PETALING JAYA: House arrests can tackle overcrowded prisons, say experts and lawyers, but they warned that it should not be used as a get-out-of-jail clause for serious white-collar criminals.
House arrests would also prevent those convicted of petty crimes, such as drunk driving or shoplifting, from being influenced by hardened criminals such as gang members, murderers and rapists while in prison, they said.
Such alternative sentencing could also help reintegrate criminals back into society provided that they are properly supervised by correctional officers, the experts added.
“House arrest is a complex and nuanced form of punishment that offers a middle ground between complete incarceration and controlled freedom,” said former Bar Council president Salim Bashir.
House arrests are cost-effective and similar to reformatory sentencing, where offenders remain under prison supervision while reintegrating them into society, he said.
“The government should conduct detailed studies on the intricacies of the proposed law to ensure confidence and fair equilibrium of justice to the offender and society,” added Salim, a practising lawyer.
Another lawyer, Andrew Khoo, said house arrests should not be available to those convicted of serious white-collar crimes, such as corporate figures, civil servants and politicians.
“Just as we don’t want violent offenders to serve out their sentences at home, likewise it should not be used for people who have been convicted of corruption, abuse of power, money-laundering, criminal breach of trust, and people-smuggling.”
Their views followed Home Minister Datuk Seri Saifuddin Nasution Ismail’s announcement yesterday that a Bill allowing for house arrests as an alternative to imprisonment is being drafted and would be tabled in Parliament next year.
Once passed, courts would be able to hand out house arrests as an alternative form of sentencing, according to a Bernama report.
Offenders would be required to stay at designated places of detention, such as a residential home, care facility or workers’ dormitory, throughout their detention period.
Another lawyer, Haniff Khatri Abdulla, said the main benefit of house arrest would be to reduce overcrowding in prisons.
In January, Prisons Department director-general Datuk Seri Nordin Muhamad said that there were about 75,000 inmates in prisons across the nation, despite having capacity for only 71,000.
Haniff said that the impact of the house arrest law could be comparable to the one that permitted community service as an alternative form of sentencing.
“Community service helped reintegrate offenders into society by getting them to work at care homes, for instance,” said Haniff Khatri, adding that house arrest should only be available for minor offences.
“If a person had an income, prison would rob him and his family of that income. House arrest could allow him the ability to go to work and earn an income, but after his shift he is confined to his house.
“Similarly, punishing mat rempit (illegal motorcycle racers) with house arrest will prevent them from mixing with hardened criminals in prison while ensuring that they remain off the streets,” said Haniff Khatri.
“Any policy that can help society is always welcomed. But the government should circulate this proposal first to get feedback to strengthen it.”
