Undang-undang tahanan rumah perlu peraturan jelas, pengawasan kehakiman

The proposed House Arrest Act should be seen as part of a broader judicial system reform, not merely a solution to prison overcrowding, according to previous government statements. The aim of the proposal is to address overcrowding issues, especially considering that detainees with serious crimes are not taken into account. Malaysia currently has around 93,000 detainees compared to the prison capacity of approximately 75,000.

This explains the basis of the proposal, but the legislation needs to be clarified sufficiently to ensure that house arrest is not another form of inconsistent or discretionary punishment. The first step is to clearly define in the legislation who is eligible. The act should specifically state the categories that can be considered, rather than providing too broad a discretion to the executive or prison authorities.

Eligibility can be determined based on various factors, including the type and severity of the offense, sentence length, prior criminal record, risk assessment of re-offending, behavior while in detention, escape risk, suitability of living arrangements, and willingness to comply with electronic monitoring and other conditions. More importantly, eligibility should be based on clear and unambiguous legal criteria decided by a court and not solely based on administrative discretion.

The exact definition of serious crimes should also be stated in the legislation. Simply excluding serious offenders from the list risks opening the door to overly broad interpretation. The act should have a specific list of categories of offenses that are automatically ineligible, subject to parliamentary review. It should include serious murder, attempted murder, serious sexual offenses, grave offenses against children, kidnapping, serious violence, serious planning offenses, and serious combined violent offenses.

Those convicted of serious violent offenses should not be eligible for house arrest, especially if they still pose a risk to victims or society. The legislation should distinguish between the seriousness of an offense and the risk posed by an individual offender. Two individuals sentenced to the same maximum penalty for the same offense do not necessarily have the same risk level.

Therefore, a well-structured system requires independent risk assessment considering the potential for re-offending, re-offending, escape, assisting in another crime, planning future crimes, and previous compliance record. House arrest should not be automatically granted merely because an offender falls into a category of eligible offenses.

The experience of other countries can provide guidance in creating appropriate protection. In New Zealand, house arrest is a court-ordered sentence and is commonly used for offenders who are unlikely to be sentenced to short prison terms. Assessments are also conducted on the offender and the suggested accommodation. Electronic monitoring is mandatory, while the suggested accommodation must be proven suitable.

Random electronic checks are required, and the offender must be granted permission to leave the accommodation only under certain conditions. Non-compliance can lead to re-arrest. New Zealand also has a special oversight mechanism for individuals assessed as still at risk of committing serious sexual or violent offenses. This shows that electronic monitoring should not be considered a substitute for comprehensive risk management.

Australia also offers useful lessons. In New South Wales, the *Reintegration Home Detention* scheme functions as a closely monitored transition process between prison and parole. Most importantly, its legislation excludes life sentences, sexual offenders, high-risk violent offenders, and individuals convicted of serious violent or gang offenses.

Tasmania requires approved accommodation, electronic monitoring, and strict compliance with conditions. Police or probation officers are authorized to enter and inspect the designated accommodation. Canada's experience also highlights the importance of clearly defining specific exemptions in the legislation. Sentences often described as "house arrest" are subject to legal constraints, including serious offenses causing bodily harm, violence, and some categories of serious planning offenses.

The basic principle is clear - house arrest should not be granted solely because a prison is overcrowded. Public safety and ensuring punishment is commensurate with the offense must remain the main considerations. For Malaysia, electronic monitoring should be mandatory for anyone ordered to house arrest, not just a choice for everyone.

Possible conditions for the court to impose include electronic GPS monitoring, random physical checks, movement restrictions, restrictions on contacting victims or accomplices, restrictions on internet or communication use if relevant to the offense, drug or alcohol testing if applicable, and compulsory attendance in rehabilitation programs.

Strong safeguards are also needed to prevent misuse for political or administrative reasons. Neither ministers, prison authorities, nor any executive body should have unlimited power to determine who can serve house arrest. The legislation should set objective criteria, requiring justification for the order.