Email

The Maryland State House is considering a bill that would require all tier III sex offenders to wear a GPS tracking device when they are released from prison or as a condition of probation. The bill is scheduled for a hearing March 1, 2011. While the sex offenders reside in Maryland, the bill would allow global positioning satellite technology to monitor their movements throughout the state.

The bill would only apply to tier III sex offenders. These convictions include a variety of sex crimes including incest, first-degree rape, attempted second-degree sex offense, third-degree sex offense, sexual abuse of a minor and sale of a minor, among others. The cost of the GPS tracking devices would be paid out of the offender’s pocket, a sum of about $10-$27 per day. The bill is quite controversial and one of the first proposals of its kind.

Supporters of the bill argue that it is a matter of public safety. Sex offenders are notorious repeat offenders, which is why some people would feel safer if they were monitored. This is the reasoning behind the current laws that require sex offenders to register where they live and work. Delegate Mike McDermott, R-38B-Worcester, the man responsible for introducing the bill had this to say, “One of the things we can’t do in Maryland, and other states have trouble with, is that we don’t know where bad sex offenders are. We know where they tell us they live and tell us they work, but only know exactly where they are when they come in to register.”

Others, specifically the Maryland American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), oppose the bill. They agree that it might make citizens feel safer, but they argue that it will only appear to protect them and not actually deter any crimes. They feel that law enforcement resources should be reserved for programs that actually prevent crimes. Maryland ACLU released this statement, “While the ex-offender’s location will be tracked, notice of the commission of the crime will not be received by law enforcement until after the crime has been committed. Because it doesn’t actually prevent crimes, this type of legislation as the effect of making people feel secure while not actually achieving greater safety.”

Article Written by Marisa O’Connor