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
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.
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.
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.