Slashdot Mirror
GPS-Enabled Criminals In Massachusetts
Fun at LinuxWorld writes "Following on the heels of California's plan to put GPS receivers in cars, Massachusetts wants to fit criminals who violation restraining orders with GPS devices. Wearing the device would be a condition of probation (meaning you can refuse, but then you get to serve your time in jail), and fines and punishments would be imposed if the person entered "restricted zones" (under the terms of the restraining order). With all the reports of GPS being used to restrict the rights of innocent people, is this any better? Will it fix the problem?"
It's called low-jack and onstar. They already do this. The problem with making it mandatory is that people do not want the police to be able to find the car unless the victim so chooses. With low-jack and onstar, the victim has to give the permision for low-jack and onstar to tell the police where the car is. With it in by default, the police may not need anything in order to track you, and it may be made illegal to disable it in your own car (insert big brother concerns here). Additionally, making it mandatory would probably increase the cost by several hundred dollars (not a small amount, even on a 20K car). For now, it remains an accessory or luxury item.
Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
the timeframe on probation can exceed the remaining time on sentance...
choice 1- get out in 5 years, choice 2- get out now-but have 15 years probation.
in some rare cases, time served+ probation can exceed maximum penalty time serverd-for an offense....
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
They are talking about people who violate restraining orders here. The vast majority of those cases involve domsetic violence. You're arguement might be appropriate in another discussion, but it's a bit off topic for this one.
Now, if you fundamentally disagree with the criminal justice system or "the Man" in general, then you'll likely disagree with this just for the sake of it.
Two days in a row of trolling from you. All your posts are the same crap rehashed. You propose a trollish question (calling slashdotters "latent luddites in the normally pro-tech slashdot community") and then you give some stupid opinion under the guise of you standing back and having nothing to do w/the argument that will ensue.
In the future state and opinion or a fact. Do not state your boring and open-ended questions that are only there for the amusement you apparently receive out of watching people state their case while you get modded up over asking people to answer your questions more than once.
f they could take them off, they probably would; they'd throw them in moving cars or something to make it look convincingly like they still have it
We already use something like this. It's just not GPS enabled. It has a base reciever installed at the home and office that phone in and report when someones location or if they are out of range (if the phone line gets disconected, they report this too). The criminals only way of getting out of these tracking leg irons is to saw their own leg off. Which I highly doubt they will do. Nothing new in this except the GPS capability.
Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
Or be abused by a vindictive spouse during a messy divorce.
Restraining orders really are much more trivial to get than some of you people realize.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
So, because someone uses a tool to do something wrong, we should not use that tool?
I have said no such thing.
Also, your link has nothing to do with "restrain(ing) free speech. You drank the Kool-aid on that one. Restricting people from trespassing is not a restriciton of free speech, but rather an affirmation of property rights.
Trespassing? This had nothing to do with private property. He wasn't allowed within 150 feet of Rockefeller center. That includes much public property and a church.
In the article you link to, he admits trespassing when he says "I went to his home and office" presumably without permission.
You don't need permission to go to someone's home and office. He left when he was asked to leave.
That's illegal
Please cite the law which says that a journalist can't go to someone's house, knock on his door, and speak to his maidservant.
and has nothing to do with free speech, freedom of the press, or any other part of the 1st.
He's a journalist preparing a public interest piece, and because Rennert didn't want him to make his story public he lied to a judge and got him to hinder his production. That's most certainly a violation of the first amendment.
More importantly, it's a perfectly good reason to get a restraining order.
Apparently the mayor of New York City, a Republican who doesn't like Moore in any way, disagreed with you. If Moore was trespassing, maybe that's a reason to get a restraining order for him not to enter Rennert's private property (really all you need is a trespass notice). It wouldn't be a reason to keep Moore 150 feet away from Rennert's private property, and it doesn't matter because Moore wasn't breaking any laws in the first place.
Allow me to share my experience. I live in Middlesex County, Massachussets. A former girlfriend came to my house and broke all my windows because I would not open the door and let her in. She then went to court the next day and got a restraining order against me, falsely claiming I beat her up. It was her word against mine, and the judge granted her the restraining order despite the fact she admitted breaking my windows. She then called the police three times and falsely reported that I violated the order. The police arrested me no questions asked, even when her story was patently false (on at least one occasion, it appears they helped her embellish her story). This nightmare probably would have never ended except that she eventually (about six months later) was charged with malicious destruction of property for breaking my windows, and eventually (about another six months later) pled guilty and was given one year of probation. At that point, she was one step away from jail and she finally started leaving me alone, but not until I had to appear in court approximately 20 times and had spent over $7,000 in legal fees in order to get all of the charges against me dropped.
Basically, she made my life hell for over a year, and the police, DA's and one judge in particular were more than willing accomplices. I have since heard other similar stories about men being falsely accused by women who are bent on either gaining leverage or getting revenge, and the police and judges take the woman's side almost every time, with NO EVIDENCE OF ANY ACTUAL INJURY TO THE ACCURSER. I've also learned that lawyers, judges, DA's and the police are well aware this is happening, but are preventing from fixing the problem due to the politics surrounding domestic abuse issues. That how the "system" works in Massachusetts.
So I'm in favor of this WITH A TWIST. If the accused has to wear a GPS, so should the accuser. And the police should be REQUIRED to check the GPS information before making an arrest.
In my case, if this were the law, the GPS would have quickly proven that I was no where near her and did not violate the restraining order. I would have gladly worn a GPS under these circumstances because it MIGHT have kept me out of jail. (I say MIGHT, because in my experience, neither the police nor the district attorney will do an investigation to determine the true facts before making an arrest or prosecuting charges. I had to hire an attorney to gather information and affidavits of witnesses and present this to the district attorneys before they were willing to drop the charges. But of the law requires it, and they are somehow held accountable, maybe then it will happen.)
A system like this would be good for everyone, both the accuser, the accused and the public that bears the costs of our legal system. I am personally in favor of it, as long as it goes both ways.