Full Version: Life-Long GPS Monitoring of Sex Offenders...
QUOTE
At least four states — Florida, Missouri, Ohio and Oklahoma — passed laws this year requiring lifetime electronic monitoring for some sex offenders, even if their sentences would normally have expired.
QUOTE
Florida legislators quickly mandated tougher prison sentences for people who commit sex offenses against children and required lifetime GPS monitoring after serving time.
QUOTE
Many other states use GPS monitoring for selected people on probation or parole but the monitoring ends with the sentence.
QUOTE
Part of what makes the technology attractive is the ability to trigger automatic alerts to law enforcement authorities — by e-mail, cell phone text messages or faxes — anytime sex offenders approach off-limits areas like a school or stray from their designated route between work and home.
QUOTE
Florida's experience shows offenders on GPS tracking are less likely to get in trouble than those under traditional supervision. The state Department of Corrections followed about 16,000 offenders placed on community supervision in the 2001-2002 fiscal year, including more than 1,000 under GPS monitoring.
QUOTE
Kansas City civil-rights attorney Arthur Benson already is challenging Missouri's lifetime sexual offender registry.
The Story
Questions for Debate:
1.) Is this a violation of Civil Rights (a sex offender has paid his debt to society, yet the monitoring continues)?
2.) Is this fiscally reasonable?
3.) What alternatives to electronic monitoring are there?
4.) Would you (Do you) feel safer knowing criminals are tagged with GPS devices?
1.) Is this a violation of Civil Rights (a sex offender has paid his debt to society, yet the monitoring continues)?
Not at all. One's "debt to society" is determined by elected representatives of the people. The punishment for crimes should be set by statute and failing to rise to the standard of cruel or unusual punishment should be constitutional. I see nothing cruel or unusual about GPS monitoring.
2.) Is this fiscally reasonable?
It's probably cheaper than keeping a sexual predator in prison for the rest of their life.
3.) What alternatives to electronic monitoring are there?
Maybe extended jail time, but I don't think that would be as effective as this. The problem you have if you want to give out a life sentence for these crimes is what is there to deter a sexual predator from killing their prey?
4.) Would you (Do you) feel safer knowing criminals are tagged with GPS devices?
I think I'd feel a little better about things, especially the alarm thing if one of these predators got too close to an area they shouldn't be. I like this idea.
Not at all. One's "debt to society" is determined by elected representatives of the people. The punishment for crimes should be set by statute and failing to rise to the standard of cruel or unusual punishment should be constitutional. I see nothing cruel or unusual about GPS monitoring.
2.) Is this fiscally reasonable?
It's probably cheaper than keeping a sexual predator in prison for the rest of their life.
3.) What alternatives to electronic monitoring are there?
Maybe extended jail time, but I don't think that would be as effective as this. The problem you have if you want to give out a life sentence for these crimes is what is there to deter a sexual predator from killing their prey?
4.) Would you (Do you) feel safer knowing criminals are tagged with GPS devices?
I think I'd feel a little better about things, especially the alarm thing if one of these predators got too close to an area they shouldn't be. I like this idea.
QUOTE(VDemosthenes @ Jul 31 2005, 03:49 PM)
At least four states — Florida, Missouri, Ohio and Oklahoma — passed laws this year requiring lifetime electronic monitoring for some sex offenders, even if their sentences would normally have expired.
Questions for Debate:
1.) Is this a violation of Civil Rights (a sex offender has paid his debt to society, yet the monitoring continues)?
2.) Is this fiscally reasonable?
3.) What alternatives to electronic monitoring are there?
4.) Would you (Do you) feel safer knowing criminals are tagged with GPS devices?
Is it a violation of one's civil rights? Not if the sentence itself, as legally authorized, requires the GPS monitoring. A civil rights violation occurs if the sentence exceeds legally authorized limits, or if someone who's served a sentence for a crime is subsequently sentenced again for it, either for additional time or for some other restriction.
Is it fiscally reasonable? I don't think it's unreasonable to require persons being monitored to subsidize the cost of such monitoring, based on their ability to pay.
What alternatives are there? Good question. Actually, I think monitoring is the alternative we've been waiting for. Otherwise, the only alternative that seems to make sense is to try to segregate offenders without imprisoning them - a penal colony approach.
Would I feel safer knowing criminals are tagged with GPS devices? Fact is, I don't feel unsafe now. I know that statistics prove that crime rates are declining and are at historic lows. (I know that's little solace to victims, especially of violent crimes.) As a parent, I'm obviously concerned about the threat posed by pedophiles, kidnappers, etc. The GPS monitoring would probably make me feel a little better, but I think its greatest value lies in its potential deterrent effect on the wearer - assuming it can't be removed or deactivated.
Let me begin by saying that this kind of monitoring is roughly equivalent to a "kinder, gentler" form of imprisonment, and may be appropriate in certain cases. I have no objection to the idea in theory, but I have some concerns about some of the the things said in the linked story:
(Bold added for emphasis.)
I'm no legal expert, but isn't this an ex post facto law?
If these new laws apply to people who have already been sentenced, then I think we have a problem. If not, then it's just a way of making the punishment harsher, and that can be defended.
I think I agree with this (from the linked story):
1. As I said, if it is not part of the law before the criminal was sentenced, it would be a violation. It might also be a violation if it is applied in a way which is out of proportion to the crime. Exposing oneself to a teenager, although a serious offense, should not be dealt with as harshly as raping a child.
2. I think it can be, if used and funded appropriately.
3. As already said, extended jail time for serious crimes and/or repeat offenses.
4. I don't think it would make a big difference to me. There will always be violent criminals around.
QUOTE
At least four states — Florida, Missouri, Ohio and Oklahoma — passed laws this year requiring lifetime electronic monitoring for some sex offenders, even if their sentences would normally have expired.
(Bold added for emphasis.)
I'm no legal expert, but isn't this an ex post facto law?
QUOTE
The 'words and the intent' of the Ex Post Facto Clause encompass '[e]very law that changes the punishment, and inflicts a greater punishment, than the law annexed to the crime, when committed.' Calder v. Bull, 3 U.S. (1 Dall.) 386, 390 (1798) (opinion of Chase, J.).
If these new laws apply to people who have already been sentenced, then I think we have a problem. If not, then it's just a way of making the punishment harsher, and that can be defended.
I think I agree with this (from the linked story):
QUOTE
GPS monitoring makes sense for a small group of high-risk offenders, evaluated case-by-case, said John La Fond (search), a law professor at the University of Missouri-Kansas City and author of the recently published book "Preventing Sexual Violence."
"A law that requires that everyone who has committed a crime against a young child should be subject to lifetime locator technology is simply foolish," La Fond said.
"A law that requires that everyone who has committed a crime against a young child should be subject to lifetime locator technology is simply foolish," La Fond said.
1. As I said, if it is not part of the law before the criminal was sentenced, it would be a violation. It might also be a violation if it is applied in a way which is out of proportion to the crime. Exposing oneself to a teenager, although a serious offense, should not be dealt with as harshly as raping a child.
2. I think it can be, if used and funded appropriately.
3. As already said, extended jail time for serious crimes and/or repeat offenses.
4. I don't think it would make a big difference to me. There will always be violent criminals around.
Would you (Do you) feel safer knowing criminals are tagged with GPS devices?
No. It actually makes me wonder if the judges prescribing this have any familiarity with the devices. The one that I carry at least, requires a clear view of the sky. It does not function among Chicago's skyscrapers, in buildings, too far inside the car, etc.
No. It actually makes me wonder if the judges prescribing this have any familiarity with the devices. The one that I carry at least, requires a clear view of the sky. It does not function among Chicago's skyscrapers, in buildings, too far inside the car, etc.
Questions for Debate:
1.) Is this a violation of Civil Rights (a sex offender has paid his debt to society, yet the monitoring continues)?
2.) Is this fiscally reasonable?
3.) What alternatives to electronic monitoring are there?
4.) Would you (Do you) feel safer knowing criminals are tagged with GPS devices?
1. I may be a bit far right on this, but I figure some felons shouldn't have civil rights. For some crimes, just serving time is not punishment enough to stop repeat offenders, and often the crime is so bad that there is no possiblility of restitution. Certainly a repeat offender should have his rights limited. Why should he enjoy civil rights when he has proven that he has no respect for the rights of others?
2. I don't know, how many do we need? How many new employees do we hire to keep track of them? How much tracking hardware is required? Can we make the felon pay for it?
3. Again, a bit far right, but if a convicted armed robber is not allowed to ever own a gun again, I think a child molestor/rapist should not be allowed his weapon either, and I don't mean castration. More like the first half of a sex change operation.
4. No, they are easier to remove than most people think.
QUOTE(Curmudgeon @ Jul 31 2005, 09:25 PM)
No. It actually makes me wonder if the judges prescribing this have any
familiarity with the devices. The one that I carry at least, requires a clear
view of the sky. It does not function among Chicago's skyscrapers, in
buildings, too far inside the car, etc.
familiarity with the devices. The one that I carry at least, requires a clear
view of the sky. It does not function among Chicago's skyscrapers, in
buildings, too far inside the car, etc.
Yep. Such devices aren't fool-proof, and quite frankly, if we are that concerned
about the chances of someone re-offending he shouldn't be let out on the streets
to begin with.
1.) Is this a violation of Civil Rights (a sex offender has paid his debt to
society, yet the monitoring continues)?
If a man is a risk to society, especially one who preys on children, it would be a
violation of children's civil rights for him not to be monitored (at the very least).
2.) Is this fiscally reasonable?
It's fiscally the bare minimum that should be done. Money shouldn't
be a factor in determining the appropriate punishment for such crimes.
3.) What alternatives to electronic monitoring are there?
Life-time sentencing.
Chemical castration.
Full-time baby-sitting.
4.) Would you (Do you) feel safer knowing criminals are tagged with GPS
devices?
Not really. Sexual predators will find ways to commit such crimes. An electonic
gadget will not likely deter them from the compulsive nature of their sexual deviance.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.