California Tracks Parolees With GPS, Then Ignores Alerts

An anonymous reader writes "Several years ago, California decided to require high-risk parolees, such as gang members and sex offenders, to wear GPS monitoring devices. The idea was to relay location information to law enforcement to ensure that the convicts stay where they're supposed to. Unfortunately, the state often misses acting on those alerts, making the devices both a lesson in the pitfalls of technology management and a massive exercise in largely useless spending."

Comments

I disagree

[Midnight's Shadow]

I have to disagree with the summery because I don't see it as

both a lesson in the pitfalls of technology management and a massive exercise in largely useless spending.

It served the purpose of making the voters think something was being done which is all that is important in US politics.

Re:I disagree

[MadKeithV]

I have to disagree with the summery because I don't see it as

I disagree with the summery too. It's wintry, or maybe autumny. Sometimes springy.

-1 Flamebait on the summary

[Pojut]

It's not useless spending, they just aren't utilizing it properly. The idea is a good one, but just like regulations, it's only useless if it isn't properly enforced.

Re:Won't somebody think of the children!

[Shakrai]

and have already too many bigger problems they don't have time to investigate.

Convicted violent felons violating the terms of their parole don't represent a sufficiently big enough problem to investigate? Hell, there wouldn't even be a long drawn out investigation. *keystrokes*, "Hmm, looks like he is at Sams Club, send a radio car to that location...."

Re:Won't somebody think of the children!

[commodore64_love]

What are you talking about? The system worked perfectly:

- the leaders spent a lot of money
- they bragged about it in their monthly newsletters
- the voters FELT safe and happy

This system worked just as planned by the politicians. They made Californians feel safe and happy and warm inside. Bread and circuses.

Re:Just dial it in...

[Issarlk]

Weeeee. Let's play surprise suicide bomber!

Re:Won't somebody think of the children!

[Quiet_Desperation]

or at least I'd like to know WHY nobody acted on it,

Because they don't care. They don't *have* to. They're government workers. It's almost impossible to get fired from a government job in this state. They sit around not caring, spending other people money, and then retire early with a golden pension and health benefits. *That's* what is bankrupting the state. The public employee unions have complete and total control over the state legislature, but all the ideologues sit around in their reality bubbles and echo chambers blaming everything else.

There was a high profile murder case just this year where the guy was out on parole, violated parole almost ten times, had a psychologist evaluate him an a major risk, but no one did boo about it. No one cared, and another young woman was slaughtered for no damn reason.

Re:Won't somebody think of the children!

[phyrexianshaw.ca]

I then assume the system was put in place for political reasons, some company that makes the stuff likely convinced some politician that the system was bullet proof, and sold him overnight.

I then assume that the body required to implement this project then likely said: "Sure, we can do that, but we need more money."

on being denied that money, I would have expected them to take this to the press. get some public attention to look at the matter, see why the government is proposing solutions that there's no money for.

Re:Won't somebody think of the children!

[phantomfive]

California prisons are overfull and underfunded, they are operating at somewhere near twice capacity. They don't have enough guards and on a lot of the prisons the guard towers around the perimeter are empty: you could just drive a truck through the fence, pick someone up and leave before anyone realized what was happening. If you are a non-violent criminal, you will probably only need to serve half or even a quarter of your sentence before being released. In addition, the prison systems are an inefficient bureaucracy. They send prisoners to different places to get check-ups that could be easily done in one place, things like that. All this information I got from my uncle who is a prison administrator, so take it for what it's worth.

If you are wondering why the prisons in California are so full, it's because a few years ago we passed a "three strikes you're out" law, which means repeat offenders get life imprisonment. So they are trying creative stuff like this. Guess it's not working.

A modest proposal

[mbone]

Clearly, RIAA should track these parolees - and fine them $ 150,000 for every time they remove a bracelet or run out of battery power.

That would save the State of California $ 60 million per year it doesn't currently have.

Re:A modest proposal

[noidentity]

Clearly, RIAA should track these parolees - and fine them $ 150,000 for every time they remove a bracelet or run out of battery power.

The RIAA needs an incentive, so give the bracelets wireless internet and have them download music whenever the perolee goes somewhere restricted. He won't know what hit him.

Re:Won't somebody think of the children!

[TheWanderingHermit]

Hey, they don't have time for that.

But notice that they know every time Lindsy Lohan has had a drink and it shows up on her device...

Re:Won't somebody think of the children!

[mapkinase]

I share your emotional reaction to this budget exercise a lot. A lot.

But. I think that there still might be some positive outcome from this: at least in the beginning parolees had a feeling that they are being watched and that feeling may be prevented them from committing more crime than they would have committed without GPS devices. This is just a hypothesis which quite hard to check: crime statistics dynamics depends on many factors and it is impossible to separate the influence of just one of them.

Of course now that they know (or at least those of them who are avid readers of signonsandiego or slashdot) that nobody cares about their latitudes and longitudes, this factor is probably gone.

Problem lies between monitor and chair

[Saishuuheiki]

I read the article and come to a different conclusion. I believe the problem isn't in the technology, because from what I read it mostly worked. It mentioned some false alarms, but nobody hurts because of a false alarm. The problem here lies in the ineptitude of the people using the system.

Let's say we developed a system that detected earthquakes 1 minute before they went off, but 90% of the time it would be a false alarm. Then people proceed to ignore the alarm because it's usually wrong. Now when a real earthquake occurs, those who ignore the alarm blame it on bad technology.

I say no, this is the fault of the reaction, not the technology itself.

Re:Won't somebody think of the children!

[Skuld-Chan]

I'd suggest it has nothing to do with government workers. Its like that fancy system monitoring software you got for your IT department. Shows all kinds of alarms and alerts - they they cut your entire department. Are you going to spend your day acting on alarms, or answering help desk emails? If your time is split between all that - stuff is going to slip by the wayside.

High Risk Parolees?

[camperdave]

High-risk parolees? A parolee is someone who has given their word (parole) that they will behave themselves and check in regularly in exchange for the privilege of spending some time outside of the prison walls. If you have to slap a GPS tracking unit on them then you don't trust their word. If so, then why are you giving them parole in the first place?

Re:High Risk Parolees?

[molo]

Google "California prison overcrowding".

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/14/california-prison-overcro_0_n_611281.html

-molo

Re:High Risk Parolees?

[Wrath0fb0b]

You offer the guy a deal for parole when he first gets in the system. Seems like an easy logical choice right? Then when he violates it (an incredibly common affair), you get to shove him in jail for the parole violation with no trial, no plea, no nothing. IANAL, but this is what a practicing lawyer in CA has told me. It's more than slightly ridiculous, but that's what happens when you're hamstrung by a retarded 3 strikes law among other things.

(1) The guy doesn't have to take parole if he doesn't want to. Parole is voluntary.

(2) You would think that he could abide the terms of parole given that the State could lawfully be holding him in jail. What is the thought process: "They are letting me out of my passed sentence on the condition that I don't drink and drive but I think I'll pound a few beers and drive home anyway"?

(3) 3 strikes is retarded in implementation but not in concept. People thrice convicted of bona-fide violent crimes (assault, robbery, rape) should get 25-life. People thrice convicted of shoplifting should get a weekend in jail and a vocational class. The idea that we cannot distinguish between those obviously different crimes is absurd.

Hence people like me are in the ridiculous position of having to defend the concept of 3S while concurrently explaining that shoplifting and other minor crimes were never part of our plan. People that repeatedly violate the fundamental human rights of others (to wit, the rights not to be robbed, raped or beaten) need to be imprisoned.

Re:Won't somebody think of the children!

[ArsenneLupin]

Even if nobody acts on the alarms, there's still a log file.

So if a crime is committed somewhere, it will be relatively easy to check whether any of the paroled felons were in the vicinity when it happened.

So, deterrence factor against committing further crimes will still exist.

Re:Won't somebody think of the children!

[Bakkster]

Convicted violent felons violating the terms of their parole don't represent a sufficiently big enough problem to investigate? Hell, there wouldn't even be a long drawn out investigation. *keystrokes*, "Hmm, looks like he is at Sams Club, send a radio car to that location...."

This is California. You think they have gas money for their patrol cars to get them to the parole violator's location? Let alone the money for additional cops who aren't making money for the state (such as speeding tickets or issuing other fines)?

dear unions:

[circletimessquare]

at one time, when gilded age corporatist assholes employed pinkerton's thugs to kneecap guys just trying to earn enough to feed his children, unions were heroic and noble

in today's day and age, a union is nothing more than a lottery ticket for lazy assholes to earn way way more than middle class salaries, for doing far less, and be accountable and responsible for nothing

additionally, no one can afford to manufacture anything here anymore because of union mandated salary levels, so everything is now done in chinese sweatshops. a committed anti-corporatist would respond it is the corporatists who drive jobs out of the country, not the unions. to which i would respond that that is easy to say, until you actually have to buy the goods with the sticker shock attached to them just so a union member can have lavish benefits and upper middle class salaries well beyond yours

the unions help drive jobs out of the country by demanding far too much for workers. the irony being, in china, people are now unionizing, get this, against the communist government's wishes (that extra twist of historical irony practically makes my head explode)

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/11/business/global/11strike.html

is it possible in this world to have the balance of power between the unions and the corportatists simply give workers a decent wage and keep jobs domestic and keep goods and services affordable?

and can GOVERNMENT unions simply be mandated out of existence, please?

Re:dear unions:

[infinite9]

additionally, no one can afford to manufacture anything here anymore because of union mandated salary levels, so everything is now done in chinese sweatshops. a committed anti-corporatist would respond it is the corporatists who drive jobs out of the country, not the unions. to which i would respond that that is easy to say, until you actually have to buy the goods with the sticker shock attached to them just so a union member can have lavish benefits and upper middle class salaries well beyond yours

You're repeating the standard conservative (I hesitate to say republican these days) ideology. And it's not without merit. But I think everyone has it backwards. I don't think union workers are over-paid. I think the rest of us are under-paid. When a government official says that inflation is low and that it's a good thing, they mean wage inflation. Wages have been stagnant here for more than a decade. Maybe, just maybe, the unions have it right. The difference is that they have had the power to prevent the wage stagnation for their members that the rest of us have been powerless to stop. And for that I blame the corporatists. So when you look at the cost of something made in america and feel sticker shock, maybe it's because you're not making enough, and the value of the dollar has been eroded.

You feel like you're making more than your parents and grand-parents did, because the absolute number is higher. But in terms of purchasing power, you're making much less. Those union workers we like to complain about are actually living the way our grandparents did. This is the real reason for your sticker shock. Do they deserve to live like us? Or do we deserve to live like them?

Re:dear unions:

[Insightfill]

the unions help drive jobs out of the country by demanding far too much for workers.

A larger source of the problem was starting in the 80s (Reagan) and again in the 90s (Clinton) import tariffs were dropped to almost nothing in the US with the expectation that we'd make it all back in IP jobs and money: entertainment, software and biotech.

We learned that many countries were quite happy to sell to the US with the reduced tariffs in place, but didn't drop their own, and didn't necessarily give diddly-squat about our IP and its rules.

Tariffs are quite high on sugar and textiles, but for electronics and heavy industry, it's almost non-existent.

Re:Badly managed, yes. But...

[AndersOSU]

These are parolees, you don't need probable cause. All you have to do is show up whenever there's an alert. If you can't show up whenever there's an alert you need to reassess your priorities.

They screwed themselves by publicizing this

[Locke2005]

The bracelets are there as a deterrent. As long as the parolee's believe every little alarm will be followed up with serious consequences, then the system works fine. Once they figure out that they can set the alarms off with no consequences (e.g. by reading articles like this one) then the system becomes an exercise in futility. Then you have to actually follow up on every notification, despite the fact that 99% of them are false positives.

Re:Won't somebody think of the children!

[Locke2005]

Actually, it was put in place for economic reasons. These bracelets are a lot cheaper than keeping these people in jail, where dangerous people SHOULD be kept. If someone really, really wants to rape and kill kids, will knowing he was in the vicinity after the fact really bring back the victims? This outcry was triggered by a monitored parolee committing murder. One has to ask, if they had followed up on every alarm, would that really have prevented the murders? The only way to make sure these people don't re-offend is to keep their asses in jail. A bracelet is just like a restraining order; if someone is willing to break the law, it does nothing to stop them. It only alerts people slightly earlier that they are doing something wrong.

this is the problem:

[circletimessquare]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/21/business/economy/21pension.html

In Yonkers, more than 100 retired police officers and firefighters are collecting pensions greater than their pay when they were working. One of the youngest, Hugo Tassone, retired at 44 with a base pay of about $74,000 a year. His pension is now $101,333 a year.

now you tell me: do i have valid grounds to find this unacceptable?

you introduce a false conflict: that if i stand against the union stooge, that i must by some inference be supporting the ceo making 7 figures while his company crashes and burns

why can't i hate both?

why can't i hate the coddled union stooge AND the coddled ceo, at the same time?

and, most importantly, i reject the notion we should all make the same amount. please tell me we don't need to go into a remedial education about why communism fails

i support capitalism with socialist safety nets. or socialism with capitalist engines. whatever. i simply am complaining about these union stooges obviously getting away with murder. just as much murder as the ceo scumbags with the golden parachutes from the companies they helped destroy

Re:well yeah

[mcgrew]

A union allows workers to bargain with employers collectively. Corporations act collectively (RIAA, MPAA, other industry associations), why shouldn't workers?

The reason Chinese workers are cheaper than American workers is because the cost of living is cheaper there. When I was in Thailand in the USAF in 1974 you could take a bus anywhere in the country for a nickle, buy a tailored silk shirt for $10, feed four people in a restaraunt for a dollar. I paid thirty dollars a month to rent my bungalow (when I got back, for comparison, I paid $160 a month for a shotgun house in the slums and a McDonalds "meal" cost two bucks for one person). Now tell me how you can possibly compete with that?

And here's a little tip: most union workers don't earn $150k/yr. I have a friend who's worked for the postal service for thirty years fixing those big mail boxes, he makes $75k. Were it not for his union he'd probably be making little more than minimum wage.

Unless you're a corporatist or business owner, you're dead wrong about unions. Any working person who is anti-union is stupid, ignorant, or crazy.