“House Arrest” or “Developmental Arrest”? A Study of Youth Under House Arrest
| Published date | 01 October 2018 |
| Author | Sophie D. Walsh,Elad Chamiel |
| Date | 01 October 2018 |
| DOI | 10.1177/0306624X18779183 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
research-article2018
Article
International Journal of
Offender Therapy and
“House Arrest” or
Comparative Criminology
2018, Vol. 62(14) 4381 –4402
“Developmental Arrest”?
© The Author(s) 2018
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
A Study of Youth Under
https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X18779183
DOI: 10.1177/0306624X18779183
journals.sagepub.com/home/ijo
House Arrest
Elad Chamiel1 and Sophie D. Walsh1
Abstract
Studies have examined the potential benefits and risks of alternative forms of detention,
such as house arrest, for adults but, despite its growing use, little research has examined
the implications of house arrest for juveniles. The current research examined the
experience of 14 adolescents under house arrest. Six main themes were identified
in the narratives of the participants: the experience of detention, daily schedule and
utilization of time, emotions and self-reflection, relationships with peers, relation to
parents and supervisor(s), and contact with professionals. Findings emphasized the
potential developmental dangers of house arrest at the critical stage of adolescence.
Yet, analysis also showed that the period of house arrest has the potential to be a
period of positive changes, and can be used for successful rehabilitation.
Keywords
house arrest, adolescents, development, Israel
The issue of incarceration among juveniles has become an increasingly important issue
around the world. In Israel, in 2015, 43% of all decisions made by the juvenile court
concerned the detention and incarceration of minors (Ministry of Social Affairs and
Social Services, 2016). In addition, in recent years, due to understandings of the poten-
tial dangers and consequences to the individual as a result of incarceration (Crewe,
2011; Irwin & Owen, 2005; Johnson & McGunigall-Smith, 2008; Sykes, 1958), as well
as the many resources that detention and holding facilities require, many countries are
1Department of Criminology, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat Gan, Israel
Corresponding Author:
Sophie D. Walsh, Associate Professor, Department of Criminology, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat Gan
52900, Israel.
Email: walshs@biu.ac.il
4382
International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 62(14)
now choosing to exchange stays in state institutions for alternatives within the com-
munity (Nellis, Beyens, & Kaminski, 2013). However, although several researchers
have addressed the effects that alternative forms of detention and imprisonment have
had on adults (Deuchar, 2011; Gainey & Payne, 2000; Payne & Gainey, 1998;
Vanhaelemeesch, Vander-Beken, & Vandevelde, 2013), there is still a lack of empirical
research into the experience and effects that alternative forms of detention may have on
minors. Adolescence is a specific and critical developmental stage (Erikson, 1950;
McAnarney, 2013) in which the experience of detention and/or its alternatives may
affect normative developmental processes. Policy decisions regarding alternative forms
of detention for adolescents need to be based on understandings of the impact of the
form of alternative detention on this vulnerable population. This study is the first study
to describe the unique experiences and impact that house arrest, one of the most com-
mon forms of alternative detention, has on adolescents.
Imprisonment, Arrest, and Their Effects
Sykes (1958) was the first to coin the term “pains of imprisonment”—as a general title
that includes all the subjective and objective hardships faced by the prisoners over the
course of their incarceration. He describes five separate categories of “pains”: the
deprivation of liberty, the deprivation of goods and services, the deprivation of hetero-
sexual relationships, the deprivation of autonomy, and the deprivation of security.
Other researchers have described additional negative facets of imprisonment: bore-
dom, unemployment, loss of contact with reality, hallucinations, attempts at self-harm
(Gibbs, 1982), loss of life skills, extreme loneliness, humiliation, impaired sense of
self, violation of sexual identity (Irwin & Owen, 2005), and feelings of stress and anxi-
ety alongside other psychological difficulties (Crewe, 2011). Other studies have
described the effect of imprisonment on the prisoner’s relationship with his family (La
Vigne, Naser, Brooks, & Castro, 2005) and the process of acclimatization to incarcera-
tion (Dhami, Ayton, & Loewenstein, 2007).
In addition, the growing number of prisoners creates economic difficulties for the
state, due to high costs of building new prisons, operating prisons, caring for the needs
of prisoners, and employing professional staff members (Nellis et al., 2013). Even
detainees who have not yet been convicted experience many difficulties such as cop-
ing with the initial shock of detention, maintaining their social connections and per-
sonal security, retaining employment over the long period of detention (Gibbs, 1982),
and managing anxieties and adjustment issues (Payne & Gainey, 1998). To alleviate
the possible damages of the detention period and to save on economic costs, there is
an ever-growing use of community-based alternatives, such as house arrest (Nellis
et al., 2013; Payne & Gainey, 2004).
Studies examining the experiences of those under house arrest found that prolonged
stays at home under restrictive conditions have mostly negative consequences
(Deuchar, 2011; Gainey & Payne, 2000; Payne & Gainey, 1998; Vanhaelemeesch
et al., 2013). Payne and Gainey (1998) found that even under alternative forms of
detention, most of the detainees reported feelings similar to Sykes’ (1958) “Pains of
Chamiel and Walsh
4383
Imprisonment,” except for a compromised sense of personal security. Gainey and
Payne (2000) further defined four more categories of negative effects seen in those
under house arrest: economic hardship (high fees incurred for participating in the
house arrest program compared with a stay in a traditional institution where the gov-
ernment bears the cost of incarceration), negative effects on family members, the dif-
ficulty of watching others lead a normal lifestyle, and physical discomfort (such as that
conferred by electronic monitoring devices, which are worn around the ankle).
Other studies have found both positive and negative aspects of alternative forms of
detention or house arrest. The negative aspects include difficulty sleeping, damaged rela-
tionships with family members and friends (Thomas, 1989), and feelings of stress among
those under supervision, which can lead to further criminal offenses (Deuchar, 2011;
Payne & Gainey, 1998). The positive aspects have included the prevention of socializa-
tion with “hardened” criminals in prison (Payne & Gainey, 1998), the maintenance of a
healthy family life, continuing with regular work, allowance for more intensive supervi-
sion and surveillance by the authorities, and enabling integration into a more normative
lifestyle (Gainey & Payne, 2000; Payne & Gainey, 2004; Vanhaelemeesch et al., 2013).
Although there are those who think that house arrest is a lighter and less significant pun-
ishment, it is clear from the reports of the incarcerated themselves that for the vast major-
ity of them, the time during which they were detained at home was experienced as a
grave punishment (Payne & Gainey, 1998; Vanhaelemeesch et al., 2013).
Minors, throughout the period of detention in prison, have been found to face a
significant potential for harm to their well-being including suicide attempts and
attempts at self-harm, threats from fellow inmates, cognitive difficulties, and problems
with adjustment (Shemesh-Didi & Israel-Shalom, 2015). In Israel, as in many coun-
tries, there are several alternatives to classical detention for minors who are undergo-
ing criminal proceedings, a major one being the use of house arrest (Hovav & Achdot,
2014). Yet, few studies have been conducted with adolescents under house arrest, to
understand the implications of this alternative form of detention on minors. Exceptions
of note are Deuchar’s (2011) and Weisburd’s (2015) pivotal studies on the use of elec-
tronic monitoring (EM) on minors under detention, both of whom noted the negative
impact of EM on the young people. However, such studies have focused on the role of
EM in detention of minors. The focus of the current study is house arrest for minors,
without the use of EM, but rather under adult supervision, in general of a family mem-
ber. In Israel, the use of EM for minors is limited, allowing us to explore whether, in
contrast with the studies of Deuchar (2011) and Weisburd (2015), to what extent house
arrest, in and of itself, without EM, can be a potentially developmentally enhancing or
limiting experience.
Detention and House Arrest During Adolescence
Adolescence is a critical developmental period (Arnett, 1999) that bridges the gap
between childhood and adulthood, during which a number of changes take place in
several realms: biological, cognitive, and behavioral (McAnarney, 2013). In addition,
the adolescent is developing his or her value system, and engaged in building an
4384
International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 62(14)
identity (Erickson, 1968) and his or her self-esteem (Kaplan & Sadock, 2007). The
process of adolescence involves a move away from reliance on parental...
To continue reading
Request your trial