Email

As different law enforcement divisions continue to experiment with GPS tracking as a means of keeping tabs on previously convicted criminals, they are sometimes reminded that the technology is very new, still under development, and certainly not perfect. One example of a tracking device malfunctioning led to an incorrect arrest, booking, and subsequent dismissal over a presumed parole violation.

California state and Napa County police forces are both working with GPS tracking ankle bracelets on a limited basis to locate individuals who have been previously convicted of sex offenses. In an interesting case, one man was the subject of interest by both departments and ended up with two GPS trackers—one monitored by California state police and one by Napa County police.

Other than the inconvenience of having a GPS tracker on each foot, there was no further trouble until one of the devices registered a violation during the night. Responding to the alert from the tracker they were monitoring, Napa County police arrested the man and charged him with prowling instead of abiding by his court-ordered curfew.

The GPS device used by state police, however, did not register a violation. According to its normal readings, the man was at home all night, abiding by the rules imposed on him. This conflict obviously caused quite a confusing situation, and in the end the Napa County authorities decided to dismiss the case because of lack of evidence. Later testing showed that the device showing a violation was not working correctly. Without the conflicting information provided by the correctly working tracker, the man may have been placed back in jail on the basis of a simple equipment malfunction.

Despite these occasional bumps in the road, California police remain committed to making GPS tracking an integral part of their parole and probation processes. Officials report that the benefits of easily locating potentially dangerous repeat offenders and quickly apprehending them without a large-scale search force far outweigh the possibility of a false alarm once in a while. After all, no piece of equipment is flawless, and even more traditional police operations are subject to error and sometimes result in false arrests. While Napa County has fewer than ten ex-convicts currently fitted with GPS trackers, that number is likely to rise as the bugs are worked out of the tracking system.

0 comment(s)

Email

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.

2 comment(s)