Rocky Mountain Tracking

By Harriette Halepis

Using GPS tracking systems to track criminals has been widespread lately. Various states have adopted policies that include the tracking of criminals, while other states are not too quick to implement GPS tracking technology.

While it seems as though the types of criminals that are forced to wear tracking devices varies from area to area, sex offenders and domestic abusers are generally pinpointed. This selectivity has caused a great deal of public anger. Further, it has prompted many different people to point towards other types of offenders that should be tracked in lieu of sex offenders and domestic violence offenders.

The question is: who should be tracked? What kind of criminal should be followed for the rest of their life, while other criminals are left undisturbed? Is the sex offender or domestic abuser any less of a threat to society than someone that has been convicted of drug smuggling or murder?

What about the accusations that tracking criminals via GPS is against human rights? Some might argue that convicted criminals lost their right to basic human rights when they violated the rights of their victims. Others may state that all humans living in a society have the right to basic necessities (food, water, shelter), but what about the right to be reintegrated into society without being tracked regularly?

Then there’s the practical side of the human rights debate – it’s just not possible to track every single criminal on the face of the planet. Even if it were possible, who would pay for all of that tracking technology?

Some states are now requiring criminals to pay for their own tracking devices (about $8 per day). Other states are setting up entire police tracking teams that exist solely to track criminals all day (and night) long.
These are some possibilities, but until a concrete solution to these tracking problems can be found, the logical thing to do is narrow down the list of criminals by selecting who should, and shouldn’t be tracked. How does a state or government go about creating such a list?

Perhaps our society should simply put into practice that age-old Exodus saying: “an eye for an eye.” Murderers might be best served by being murdered, and sex offenders may be punished by experiencing their own crimes – then again, “an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind” (Mahatma Ghandi).

Or, maybe we could resort to Ancient Greek and Roman standards by exiling criminals to distant locations. Execution seemed to work just fine for Henry VIII (who didn’t discriminate between murderers, gypsies, or petty thieves). Even our present society keeps “track” of criminals through the usage of parole officers and “check-ins.”

In the end, selecting the types of criminals that should be tracked via GPS is a near impossibility. While all criminals cannot be tracked, those that can be tracked should be. Why? Our society does not stone people to death, we do not take an “eye for an eye,” and we do not mutilate criminals.

Instead, we simply slap a GPS tracking device on those that pose the biggest threat to our society. In the end, the GPS tracking solution seems to be the easiest — and most humane — way of keeping an eye on criminals that has ever been invented.