NCJ Number
206822
Journal
Crime Prevention and Community Safety: An International Journal Volume: 6 Issue: 3 Dated: 2004 Pages: 57-64
Date Published
2004
Length
8 pages
Annotation
This study evaluated the operation and impact of home detention in New Zealand during its first 3 years, 1999 through 2002.
Abstract
During the late 1990’s, the political climate in New Zealand favored increased punitiveness toward offenders, translating into tougher post-imprisonment requirements. Thus, in October of 1999, home detention was introduced through an amendment to the Criminal Justice Act 1985 even though a home detention scheme had been unsuccessfully piloted in New Zealand in the mid-1990’s. The current home detention scheme is officially described as a means of successfully reintegrating offenders back into their communities or as a means of diverting certain offenders from imprisonment (i.e. offenders sentenced to up to 2 years). Since its inception, over 3,900 prisoners have been released to home detention; drug-related offenders, property offenders, and non-serious violent offenders are more likely to be placed on home detention than any other type of offender. The average length of home detention orders has been 13 weeks; the level of contact between offender and probation officers varies immensely, although the program calls for intensive supervision. Finally, five elements were found to play a key role in the successful completion of home detention orders: (1) the ability of detainees to keep themselves busy; (2) the determination of detainees to abide by the rules of home detention; (3) the capacity of detainees to plan for their future; (4) the recognition by detainees of the negative impacts of their crimes; and (5) access to other support systems and people outside of the home. Implications of the findings in terms of service delivery are considered. Ultimately, the validity of the home detention scheme needs to be challenged since its long-term effectiveness on recidivism has yet to be discovered and its use for relatively low-risk offenders may be problematic. Notes, references