१ नोव्हेंबर, २०११
"Domestic abusers to wear GPS tracking ankle bracelets that text message victims on whereabouts..."
A new program on Staten Island — called Domestic Violence GPS Initiative — operated by a security firm in Atlanta. It will begin by attaching these devices to "a few dozen" individuals who have been found guilty of a domestic violence offense and who have repeatedly violated protective orders. The victim gets a text if the offender crosses into the "exclusory zone."
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
४० टिप्पण्या:
You'd think that it would be cheaper to buy the abused party a pistol.
If they have REPEATEDLY violated a protective order, why not keep them locked up? We'd have plenty of room in our jails if we stopped trying to punish illegal gardeners and sellers of banned herbs...
Once this is accepted as normal, an offender will hear the following after injection...
"Not a small explosion, about the size of a pinhead, just enough to pop open both of your arteries."
Purplepeng: If they have REPEATEDLY violated a protective order, why not keep them locked up?
I'm not saying that I disagree with you, but one reason to allow them to stay out may be that they can work, and support their family (which may, in fact, probably, includes the victim), keeping them off public support, which may be an overall better policy. (The same could certainly be said about drugs, I'm sure- not going there.) I don't know; I'm just throwing that out there as a possibility.
It's one of those things that might be a good idea in very narrow practice, but definitely has the possibility for severe abuse if widely applied. Interesting, though.
- Lyssa
Bad idea. I can totally see the abuser making inroads to the exclusionary zone just to harrass the victim.
How about punishing the abuser instead? If he's (assuming a he) wearing something around his ankle, why not make it tase him if he goes where he shouldn't?
MadisonMan said...
How about punishing the abuser instead? If he's (assuming a he) wearing something around his ankle, why not make it tase him if he goes where he shouldn't?
Yeah, they have those for dogs.
The text is coming from inside the house!
Aren't ankle bracelets easy to defeat?
Say wrap aluminum foil over the receiver, or wear metal fiber pants.
This is all wrong. Yes, the offender will use the device to harass the victim.
It should be like the invisible fences for dogs. If you cross the line....well, I don't think they make a battery big enough.
No one ever lies about their spouse in divorce cases, or claims abuse that didn't happen, or takes out orders of protection just to harrass their exes, so this will work out great.
The ankle bracelet needs to have a shock component, like we have for our dogs and underground fence. After awhile the dogs didn't even need the collar.
AllenS beat me to it..but I'm serious!
And, let me take this rare opportunity and say I agree w/ the penquin.
Count me in with purplepenquin as well.
Why aren't these guys in prison?
It looks as if we are forming a consensus on the shock aspect to the bracelet. Shock first, message later.What a visual.
Purplepenguin. If "repeatedly" is in all capital letters does that mean they have to have violated the order hundreds of times or dozens? The capitals indicate a built in flexibikity that would be good to understand.
Shock first, message later.What a visual.
How about the tase starts at the same time as an audio recording of the perp convulsing on the ground. Then when it's done, that audio file is forwarded to the victim's phone.
This seems like the classic example of a stupid policy: It manages to both do too much, and too little.
Case 1: Success! The police find the ex-wife beaten to death, but manage to crack the case by noting a text message she received from her abusive ex-husband's ankle bracelet minutes before her brutal demise.
Case 2: The ex-wife is startled a dozen times every day by texts indicating that her abusive ex-husband is within a thousand feet. (He's repeatedly violated the order before... why should this stop him?)
And neither of those deals with the far-too-common case of the false accusation.
My favorite quote from the article: “To many domestic abusers, an order of protection is just a piece of paper,” Staten Island District Attorney Daniel Donovan said.
The extraordinary lack of reflection required to make such a statement boggles the mind.
A court order doesn't phase the abuser -- but a text message is going to put the fear of God into him. Right.
Then when it's done, that audio file is forwarded to the victim's facebook page.
Fixed for you.
Or better yet, the abuser's facebook page!
This type of order usually ends up with the victim dead. At least now, they've got some warning to either call the cops or get the .45 out of the china cabinet.
purplepenquin said...
If they have REPEATEDLY violated a protective order, why not keep them locked up?
Because the civil rights lawyers will whine about prison overcrowding and cruel and unusual punishment.
Creepy.
I wonder if it's effective.
Just another step towards a police state. The entire country will be a prison. Alcoholics can't go in bars, shoplifters in stores, fat people in McDonalds, etc.
Doesn't the offender suffer repercussions if he (she?) enters the exclusion zone? It seems to me that would preclude him/her using it to harass the victim. If I were the judge one venture into the exclusion zone would incur jail time.
But I'm not sure how much that helps. If I were a woman with an abusive husband I'd want him away from me no matter where I was, like stay 500 meters away no matter what. But how can someone hoping to obey such a mandate obey? If he's at a diner and she walks in is he guilty of something?
If I was the guy in that situation I'd move to another state I guess - and it would obviously be my own fault that I had to do so.
This kind of thing turns my stomach. How about if we stop trying to prevent every bad thing from happening, and make it possible for the victim to protect him/herself? I know...AllenS said it first. Pogo's point is good, too. But that's the way these things always work: Good intentions + legislature - common sense = return of the inquisition.
Next thing we'll see (and probably already do see) is the Soviet-style mental hospitals for criminals.
OK, I will give the writers of the bill the benefit of believing that they were trying to do good.
But what assault survivor wants to get texts whenever the person who beat them up moves? Can you imagine what this would do to someone with PTSD? How it would wreck their lives?
A carry permit with regular practice solves the issue by empowering the fighter in the survivor, this engages their flight response.
Trey
So, a game of 'hot and cold' for the victim if they decide to carry out a little revenge.
Trey, they always are trying to do good.
I actually like it. It makes it worthwhile for people who are stalked and threatened to take it to the police. As the system is set up now, going to the police offers minuscule protection and enormous risk of aggravating the aggressor. This would provide a protective benefit.
Not a bad idea, so long as the "found guilty" part remains.
Not so good if it's for violating a protective order without the "found guilty" part (after a complaint has been "substantiated.")
To state the obvious (?) unfounded complaints of domestic abuse are not uncommon in divorces and custody disputes. These should not be encouraged.
Some are arguing that this would offer no protection to the victim, I disagree. I imagine anyone who has ever been stalked would disagree. It would be incredibly helpful to know if the person stalking you has entered the area. You would know not to be out or, if out, to get to a public place immediately.
@AllenS That's absolutely right.
So what if the guy gets too close, then what? You call the police and they will likely tell you they can't do anything until someone is actually dead, or the guy is in your house.
You'll still need to protect yourself, by yourself.
I had to call the police when someone was in my backyard. They were apologetic, but still couldn't do anything. He had to actually be waving a gun or in the house, etc. I finally confronted him and said, either come over and shoot me right now, you *, or don't bother me again. He backed down and finally went away for good after that.
But honestly, just get a gun.
Serving your sentence used to mean you paid your debt to society. Now, it means that you are in the system forever. It means they can make you register your address, report your movements. It means they can announce to the world that you are a scumbag and are to be shunned. It means there are apps out there to keep children from your door because you are certain to pull them in and do something unspeakable.
Law enforcement is no longer "protect and serve", it is to make LE jobs bigger and badder, to give more power to LE.
Yes, I am talking about the sex offender registry but--really--how certain are you that a Protection Order Offender registry is not far behind?
Save the expense and go directly to the Scarlet A.
Freeman, sure it might provide some benefit, especially if the system were made more sophistical by having two concentric warning levels.
Abuser crosses outer range, text: "Draw".
Abuser crosses inner range, text: "Two to center of mass, one to the head".
Let me go one step further. Let the abuser know that the abused has been issued a pistol, received training on how to handle the weapon, and has been instructed to protect themselves.
Yes, it would be a good idea for the victim to get a gun. But one of the main hassles of being stalked is having no idea when the stalker might show up. The victim is left looking over his shoulder every two minutes all the time. Having some notification that the stalker is nearby would help tremendously and allow the victim to live in a little peace.
How often does it happen that way? Do we make a law to cover the unusual cases? I would think that the VAST majority of protection orders are less serious, less deadly. Laws like this remind me of the Caylee Law, in which legislators make it a felony not to report the death of a child within a certain number of hours. The law is meant to catch the next Casey Anthony but unintended consequences are always...unintended, and we've ended up making felons of people who simply are not criminals. Same with the ankle bracelet. Sure, maybe--and only MAYBE--you have prevented a nutcase from killing someone. But you have also sentenced other offenders to something that simply isn't necessary.
I don't know numbers, though. I might reconsider if most protection orders are life-or-death matters. Just like I might make it legal to burn husbands in bed if most domestic abuse cases are like the Farah Faucet movie.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा