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?"

Comments

Appropriate use

[BWJones]

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.

Re:Appropriate use

[nocomment]

I don't care for the GPS to track how much you should pay in taxes (uhm you do that at the gas pump, you drive more, you buy more gas, your car pollutes more by burning more? you pay more). In this instance I don't believe that tracking cons is really a violation of anyones rights.

Re:Appropriate use

[serutan]

I agree with parent. Various house-arrest devices have been in use for many years. They are essentially lower-tech gadgets that detect when the wearer strays too far from a second gizmo attached to their house or whatever. GPS would give judges a lot more latitude in specifying the terms of probation. Example -- allow the person to travel to work and the local shopping area but nowhere else.

Re:Appropriate use

[Tassach]

Indeed. The Constitution says that no one shall "be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law". If you've been duly convicted by a court of law, that IS due process.

When you start subjecting the entire population to the same kind of treatment you've got a MAJOR due process violation.

Re:Appropriate use

[n1ywb]

Word up. People who break restraining orders are usualy one or two steps from commiting a violent crime.

As for felons not being allowed to posses guns or vote, that varies by state, and is of questionable constitutionality.

Re:Appropriate use

[networkBoy]

"I don't believe that tracking cons is really a violation of anyones rights."
More important, is upon commission of a crime you are knowingly risking loss of several of your rights (privacy being a big one).
This is a perfect use, so long as glitches don't cause too much greif.
-nB

Re:Appropriate use

[segmond]

Are you sure? Soon, someone will show research that a lot of prisoners commit crime after they are done being tracked by the GPS technology and a law will be passed that you wear one for the rest of your life if you commit a crime. They will argue that it's more humane than prison and enforces you to stay out of crime. Then the only thing left is to put it on everyone. After all, if we can track everyone and crime should drop by 500% across all boards, why shouldn't we?

Re:Appropriate use

[biglig2]

No it's not. History teaches us that when you give a law enforcement agency powers, they use those powers. The FBI have used the PATRIOT act against people who are clearly not terrorists.

This is the founding priciple of the US: to give the state as little power as possible. Do you want to end up like us poor sods in the UK, where the constitution gets changed on the whim of Tony Blair?

Me, I think it is fine to attach tracking devices to convicted felons, although I'd rather prefer putting them in prison. But be under no illusions that this will just be used on wife-beaters. They'll put these things on file-sharers, Linux users and other communists given half a chance.

Re:Appropriate use

[ACNiel]

Actually the founding principle was to give the federal government as little power as possiible. The constitution was setup to control the federal government, so they didn't trod on peoples and/or states rights.

That has been corrupted beyond belief.

And it is a lack of understanding that you demonstrate that is the root cause. Too many times people say "Of course they can do that, they are the federal government," when is simply isn't the case. The federal government just starts doing something, and most people just fall in line.

Re:Appropriate use

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Yes, that's what we should do! We should legalize something just because people are getting in trouble for it!

If a significant portion of people are doing something, then we need to either accept that, or figure out why they are doing it and provide an alternative. Have you ever heard of prohibition? It was repealed for exactly the same reasons that the prohibition on drugs should be repealed. Right now we have huge amounts of organized crime, addiction, secrecy, and violence all based around illegal drugs. Drugs which, by themselves, hurt no one except perhaps the person using them. The prohibition on drugs causes more problems than the drugs. Just take a look at a reasonably progressive country. Most all of them treat drugs as a medical problem. You're an addict, OK we'll get you in a program and the health system will give you something to help. Contrast this with the U.S. where we throw them in jail unless they are rich (then they go into a program).

The government is supposed to be by the people and for the people. Well, the people obviously want drugs. If not for government sponsored propaganda campaigns, they would never have been made illegal in the first place. Maybe if a huge number of people are breaking the law, there is something wrong with the law, not the people. Hell, Both Bush and Clinton have admitted to doing drugs. The thing is, the laws are not applied equally, the poor, and the dark skinned get locked up, and tracked. Rich white politicians don't. GPS tracking devices will allow this to go on much longer.

Shows you what the CA gov't thinks of its citizens

[rsborg]

... namely that we should be treated like criminals? eh, I gotta talk to my state senator about this.

And the difference is.....

[LordPhantom]

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.

Re:Idea

[tyresyas]

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.

"A"

[unsigned integer]

Let's stick a red fucking "A" on their foreheard too, while we're at it.

Or maybe a nice GPS "collar" device that occasionally blurts out "Shun me!".

It's not really needed

[Anita Coney]

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.

Re:It's not really needed

[ZX-3]

I was awarded a civil protection order (what my district calls a domestic violence restraining order) in an adjudicated hearing.

The order has been violated numerous times, but it has been extremely difficult to prosecute these acts of contempt of court, because the respondent can almost never be caught in the act.

Example: Respondent repeatedly drives past my home. If I call the cops, she is gone before they arrive, and if they do catch her, she can claim it was only that one time, and merely a coincidence.

I cannot comment on the utility of tracking probation violators, but I can say for sure that GPS tracking would help immensely in curbing restraining order violations.

Not just Appropriate use

[temojen]

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.

Re:Yes!

[iabervon]

For that matter, if government-issued GPS devices get associated in the public's mind with convicted criminals, people will be less willing to accept them in other situations. "A device that tracks my kids" is a lot more teampting for parents than "a device that tracks my kids, just like sex offenders have to wear".

Can I buy one of these new GPS devices....

[WareW01f]

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.