Email

By Greg Bartlett

We have all heard of GPS tracking devices being installed in vehicles and on heavy equipment to deter thefts and assist in recovery if the item is stolen. In today’s world, however, this technology may have found an entirely new use.

A Champaign, Illinois man with a diagnosis of tuberculosis has recently been ordered into isolation to prevent him spreading the disease while he is being treated. A GPS tracking device is being used to track his movements and he will be arrested for violating a court order if he travels anywhere outside his home.

Reading this story has brought to mind another question, could tracking devices be used to track prisoners who have been ordered into house arrest? The current system used with house arrest prisoners includes an electronic tether that alerts police in the event that the prisoner violates the house arrest order. The down side is that the electronic tether does not track the movements of the prisoner other than sounding this alarm.

If GPS tracking technology becomes the accepted norm for tracking prisoners on house arrest, the savings to the states could be astronomical. Prisoners might even be allowed to leave home and follow a direct route to their job and back home, an act which could significantly cut the costs the states incur for feeding and housing non violent prisoners.

This technology has already proven its value in the arena of tracking the movements of employees in company owned vehicles and allowing details, such as speed of travel, to be monitored. It has also proven invaluable in assisting the recovery of stolen vehicles and saving lives by making it possible to get emergency personnel to an accident scene in a timely manner.

If courts start imposing GPS tracking devices as a means to limit the movements of individuals to ensure the control of a communicable disease, it seems that the next logical step would be to utilize this technology to enforce house arrest on prisoners that have not been shown to have violent tendencies that would endanger the general public. Not having to house and feed these prisoners in state facilities would have many financial benefits for the states. Allowing the least violent of criminals to be able to continue to work in their chosen jobs with supervision and tracking their movements to and from would also reduce the need for states to provide assistance to the families of these prisoners in the form of welfare assistance.