The home detention between welfare needs and control requests: A case study in Campania

Journal title WELFARE E ERGONOMIA
Author/s Andrea Procaccini
Publishing Year 2025 Issue 2024/2
Language Italian Pages 16 P. 89-104 File size 83 KB
DOI 10.3280/WE2024-002007
DOI is like a bar code for intellectual property: to have more infomation click here

Below, you can see the article first page

If you want to buy this article in PDF format, you can do it, following the instructions to buy download credits

Article preview

FrancoAngeli is member of Publishers International Linking Association, Inc (PILA), a not-for-profit association which run the CrossRef service enabling links to and from online scholarly content.

Over the past fifteen years, Italian legislators have been consistently seeking to expand access to alternative measures to detention to mitigate the issue of prison overcrowding. This new phase in Italy’s probation system is characterized not only by a quantitative increase in the number of beneficiaries, but also by a profound qualitative shift. Indeed, in Italy, as in the rest of Europe, the rise in the number of beneficiaries appears to have generated a “net widening” effect, as it has not reduced the growth of the prison population. In this context, the evolution of home detention becomes emblematic: it represents the measure with the least rehabilitative content and the most evident deflationary impact on the penal system. No longer statistically marginal, home detention is now assigned to approximately one-third of those in the probation system. This study is therefore motivated by the opportunity to explore the needs of home detention beneficiaries, providing insights and empirical evidence that could enhance the understanding of professionals working in this area. The experiences of individuals serving sentences under home detention are examined through a qualitative methodology. This paper presents the initial findings of a study conducted on a sample of individuals under home detention, monitored by the UEPE agency in Campania (15 participants). The sample encompasses a degree of heterogeneity with respect to various sociodemographic and legal variables (including those entering directly from freedom or from incarceration). In-depth interviews with detainees address multiple facets of their condition, including the punitive nature of home detention, relationships with family members, daily time management, imposed conditions, police supervision, interactions with social workers and plans for the future.

Keywords: probation; home detention; prison overcrowding; mass supervision; prison; rehabilitation.

  1. Aebi M.F., Cocco E., and Hashimoto Y.Z. (2022). Probation and Prisons in Europe, 2022: Key Findings of the SPACE reports. Council of Europe and University of Lausanne: Series UNILCRIM 2022/4.
  2. Cale J. and Burton M. (2018). Factors associated with breaches of home detention and returns to custody post-home detention in South Australia. Current Issues in Criminal Justice, 30(1): 35-56. DOI: 10.1080/10345329.2018.12036106
  3. Di Gennaro G., a cura di (2018). La messa alla prova per i minori: la rassegnazione “entusiasta” di una normativa incompleta. Una ricerca nel distretto giudiziario di Napoli. Milano: FrancoAngeli.
  4. Durnescu I. (2011). Pains of probation: Effective practice and human rights. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 55(4): 530-545. DOI: 10.1177/0306624X10369489
  5. Gallo Z. (2017). La dualità della penalità italiana. Studi sulla questione criminale, 1: 137-150. DOI: 10.7383/87657
  6. Gainey R.R. and Payne B.K. (2000). Understanding the Experience of House Arrest with Electronic Monitoring: An Analysis of Quantitative and Qualitative Data. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 44(1): 84-96. DOI: 10.1177/0306624X00441008
  7. Goffman E. (2018). Stigma. Note sulla gestione dell'identità degradata. Verona: Ombrecorte.
  8. Manconi L. e Torrente G. (2013). Clemenza e recidiva: il caso del provvedimento di indulto del 2006. Rassegna Italiana di Sociologia, 4: 539-568. DOI: 10.1423/76019
  9. McNeill F. (2019). Mass Supervision, Misrecognition and the “Malopticon”’. Punishment & Society, 21: 207-30. DOI: 10.1177/1462474518755137
  10. Ministero della Giustizia (2024). Adulti in area penale esterna - Dati territoriali per regione - Anni 2014-2023. -- Testo disponibile al sito: https://www.giustizia.it/giustizia/it/mg_1_14_1.page?contentId=SST1404177.
  11. Pavarini M. e Ferrari L. (2015). No Prisons. Ovvero il fallimento del carcere. Soveria Mannelli: Rubbettino.
  12. Petersilia J. (2003). When Prisoners Come Home: Parole and Prisoner Reentry. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  13. Phelps M.S. (2013). The paradox of probation: community supervision in the age of mass incarceration. Law Policy, 35(1-2): 51-80.
  14. Procaccini A. (2023). Le misure di Probation dopo la riforma Cartabia: buone, ma complicate intenzioni. SOCIOLOGIA, 1: 62-71.
  15. Richter M., Ryser B. e Hostettler U. (2021). Punitiveness of electronic monitoring: Perception and experience of an alternative sanction. European Journal of Probation, 13(3): 262-281. DOI: 10.1177/20662203211038489
  16. Scalia V. (2021). La riforma Cartabia tra controllo sociale e diritti. -- Testo disponibile al sito: https://studiquestionecriminale.wordpress.com/2021/08/03/la-riforma-cartabia-tra-controllo-sociale-e-diritti/.
  17. Scivoletto C., Mantovani F. e Manella G. (2020). La messa alla prova per l’imputato maggiorenne: Una ricerca in Emilia-Romagna. Studi di Sociologia, 2: 143-158. DOI: 10.26350/000309_000090
  18. Sykes G.M. (2004). La società dei detenuti. Studio su un carcere di massima sicurezza. In: Santoro E., a cura di, Carcere e società liberale. Torino: Giappichelli.
  19. Tidmarsh M. (2022). A pedagogy of ‘public criminology’ as a counter to marginality? Lessons for community sanctions and measures from the Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Probation Journal, 70(2): 179-198. DOI: 10.1177/02645505221105394
  20. Tonry M. and Lynch M. (1996). Intermediate Sanctions. Crime&Justice, 20: 99-144. DOI: 10.1086/449242

Andrea Procaccini, La detenzione domiciliare tra bisogni di welfare e istanze di controllo: un caso di studio in Campania in "WELFARE E ERGONOMIA" 2/2024, pp 89-104, DOI: 10.3280/WE2024-002007