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?"
While I did not approve of the use of GPS in the previous discussion, in this case (when one choses to break the law), it is appropriate. Already there is precedence within the law for restriction or elimination of certain personal freedoms and rights, especially if felonies have been committed. Felons are not allowed to own guns I believe as well as give up the right to vote. Especially given the violent nature behind many restraining order allocations, this is a good implementation of GPS tracking technology. Already there are incredible difficulties with the victims of violent crimes proving that the subject of the restraining order has violated those agreements. This technology will help buttress victims claims of restraining order violation and perhaps prevent further violent actions.
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
... namely that we should be treated like criminals? eh, I gotta talk to my state senator about this.
Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
For some reason you go out of GPS reception?
Being an avid GPS user myself I know that its easy for them to lose signal. How can they tell if you were just at an angle that the antenna didnt like? Or went into a building? or better yet wrapped it with a metal foil to deceive the antenna?
How is this any better than existing tethers?
#include sig.h
With all the reports of GPS being used to restrict the rights of innocent people,
Huh? All what reports? I.e., of things that have actually happened? (Yes, yes, GPS in rental cars and speeding tickets and pay-by-the-mile and yadda yadda yadda. How is that restricting "rights", exactly? The "right" to break the law without having someone look over your shoulder?)
is this any better?
Um, I fail to see the connection. Because saying, for a moment, that I accept your thesis of GPS being used to "restrict the rights" of innocent people, yes, using GPS to track convicted criminals is definitely "better". How are these two things even related? Further, how is this fundamentally any different from the electronic monitoring systems that have been used to restrict offenders to their home or to a city. Wait - let me guess - now not only do you know they're in the city, but you know *exactly where they are* - *gasp*! Information that could be, you know, useful in the case of people who have violated restraining orders, of which information about the subjects location in proximity to someone else is fundamental.
Or, wait: would you rather send them to jail?
Will it fix the problem?
Yes. Technology can be used to fix problems.
Or is this going to be one of those things that draws out the latent Luddites in the normally pro-technology slashdot community?
If having a probation officer physically assigned to the criminal 24x7 would be ok, then so is this. 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.
This is great - I have no problem with this whatsoever.
Criminals are not innocent people. If you're guilty of the crime, you get to do the time, and if part of that time includes an electronic leash, I think society is all the better for it. An example are these sexual predators... Right now we release them and, other than checking in with an officer from time to time, they're out roaming. Wouldn't it be nice if a cop was summoned to collect them if they went anywhere near a school, or left a certain restricted area of their neighborhood, etc?
Finally, a good use for the "evil" Big Brother tactics.
How long before we just start putting criminals into the Running Man game?
There is an inherent difference between forcing -everyone- to have a tracking device and applying this new technology to already current methods (radio leg collars, etc) employed in the case of someone breaking the law. Making enforcement of restraining orders possible to this level is a Good Thing(tm) in my book.
Frankly, I don't want the police having the ability to track my car at will, especially given the new freedoms under the Patriot Act to surveil poeple without a warrant under certain circumstances. If you want to do that, that's fine, but making it mandatory in cars is extreme, and I doubt I'm the only person that doesn't have complete faith in the authorities to use it only for my protection.
Or maybe a nice GPS "collar" device that occasionally blurts out "Shun me!".
My only thought is: "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."
Since this doesn't seem to qualify as excessive, crual, or unusual (at least in this context), I don't see what the problem is.
I work in a court and deal with defendants on probation on a regular basis. This device simply is not needed.
First, the vast majority of people on probation to not run away.
Second, the ones who do stop reporting are almost always found at home.
Third, the few remaining get found, at most, a few years later.
And the fourth reason is the most important. Anyone who was going to run would simply remove the device and run. The entire purpose of electronic tether is to let people out of jail who are NOT a threat to society who will almost certainly NOT run. These are people with hardly any criminal records and who have good jobs.
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
In addition to not seeing any problem with this, I see it as a great good for society. Keeping lesser criminals out of jails could save a lot of public money, and reduce the chances that they'll become "hardened" criminals.
I totally agree that GPS could be a godsend for helping enforce restraining orders. Instead of you calling the police after the lurking ex-boyfriend heaves a brick through your window and runs off laughing (or worse, no one calling the police, as he runs in with a baseball bat), the police are already on their way from the moment he parks in the alley and hides in your bushes. Currently restraining orders are *very* difficult to enforce, especially because violations are frequent and often difficult to prove.
But like any reduction of privacy, what are the possible abuses? Who is doing the tracking, and who has access to the information? If it's automated, and locked-down, and no one can check a location unless a buzzer goes off because parole or the restraining order was violated, cool.
There's a big benefit here either way, but if we can avoid sticky situations we should... i.e., suppose the felon is *not* violating any rules, but his ex is a secretary for the PD, and tracks his every move constantly to figure out who he's dating now (let's give her a call...), where he's working now (let's call them too and see if we can get him fired).
There are probably other risks; in this case I think the benefits outweigh them... but it's important to check this stuff.
Even though I agree that states shouldn't require GPS in cars, you have some faulty logic there. If meals for wheels provides the same meal that a prison does on a given day, does that mean they think their patrons are inmates? No... the two are mutually exclusive.
To put it more clearly, one is about taxes, the other is about probation restrictions.
You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life. --Winston Churchill
They're crossing over into a scary use of GPS, however.
I can get a restraining order against you even if you have been convicted of no crime. At some point, I can see GPS being used to restrict people who haven't been convicted, but have restraining orders against them. It's not that slippery a slope to see this being used on innocent people.
GPS as terms of probation are fine by me, but this is a different question altogether.
They must get a lot better coverage than mine. It always craps out inside my house, any store, and downtown with buildings higher than 5 stories.
Seriously. If you're "tracking" someone, they can fall off the map for quite a while before they show up again, and for very legitimate reasons. I don't see how this is reliable enough to trust.
Better to test them on the criminals I guess. Makes you wonder how many different devices you're going to have once you're a ex-con driving in California with your GPS taxed car on that nifty pay-as-you go GPS insurance scheme.
Criminals have the right to choose: either they do their jailtime, or they wear such a device. That's more choice than they have now, so it gives them more freedom. On top of that, if they are locked in jail, the police knows where they are too...
Besides, I guess many people would prefer to be free, even if that means wearing GPS devices.
Implant a GPS tracking device at birth, so the individual would always be used to it. This would go along with your planetary identification number.
"I read once of a form of punishment in ancient china"
It's always ancient china isn't it? somewhere oriental and mysterious, where they do things in foreigner-like ways that can justify the worst stories you can dream up.
here you go - it's a wooden square.