A new house arrest Bill, which will allow house arrest as an alternative punishment for certain offences, is set to be tabled in Parliament next year.

The matter has piqued the public’s interest, as such an alternative sentence is being considered for the first time.

According to Home Minister Datuk Seri Saifuddin Nasution Ismail, 20,000 offenders will likely qualify for consideration under the new Bill, upon undergoing a vetting process. Among those offenders that qualify for consideration are first-time offenders who did not commit major crimes, pregnant women, senior citizens, and people with disabilities.

House arrest is defined as a legal penalty restricting an individual’s freedom by confining them to their residence instead of a correctional facility. It is often employed as an alternative to incarceration, allowing individuals to remain in their homes while complying with specific legal restrictions. Typically, house arrest only applies to first-time, non-serious, and non-violent offenders.

House arrest helps to limit a person’s ability to commit additional crimes while they await trial or serve a sentence for non-serious and non-violent offences.

By restricting an individual’s movement, house arrest aims to enhance public safety without the need for full incarceration.

It provides a solution to overcrowded prisons, allowing first-time, non-serious, and non-violent offenders to serve their sentences at home.

Moreover, being at home can enable individuals to maintain family ties, work, and engage in rehabilitation programmes, which can aid in their reintegration into society.

Plus, house arrest can be more cost-effective than incarceration, saving public resources.

There are various forms and types of house arrests. However, before implementing any new law regarding house arrest, Malaysia must conduct scientific feasibility studies on this matter.

It is pertinent to understand the types of house arrest.

Total house arrest is where individuals are confined to their homes without the ability to leave, except for specific permitted activities (like medical appointments, work, etc.).

Partial house arrest is where individuals may be allowed limited or restricted movement within certain times or conditions, such as going to work or school.

The use of electronic monitoring involves the use of ankle bracelets or other tracking devices to monitor an individual’s movements and ensure compliance with house arrest terms.

Curfew is another form of house arrest where individuals are required to remain at home during certain hours, typically overnight, while allowing freedom during the day.

Finally, work-release programmes are where individuals may leave home for employment purposes, returning at designated times.

Generally, in civil democratic societies, the types of offenders typically considered eligible for house arrest are often first-time, non-serious, and non-violent offenders.

While individuals convicted of property crimes and those involved in financial/white-collar crimes like fraud and criminal breach of trust do not involve violence, it should be noted that not all financial/white-collar criminals are eligible for house arrest, especially those who have abused taxpayers’ ringgit, and those involved in corruption.

Offenders with no prior criminal history of non-serious and non-violent crimes may be seen as suitable candidates for house arrest to promote rehabilitation and treatment. Others who may be suitable include those involved in minor drug offences, particularly those with substance abuse issues seeking rehabilitation and treatment rather than punishment.

In addition, individuals with serious medical conditions that could be exacerbated by incarceration, and those responsible for dependents, such as children or elderly family members, may also be considered for house arrest to ensure continuity of care. Again, it should only be applicable to first-time, non-serious, and non-violent offenders.

Those offenders who are not considered a flight risk or dangerous to the community and witnesses while awaiting trial may also be eligible for house arrest.

While most juvenile and young offenders may benefit more from house arrest as a means of rehabilitation and treatment, as opposed to incarceration, it would be best to incarcerate them if they were involved in serious and violent crimes.

Based on house arrest laws and policies in other civil democratic societies, there are both strengths and weaknesses.

It is recognised that community integration is an integral part of house arrest. It allows individuals to remain connected to their families and communities, which can promote support systems crucial for rehabilitation and treatment.

It is recommended that individuals under house arrest maintain employment and education, which can contribute to personal development and reduce recidivism.

More importantly, it reduces the financial burden on the justice system and taxpayers compared to housing inmates in prisons.

House arrest as a form of punishment can be tailored accordingly, as it provides a measure of punishment that can be adjusted to fit the severity of the crime and the individual’s circumstances.

There are also enforcement challenges when implementing house arrest. Monitoring compliance can be resource-intensive and may require substantial oversight, especially with electronic monitoring.

Sadly, house arrest may disproportionately affect those with less stable living conditions or supportive environments, leading to unequal outcomes.

It is also acknowledged that being confined to the home can lead to social isolation and mental health issues for some individuals.

Additionally, there is also potential for abuse with house arrest. There may be cases where individuals misuse the privilege of house arrest, posing a risk to public safety.

While house arrest serves as a significant tool in the justice systems of civil democratic societies, there is a need to balance the need for public safety with the potential for rehabilitation and treatment.

While it offers many advantages, it also poses challenges that must be managed carefully to ensure justice and fairness. The effectiveness of house arrest depends on the implementation and monitoring mechanisms in place, as well as the individual circumstances of those subjected to it.

Ultimately, before policies and laws related to house arrest are passed by the Madani government, an in-depth scientific study must be conducted. Only then can policies and laws on house arrest be formulated to serve the needs of the criminal justice system without fear or favour.

Laws and policies on house arrest must be clearly and tightly drafted. There should be no room for any form of abuse, especially favouritism and nepotism. House arrest is a privilege, not a right.

DATUK DR P. SUNDRAMOORTHY
Criminologist
Center for Policy Research
Universiti Sains Malaysia