costing American’s tons of dollars. Having to house a significant number of inmates who are rapidly committing crimes is quite expensive. This is exactly why Michigan’s correctional facilities budget is steadily increasing.

According to the Michigan Department of Corrections 2010 annual budget for Michigan correctional facilities, Michigan’s budget in 2000 was approximately $1.2 billion. The average annual cost for one prisoner from any security levels in 2010 was 33, 822. Within a decade Michigan’s budget have increased to about $1.5 billion. That’s an increase of a little over 3 million dollars just on correctional facilities. Not including a variety of other expenses. (Heyns, 2010)

So how can we cut budget??

Take a Different Approach!!• Alternative incapacitation is a way to

decrease budget that is steadily rising, and help our country save millions of dollars. • House arrest is an effective alternative

to incapacitation. • In this paper I defined and examined in

depth the benefits and problems of house arrest, and explained the impacts house arrest had on recidivism and crime rates.

What is House Arrest??

•“House arrest is a sentence imposed by

the court in which offenders are legally ordered to remain

confined in their own residences.”

Is House Arrest Effective…?

• House arrest is an effective alternative to incapacitation.

• Its now Starting to get more widely used!• By the end of 2010, Michigan itself had

approximately 3,500 inmates on active GPS monitoring, and about 2,500 inmates on other electronic monitoring (Heyns, 2010).

• The recidivism rates and escapes rate are fairly low

• The average percentage of offenders who fails to complete the program is about twenty-five percent, if not less.

• Many offenders who qualifies for house arrest are offenders who committed minor offenses.

Is House Arrest Cost-Effective?

• House arrest can be cost-effective in the sense of not looking at the technological start-up.

• House arrest will cut a good number of expenses such as; the cost of housing per year per inmate, and also reduce the need for expenses to build new correctional facilities.

• Many of the house arrest programs order for the offender to work. Which means that the offender will continue to pay taxes, and sometimes may even have to pay restitution, probation, and/or supervision fees.

• Manufacturers also believe this will decrease welfare expenses, because the offender will be able to work and support his/ her family

• Michigan annual average cost for one offender using an electronic monitor in 2010 cost about $2,400 (Heyns, 2010).

Is House Arrest Cost-Effective?

PROS• Low percentage rate of recidivism.• Helps with overcrowding; Many jurisdictions are

ordering correctional facilities to decrease their inmate population to fix the problem of overcrowding.

• Not only that, but house arrest programs will allow the offender to still be able to work, and cover any expenses they have on their on instead of at the expense of the government.

• It also eliminates the offender, especially first time offenders, to pick up other behaviors while mingling within a prison.

CONS• Questions the safety

of society, and rather it is safe for an convicted felon to interact with the public.

• But one thing that society have to realize is one day most of the inmates that’s incarcerated will have to re-enter society again.