Contemporary Home Detention Based Sanctions (HDBS), which utilise electronic monitoring (EM) technology, became first available in the 1980s in the United States of America (USA). While the development and expansion of contemporary HDBS throughout the world has taken place over the last three decades (1982-2013) with varied success, relatively little is known about their comparative rationale, implementation and operation. The employment of comparative historical scholarship in this study of HDBS has allowed the researcher to identify and examine the similarities and differences in the development, operation and outcomes of HDBS over time (last three decades, that is, from 1982 to 2013) and place (the USA and Australia). More broadly, the evolution of the HDBS frameworks in this research has been divided into three ideologically distinguishable phases. The early phase of HDBS in the USA and Australia occurred from 1840s until the 1960s. Following this, the middle phase of HDBS occurred in the USA and Australia from the 1960s to 1970s. It comprised five converging factors. This culminated in a ‘correctional disillusion’ that led to governments’ decisions to introduce the late phase of HDBS, which has been operational over the last three decades (1982-2013). The late phase of HDBS in the USA commenced with the implementation of intermediate sanctions, comprising of HDBS with Radio Frequency (RF) in the 1980s. In the mid-2000s, however, the expansion of sex offender post-release supervision laws and the development of electronically monitored Global Positioning Systems (GPS) technology led to utilisation HDBS for serious sex offenders. The last three decades of evaluative research about HDBS with RF have generally indicated problematic operational outcomes as well as significant ethical and political and stakeholder issues and dilemmas. On the other hand, HDBS with GPS have been operationally successful, although studies assessing some of their ethical and overall political and stakeholder issues and dilemmas have been lacking. The late phase of HDBS with RF in Australia also started in the 1980s. HDBS with GPS entered the correctional arena after 2000 in very similar circumstances to the USA. The last three decades of evaluative research of HDBS with RF have generally found that these sanctions have achieved their anticipated operational results, but have encompassed significant ethical and particularly political and stakeholder issues and dilemmas. Research assessing the operational outcomes, ethical and political and stakeholder issues and dilemmas of HDBS with GPS is still inadequate, and it is imperative that such research is conducted in the future. The predicted future trajectory of HDBS in both the USA and Australia is increased sanction application. The future viability and outcomes of HDBS in both nation states are however dependent on whether policy makers and/or correctional administrators, with the support of governments, improve the operation of HDBS by implementing the lessons learnt based on the evidence of best practice. If the jurisdictions within the USA and Australia implement the specific lessons learnt relevant to their own problematic areas of HDBS’ operation, the application of these sanctions will become more effective
