Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

GPS-Enabled Criminals In Massachusetts

Posted by timothy on from the don't-worry-you'll-get-one-too dept.

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?"

11 of 565 comments (clear)

  1. Appropriate use by BWJones · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:Appropriate use by serutan · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:Appropriate use by Tassach · · Score: 5, Insightful
      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.

      --
      Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
    3. Re:Appropriate use by kdark1701 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I'm not sure how it is in Massechuses (sp?), but here in Michigan, one can get a restraining order with no proof. The accused can get the order revoked, but its a pain in the ass. More often than not, it degenerates into a "his word against hers" type of case.

    4. Re:Appropriate use by n1ywb · · Score: 5, Insightful
      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.

      --
      -73, de n1ywb
      www.n1ywb.com
    5. Re:Appropriate use by networkBoy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "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

      --
      whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
    6. Re:Appropriate use by n1ywb · · Score: 5, Interesting

      You'll note the devices would be for people who have already violated the restraining order. Restraining orders are easy to get in most states, they're also easy for the defendant to not violate them. Don't screw up, don't get a tracking device. Simple.

      --
      -73, de n1ywb
      www.n1ywb.com
    7. Re:Appropriate use by Your+Pal+Dave · · Score: 5, Funny
      GPS would give judges a lot more latitude in specifying the terms of probation.
      Longitude too!
    8. Re:Appropriate use by biglig2 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      ~~~~~ BigLig2? You mean there's another one of me?
  2. must proofreader by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    "...criminals who violation restraining orders..."

    Hmm, the editors are great at proofreader articles.

  3. Restricted Zones by Paul+Slocum · · Score: 5, Funny

    So the collars explode when you enter a restricted zone?