Political Dogs

Search PDogs:

   Conservative thoughts from New Jersey & California
 

Sponsored Links






Add to Technorati Favorites

Massachusetts Proposes GPS Collars on Abusive People

by Steve
2/24/2005 12:40:00 PM

This happened last week, but Massachusett's Lieutenant Governor, Kerry Healey, a Republican, introduced legislation that would require certain people to wear GPS collars. According to an article by the Associated Press:
Under the proposal, courts would be allowed to force abusers who violate their restraining orders to wear a monitoring device as a condition of their probation. The system would alert the victim and police if the offender enters certain restricted areas, such as a home, workplace or child's school.

The technology already is being used in Massachusetts to track the state's most dangerous sexual predators.
Wow. It was last month that I blogged about RFID microchips being used someday to monitor the whereabouts of registered sex offenders. Well, Golllllly! It's already been done, with GPS collars.

But now, they want to extend the technology to people who have not been convicted of a crime. These are folks who had a restraining order placed upon them, and then subsequently violated the restraining order.

Folks, we all know that restraining orders are misused, are bogus, and are so easily obtained, without testimony from the opposite party. Attorney Elaine Epstein, former president of the Massachusetts Bar Association, wrote about restraining orders:
"The facts have become irrelevant. Everyone knows that restraining orders...are granted to virtually all who apply... In many cases, allegations of abuse are now used for tactical advantage" [in divorce]. And the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has tacitly agreed with this view by writing that we must "resist a culture of summarily issuing and extending these orders." Most violations of restraining orders are non-violent, such as placing a telephone call about a sick child.
This also bolsters an argument I made in another blog about students being implanted with microchips: that if it proves successful in one area, it's going to expand into others.

I think the critical juncture for this came after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Legislators used the anger of Americans to propose new laws that further eroded our privacy. We were so blinded by our anger, that we've allowed government to take away more of our freedom.

Bad guys will always do their thing, despite the law. That's why they're bad guys. The GPS collar doesn't take the violence out of the man. We need to target the violent people, the terrorists, the crooks, and get them. We don't need policies that burden the innocent.

2 Comments:

  • I don't know if this indicates a trend where eventually everybody will be "chipped" but I think I like the idea of being able to keep tabs on people who repeatedly violate restraining orders. This is the only way we can insure that such judicial orders have any real teeth. Those who obtain such orders derserve protection. Obviously a restraining order is not an easy thing to obtain. And the circumstances involve issues of personal safety, frequently even life/death issues. I like the idea of having something like this at our disposal.

    By Blogger Dave, at 1:42 PM, February 24, 2005  

  • "Obviously a restraining order is not an easy thing to obtain."

    You must not have ever been to a restraining order hearing. They are given out like candy to whoever wants them. No violence is required to be proven; there doesn't even have to be a THREAT of violence. All the "victim" has to say is that they are "afraid". The orders are issued without the knowledge of the other party, and then at the "hearing" (if you really want to call it that) the "victim" gets to speak at length as long as he or she wants to, while the accused gets to present no evidence and is rushed through their testimony so the judge can get on to the next case. It's a kangaroo court, a rubber-stamp process. There is no regard for due process or the rights of the accused, and there is no punishment for making up outright lies to obtain one of these orders.

    The fact of the matter is that restraining orders are a joke. If they keep someone from doing something wrong, then the order was never needed in the first place because that person is obviously a law-abiding citizen. And, I can promise you that a piece of paper is not going to do ANYTHING to prevent someone from harming someone if they have their mind made up to do it. All these orders do is give the victim a false sense of security, and sometimes they make the situation worse by enraging the accused.

    So they don't help the victim, they trample on the rights of the accused, and they often make a bad situation worse by inciting anger on the part of the accused as well, if he or she is genuinely a dangerous person. The process by which they are obtained is, in my opinion, unconstitutional. No one should be able to go before a judge and accuse you of ANYTHING without your having the ability to be there and PRESENT YOUR SIDE OF THE STORY.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10:53 AM, November 22, 2006  

Post a Comment
Back to Homepage