Criminologist Dr Haezreena Begum explains that house arrest remains a strict restriction of liberty and represents custody in the community rather than freedom.
PETALING JAYA: A prisoner serving a sentence under house arrest may be at home but is still deprived of liberty and being outside prison walls does not mean being free.
Universiti Malaya Faculty of Law senior lecturer and criminologist Dr Haezreena Begum said house arrest should instead be understood as a form of “custody in the community”, with restrictions on movement, visitors and daily activities still imposed and enforced.
“The important thing is that house arrest is still a restriction of liberty. The person may be at home rather than in prison, but that does not mean that he or she is free.
“The place where the sentence is served has essentially changed.”
Hazereena said the key difference between prison and house arrest was the level and method of control.
“In prison, almost everything is controlled by the prison authorities, for example, where you go, who you meet, when you receive visitors and what you do during the day.
“If the sentence is served at home, then some form of control still has to exist, but it would have to be imposed through conditions on movement, visitors, activities and possibly electronic monitoring.”
She stressed that house arrest was also distinct from parole, under which an offender is allowed to return to the community while remaining under supervision and subject to conditions.
“With house arrest, the basic idea is that the person remains confined to a particular residence and can only leave if the terms of the arrangement allow it.
“So, from a criminological perspective, I would see it as a form of custody in the community rather than simply a release from prison.”
The immediate challenge, however, is determining exactly what a prisoner under house arrest can and cannot do.
“You cannot simply tell someone, ‘You are under house arrest, stay at home.’ There has to be clarity about what the person can and cannot do.”
That could include whether the prisoner can leave for medical treatment, attend religious activities, receive visitors or leave the residence during an emergency.
“There also has to be some way of checking compliance. That could involve regular reporting, visits by supervising officers or electronic monitoring, if there is a proper legal basis for it.”
Malaysia already has experience with restrictions on residence, movement, reporting and electronic monitoring under the Prevention of Crime Act 1959 (Poca), but Hazereena cautioned against treating that regime as equivalent to house arrest for convicted prisoners.
“Poca serves a different purpose – it is preventive legislation and should not be treated as the same thing as a convicted prisoner serving a sentence under house arrest.”
The Attorney-General has said the Prisons Department is expected to issue standard operating procedures covering visitation, control and monitoring of movements under the house arrest arrangement.