If people are so concerned about their civil liberties, maybe they shouldn't batter or assault people.

I mean, my instinct is that if you punch your wife, you should be in jail, so an ankle bracelet seems like a comparatively stellar deal.

This issue puts me at odds with myself. One of my 2 life-work issues is making the world better for women (I'll not bore you with the other one). Yet, I never want people to give up their bodily integrity - even bad people. I know bracelets are not all that invasive, but they are invasive enough. They attach to your body for heavens sake. I hate the thought of expanding the already troubling habits of our criminal justice system with another way to stigmatize people.

Maybe if police took women seriously, we would not need such measures. I can only see the future where all pregnant women are tracked to keep them from going into bars or all "women of childbearing age" are tracked to keep them from eating certain fish.

I heard a story (from a credible source) about a woman stalked by her ex via GPS she had in her car.

Not saying they wouldn't overall help people, I don't know. But food for thought...

Sounds like a good idea.

But I see at least one potential problem; aren't there many situations where both parties get restraining orders against each other? And isn't it fairly easy to get one? I'm only thinking that based on what I see on "Judge Judy" and "The People's Court", so maybe someone more knowledgable about these things could clarify that.

If both parties get restraining orders, should both of them have to wear a gps tracker?

I have to admit that this makes me mildly uncomfortable. I think part of it is the language being used in support. We do, of course, restrict the civil liberties of criminals. We take away the right of a criminal to travel freely, both as punishment, and as a means to protect the public from individuals who've proven to be dangerous. I don't, however, think that we should do such things lightly. Rachel's comment: If people are so concerned about their civil liberties, maybe they shouldn't batter or assault people. is the sort of thing that makes me sort of cringe a little bit and take pause, because it's the sort of sentiment that the right employ on a whole slew of issues that I'm opposed to.
"If a woman is so concerned about her bodily integrity, she shouldn't be having sex."
"If someone is so concerned about being put to death, he shouldn't have killed someone."
"If people are worried about being tortured, they shouldn't be associating with terrorists."

I think that this probably is a good idea as long as it's done properly, but I don't think it's a good idea to dismiss the civil liberty concerns out of hand. It's really easy to dismiss the civil liberty concerns for groups that we don't like, but I don't think that's a good habit to get in.

This is such a hard topic to decide on. In one way, I'm glad that they're realizing how dangerous domestic abusers can be and that something needs to be done. However, I'm not sure if the bracelets will be as effective as they are saying.
1. Unless the woman was fitted with one to detect how close the man was to her they would only be able to set up specific areas where the man cannot go. This would not prevent him for coming across her somewhere else like the grocery store or the mall. Also, what if he convinces her or tricks her into meeting him somewhere else.
2. Also, the emotional issues with domestic abuse are huge and individuals don't really understand that. I would be afraid that a woman would willingly go back to her abuser, which is relatively common, and if something happens the whole "well she obviously liked it" contingent would really find something to sink their teeth into.
3. Also, the area encompassed by the bracelet must be wide enough to the let the woman get notification and either leave or allow the police to get there before the man got to her house.
4. To answer Raging's questions, I'm sure that they would be pretty selective on who they put the bracelets on. It is true that mmany abuser put restraining orders on their victims as a psychological ploy but I think that just a simple restraining order will not automaticaly equal tracking system.

"I heard a story (from a credible source) about a woman stalked by her ex via GPS she had in her car."

This is entirely different. The guy doing the stalking in that case (if i remember correctly) snuck into her car, installed a GPS as well as a transmitter, both of which he owned, which allowed him to track her.
The proposed bracelets would be state owned, and worn by the person that is a risk of comitting violence, there's no way that the restrain-ee could use this to track their unfortunate restrain-er.

What kind of evidence is necessary to obtain a restraining order? I'm weary of imposing a $300/month bill on somone unless it's proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are a threat, and even then it's a shady grey area.

But sounds like this technology could be used to drastically increase the effectiveness of a restraining order, so I'm optimistic that it could be implemeted fairly.

This just looks like an easy denial of service. If you're intent on harassing someone, what better way of doing it than by entering the exclusion zone so the person gets a phone call? Do that every day for a week, a month, and you've just created a new form of harassment.

And eventually people will become immune, as to car alarms. If you're going to curtail someone's civil liberties, do it properly rather than creating a virtual weapon for the abuser to club the abused with.

There's precedent for this sort of thing; generally the only protections that apply to convicted felons are that their punishments not be cruel and unusual.

Provided that the ankle bracelet is:
1.) Sufficiently sturdy to withstand wear and damage attempts, and
2.) Not crippling to physical activity at all

then there should be no problems with it, I think. If it had built-in electrical shocks or something, I think that would be an issue, but if it's just a GPS tracker then it doesn't seem particularly cruel or unusual to me.

One thing we need to remember is the motivation and power of the companies who produce and distribute these technologies. If they can think of ways to sell more of their products, eventually there will be a use we don't like.

There's precedent for this sort of thing; generally the only protections that apply to convicted felons are that their punishments not be cruel and unusual.

Yes, but most of the people this would affect are not convicted felons. They are only accused of a crime, or it is thought that they might commit a crime.

There is no mention that the murderer of Ms. Griego was ever convicted of a crime.

As for convicted felons, I'm all for it. I'd support making the gps tracker a condition of parole for anyone convicted of a violent crime.

But based solely on the accusations made in order to obtain a restraining order, not so much.

roymacIII, while I sort of see what you're getting at, you're stretching. A lot.

Restriction of civil liberties (i.e. prison) is a foreseeable and reasonable consequence of breaking the law. Like, if Paris Hilton drinks and drives, it is a foreseeable consequence that her license will be suspended, and/or she will spend time in prison as punishment. If you commit a crime, it is entirely acceptable to set reasonable limits on your civil liberties.

The things you list (violations of bodily integrity, putting someone to death, torture) are violations of civil rights. An ankle bracelet monitoring your whereabouts (already used for monitoring those on parole, or trial) is most certainly not a breach of your civil rights.

"An ankle bracelet monitoring your whereabouts (already used for monitoring those on parole, or trial) is most certainly not a breach of your civil rights."

There is no right to a reasonable expectation of privacy?

The things you list (violations of bodily integrity, putting someone to death, torture) are violations of civil rights. An ankle bracelet monitoring your whereabouts (already used for monitoring those on parole, or trial) is most certainly not a breach of your civil rights.

Then how about, "if a woman is concerned about having her phone calls monitored, she shouldn't be communicating with terrorists"?

roymacIII, while I sort of see what you're getting at, you're stretching. A lot.

I don't think I am, at all, actually.

Restriction of civil liberties (i.e. prison) is a foreseeable and reasonable consequence of breaking the law. Like, if Paris Hilton drinks and drives, it is a foreseeable consequence that her license will be suspended, and/or she will spend time in prison as punishment. If you commit a crime, it is entirely acceptable to set reasonable limits on your civil liberties.

You're making an artificial distinction between "civil rights" and "civil liberties." In the United States, at least, our civil liberties are largely protected by the Bill of Rights. There's a lot of overlap. And I believe that I readily agreed that we restrict people's rights and freedoms when the engage in criminal behavior. My point was that we don't- or, at least shouldn't- do so lightly. It makes me very uncomfortable when people take the stance "Well, they're criminals, so they gave up their rights" as though that means we can do whatever we want to them. That's exactly the same sort of language and easy dismissal that pro-death penalty people use- It's okay for the state to kill people because, hey, the criminal knew that this was a possibility when they did the crime.

The things you list (violations of bodily integrity, putting someone to death, torture) are violations of civil rights. An ankle bracelet monitoring your whereabouts (already used for monitoring those on parole, or trial) is most certainly not a breach of your civil rights.

It most certainly is. The question should be whether it's a justifiable breach of our civil rights or not. We absolutely have a right to privacy. You know, the same right that the Supreme Court ruled was being violated by anti-abortion laws in Roe v. Wade?

The question should be whether it's a justifiable breach of our civil rights or not. We absolutely have a right to privacy.

Yes, you do. But not an absolute one. They already use these bracelets on parole-released pedophiles, to ensure that they don't swing by places they're legally forbidden on the conditions of their parole to visit, i.e. school and playgrounds. And those awaiting to stand trial who are considered flight risks.

Considering that the persons in questions have a) already demonstrated that they are violent and a risk to the safety of specific persons, if not society at large, and b) are still free to largely roam as they, except specific areas that there is a legal restriction in force (i.e. restraining order), I'm sorry if I'm not particularly swayed by, "Oh, those poor wife beaters and their unassailable right to privacy" arguments.

If you would prefer that all those found guilty of beating their wives and girlfriends spend their lives in rotting in prison instead, you won't find an argument from me.

I see what both of you are saying, but there has been a precedent set in other situations, e.g., alcohol detecting bracelets after receiving a DUI. Now I am not in favor of this bracelet myself, but we can't ignore that tech is changing where the community's rights end and the individual's liberties begin.

Michelle Rodriguez talked about how Orwellian and unreliable these types of devices can be:
http://www.eonline.com/news/article/index.jsp?uuid=6a5c42fa-f0a8-4400-81f1-c4668ee88cb5

Why stop at GPS tracking? Why not taser bracelets in case the perp enters a no fly zone?

"Considering that the persons in questions have a) already demonstrated that they are violent "

I'm admittedly very unschooled in restraint law, but i'm under the impression that people served with restraining orders havn't necessarily been convicted of any crimes.

"They already use these bracelets on parole-released pedophiles"

while there is precedence, I'm not sure that it's wise to refer to pedophile law as a way to justify anything. The west has become kid crazy, and many of the laws governing the freedoms of "reformed" sex offenders are draconian and immoral, IMO

Actually, forcing sex offenders to register is something a lot of Sexual Assault Support Services are in support of, but it's nearly impossible to make sure everyone does it.

This GPS thing sounds similar to the registration thing to me, except that it would be harder to get around...

(Now whether or not it's effective I don't know, but considering most sex offenders will strike again I don't see it as particularly immoral... (certainly not on the same level, as say, the death penalty...)

Yes, you do. But not an absolute one.

Obviously.
Otherwise we wouldn't have prisons. Which I've already acknowledged. We don't have any absolute rights. I have the right to free speech, but it's against the law to say certain things, and I can get in trouble for, say, lying under oath.

Considering that the persons in questions have a) already demonstrated that they are violent and a risk to the safety of specific persons, if not society at large, and b) are still free to largely roam as they, except specific areas that there is a legal restriction in force (i.e. restraining order), I'm sorry if I'm not particularly swayed by, "Oh, those poor wife beaters and their unassailable right to privacy" arguments.

Where have I made that argument?
Look, I didn't say that I thought that this was a horrible idea. I said that some of the comments made me uncomfortable. In fact, I said that it's probably a good idea, but that it made me feel weird to have people dismiss the civil liberty concerns so easily. It always gives me pause when I see people endorsing things with language like that. When endorsing a program that diminishes civil rights or civil liberties, I think it's important to acknowledge that it does so, and to take that seriously, not to dismiss it as unimportant or say "Well, they don't deserve rights anyway" or something similar.

If you would prefer that all those found guilty of beating their wives and girlfriends spend their lives in rotting in prison instead, you won't find an argument from me.

I'll keep that in mind. I think you're misreading my expressing some squeemishness about the flippant dismissal of civil liberty concerns with saying it's inherently a bad program.

I think it sounds like an interesting and potentially positive program. I don't think that there's anything wrong with being interested in the program, albeit with some reservations about the potential civil liberty concerns.

Hmmmm...if the goal is to alert the victim of the abuser's whereabouts, don't we need the victim to also wear a GPS device? If we only use the GPS device to keep the abuser from say work or home, everywhere else is free game.

Not so sure if I'd sign up for that tour of duty. "Roni, love the anklet!" "Yeah, it's in case my stalker gets too close."

CoasttoCoast, you are correct in that people served with restraining orders haven't necessarily been convicted of any crimes. Restraining orders are civil orders, and there is no burden to present proof beyond a reasonable doubt. It's a matter of preponderance of evidence; a judge needs to be reasonable confident that abuse, or a threat thereof, has occurred. This is huge, as far as access to protection goes, as most abusers are quite sneaky when it comes to making sure "proof" doesn't exist.

I dont know. I do not like the idea of imposing monitoring devices to people who havent been convicted of a crime yet.

Restraining warrants are pretty easy to get, in terms of burden of proof and what not. (at least that is my understanding)

Sounds a lot like drug testing imo. Started out as routine for parolee's and what not, now we get tested just for the sake of being tested. It took away all validity of our own word. Why can I not simply say, I do not use drugs? Because we have a test to prove one way or another.

This looks like a quick road to nowhere. So if a guy says a woman is stalking him, without any shred of proof, everyone here is in agreement to wearing them?

Thank you MIRM for your statement:
"Yet, I never want people to give up their bodily integrity - even bad people. I know bracelets are not all that invasive, but they are invasive enough. They attach to your body for heavens sake. I hate the thought of expanding the already troubling habits of our criminal justice system with another way to stigmatize people."

I will say that I agree, especially because stigmatization does do nothing positive in the lives of attackers (who, often, have been victims themselves at some point in their lives). I would rather the powers-that-be create better programs that use rehabilitative therapies to get to the root of the crime, instead of pumping dollars (that are already limited) in to a bracelet.

I am not saying that environmental factors are a complete excuse, but they certainly need to be focused on. Our society seems to be quick to ostracize criminals, but do little to prevent future abuses by looking at the foundation.

I also find the title a bit scary. Should GPS be used to protect women?

What if, just if, men feel they need protection from cheating wives or girlfriends, due to threat of HIV/AIDs and hepatitus(sp?) possibly being spread by unfaithfull lovers? It wouldnt take much to generate suspicion, similar to restraining warrants. And then women should be required to wear bracelets and forced to submit to vaginal exams to provide proof they did not break, no intend to break, matrimonial vows?

Wouldnt it only be fair - as the threat is real and present, just as abuse?

I think people need to be very carefull in pushing agendas that go against every meaning of civil rights.

Man...I can't say that I agree with this proposal. It's hard to disagree, as it would (hopefully) help ensure the woman's safety. It's my understanding that, as used now, these devices are used on criminals that have already been convicted of a crime, or, having been charged with a crime, are able to be released from jail provided they stay on home incarceration.

Are restraining orders tied to criminal charges? GPS + government = pretty scary prospect.

Hold on, hold on, hold on.

So if a guy says a woman is stalking him, without any shred of proof, everyone here is in agreement to wearing them?

Can you address what people are actually saying, instead this straw version you've created? Do you think that judges really give out restraining orders without a shred of proof? Further, I'd hardly say that there's uniform enthusiasm for this program- some people, like myself, said that we think it's got potential, but that we have reservations. Others have said that they support it completely. A few people have expressed that they don't support it. So, you know, it's hardly a mob you're dealing with.

Further:
What if, just if, men feel they need protection from cheating wives or girlfriends, due to threat of HIV/AIDs and hepatitus(sp?) possibly being spread by unfaithfull lovers? It wouldnt take much to generate suspicion, similar to restraining warrants. And then women should be required to wear bracelets and forced to submit to vaginal exams to provide proof they did not break, no intend to break, matrimonial vows?

Wouldnt it only be fair - as the threat is real and present, just as abuse?

Assault is a crime.
Cheating on your boyfriend is not.

It's insulting to the victims of domestic abuse- men and women- to suggest that someone's paranoia about his girlfriend cheating on him is the same as the concern that a abusive ex might beat or murder the former partner.

I'm admittedly very unschooled in restraint law, but i'm under the impression that people served with restraining orders haven't necessarily been convicted of any crimes.

That's my understanding, too.

I don't think accusations, which are sufficient to get a restraining order, should be sufficient to have a person's every movement tracked.

As natmusk said, many abusers get restraining orders against the woman they abuse (as retaliation for being subjected to one themselves). If the woman wants nothing to do with the abuser, the restraining order isn't really much of a problem.

But I can see this leading to abused women having to wear a gps tracker because the abuser convinces a judge that she is the violent one whyo needs to be restrained. That's a problem.

"Restraining warrants are pretty easy to get, in terms of burden of proof and what not. (at least that is my understanding"

I'm not sure that I agree that (1) restraining orders are that easy to get, and (2) they can't form a legitimate basis for a limitied deprivation of civil liberties.

First, although a *temporary* restraining order can be issued ex parte, i.e. without a response from the accused, a restraining order is only issued after both sides have the opportuntity to be heard and to present evidence. I think some of the commentators might be confusing the two types of orders. It's true that a restraining order is a civil order, based on a preponderence of the evidence standard, but I do not agree that a preponderence of the evidence standard makes the restraining order "easy" or somehow illegimate. Almost all civil cases are decided by this standard - it's good enough for a corporation to be forced to pay hundreds of millions of dollars, for you to be evicted, or to be found guilty of sexual harrassment - I don't see why it doesn't suffice in the context of domestic violence. Further, my (admittedly limited) experience with getting restraining orders in this context indicates that it is not that easy - and if the accused actually shows up and looks respectable, you very well might not get one.

Second, a restraining order already does deprive you of significant liberties, most obviously, that you can not go certain places. Given this significant restriction of freedom, it strikes me that the bracelet is just the cherry on the civil liberties violation sundae. And don't forget an RO can also deprive you of your guns (2nd amendment right!) or a job (if they do a background search). And I support all of these restrictions. Likewise, I think a narrow crafted "bracelet requirement" (e.g. make the judge find "an imminent danger of physical harm" etc.) could be an interesting option.

I'm fine with dismissing this particular idea out-of-hand. So long as in its place, we guarantee that as mandatory physical education requirements starting from grade school on through high school graduation, all kids are taught IMPACT-style self defense. Abusers, for people who don't have first hand experience, don't pick fights with people whose asses they can't kick. They don't have anger management issues. They have access-to-people-they-can-win-fights-with issues. One of the scariest people I ever met, who abused every girlfriend he ever had and numerous other people, and who himself was abused horribly by his dad - he mysteriously kept his hands off the one guy he met who was bigger than him and not afraid of him. His dad, by the way? Killed when his son, the scary dude in question, bashed his skull in with a brick in self-defense as a teenager.

Say, guess who doesn't need an ankle bracelet or a restraining order?

What redorange said. If y'all would like to restrict this kind of step to those situations where there's documented history of abuse/domestic disturbance reports/threats in writing - and/or cause to think there's an imminent threat - I would agree that that seems like a reasonable limit. (Though I tend not to think that women take out restraining orders capriciously, but I also tend not to think of women as inherently hysterical or vicious.)

Many women don't even take out retraining orders when the situation might call for it, for fear that it might provoke a reaction in the abuser, and "it's only a piece of paper" - it can't protect them. This kind of measure might alleviate that phenomenon.

And really, if you allow that restraining orders themselves are legal and/or necessary, I don't see why you wouldn't generally support methods of actually enforcing them.

Just sayin', my friend - shot by her violent ex in her own apartment - might have liked a heads up that he was in the neighbourhood that his legal restraining order outright forbid him to be.

Why stop at GPS tracking? Why not taser bracelets in case the perp enters a no fly zone?

Oh, Strawman, my old friend; no one has made the argument that physical harm come to these men.

Rachel: I think the problem is that restraining orders are underused in the arena where the bracelet idea might be most efficacious, and overused in the arena (generally, family law situations by both parties) where there might be competing agendas at play.

I would more like to see the facts supporting a civil injunction/restraining order going towards criminal prosecution for assault, terroristic threats (a term of art), etc.

Overall, though, I don't like the prison crowding/Jessica's Law/biometric implant/warrantless wiretap/zero tolerance/false sense of security impulse in society today.

Why do we assume the easy answer (technology is the latest craze in easy answers) is the best one? I respect the seriousness of abusive behavior (just had a girlfriend escape one crazy). However, such funds (and it comes down to $) would be better spent training people in self-defence as JoanKelly suggests and in programming that teaches violent men better ways to direct their anger and frustration

But I see at least one potential problem; aren't there many situations where both parties get restraining orders against each other? And isn't it fairly easy to get one?

In other words, this isn't really a legitimate concern, except in jurisdictions where the judge is crazy.

What kind of evidence is necessary to obtain a restraining order? I'm weary of imposing a $300/month bill on somone unless it's proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are a threat, and even then it's a shady grey area.

This is where my concerns come in. There's a fairly complex public policy argument coming, so please bear with me.

State DV coalitions have pushed model legislation, for a long time, that facilitates the granting of protection orders to pro se litigants. Reforms based around this model, like simplification of the civil rules of evidence and establishing a more inquisitorial role for the judge, have made it easy for abused women to get pro se protection orders, but -- to a certain extent -- this entire approach has been insufficiently ambitious.

In order to facilitate access for women who have been abused, legislatures created a system where non-attorneys attend hearings where quasi-evidence may be presented. While the vast majority of protection orders are legitimate, I've too often seen them turned into instruments of abuse -- slumlords in Seattle temporary protection orders to evict clients without due process, and just last week, one of my clients had her children kidnapped by an abuser who used the temporary protection order process (and a falsified statement) to force the sheriff to enforce the included temporary custody order.

I think it's a good public policy principle is that if you create a new cause of action for disadvantaged people, you fund services so they can take advantage of it -- and that means guaranteeing attorneys through local domestic violence programs -- rather than half-assing evidentiary standards in order to facilitate access.

-- ACS

"Overall, though, I don't like the prison crowding/Jessica's Law/biometric implant/warrantless wiretap/zero tolerance/false sense of security impulse in society today."

Perzactly - thanks norbizness

"What redorange said. If y'all would like to restrict this kind of step to those situations where there's documented history of abuse/domestic disturbance reports/threats in writing - and/or cause to think there's an imminent threat - I would agree that that seems like a reasonable limit."

Sure, sounds reasonable to me. I'm all for that. Just that we need to be very carefull how this law is regulated. We really shouldn't start limiting freedoms and rights based on suspicion of a possibility of a threat, that's what the patriot act is for.

Just sayin', my friend - shot by her violent ex in her own apartment - might have liked a heads up that he was in the neighbourhood that his legal restraining order outright forbid him to be.

"Why stop at GPS tracking? Why not taser bracelets in case the perp enters a no fly zone?"

Your friend would have benefited far more from our newest combination GPS-TASER bracelet than our competitor's old GPS bracelet. These are men you know, with a documented history of abusive behavior.

it is most frequently the case that one individual meets the evidence standard necessary for a protection order and the other does not.

So I (and natmusk) are incorrect about abusers frequently getting restraining orders against the woman they abuse? I've often heard that it was, unfortunately, a fairly common occurence.

and just last week, one of my clients had her children kidnapped by an abuser who used the temporary protection order process (and a falsified statement) to force the sheriff to enforce the included temporary custody order.

That's my concern. Imagine your client then having to wear a gps monitor as well, based on the false statement that was sufficient to get the protection order and remove her children from her.

Sounds like a recipe for disaster.

That's my concern. Imagine your client then having to wear a gps monitor as well, based on the false statement that was sufficient to get the protection order and remove her children from her.

Hrm. Isn't that really more an argument for some kind of reform in regards to how temporary protection orders are processed and decided and less against the tracking system?

Generally speaking, false convictions are evidence of a problem with the application of a law, not with the law itself. If we find that a lot of people are being unfairly convicted of robbery and setenced to time in jail, the problem is with how we're processing criminals, not with "jail time" as a punishment.

All quick fixes are mildly disturbing to me - obviously there are tons of complex issues to work through on this one.

My comment is this: I'm not so convinced that "programmes" designed to get to "the root" of the abuse are going to profoundly affect all, albeit ANY of the convicts. It doesn't seem plausible to me at all. In fact I'd go so far as to call it totally dreaming.

I just don't think that these fellas are necessarily all applicable to the same kind of standards, do you know what I mean? Some of them are maybe suffering from anger management but I'm sure some are pathologically disturbed, and I hope the former is the majority rather than the latter. Abusive isn't the default setting in men, and rehabilitation just doesn't seem to be a REAL answer. I'm not speculating as to what IS, and I am not totally against rehabilitation - but I'm not wowed by it either.

Hrm. Isn't that really more an argument for some kind of reform in regards to how temporary protection orders are processed and decided and less against the tracking system?

You're right. That's why I don't like this idea. If the protection order system is so flawed and can be abused, I don't see adding harsher enforcement methods as a good thing.

Fix the system first, then work on better enforcement.

So I (and natmusk) are incorrect about abusers frequently getting restraining orders against the woman they abuse? I've often heard that it was, unfortunately, a fairly common occurence.

(1) File a petition with your local court. If the petition meets the standard for a TPO, a temporary (ex parte) protection order is issued.

(2) The TPO is served on the restrained person. You are unprotected until the TPO is served.

(3) Two weeks later (or thereabouts, depending on your jurisdiction), a due process hearing is held to determine whether a continuing protection order shall be issued.

The big issue is (3). A lot of women who have been victims of abuse won't want to confront their abuser and show up to (3). If they do, usually, the right thing is done ... but that's just not always the case.

-- ACS

I friend of mine a few years back went through the process of obtaining a restraining order against her ex-husband and it was not easy (at least here in California). She had to prove he was a threat and continued to be one (like sending her to the hospital twice wasn't enough) and she had to tell numerous people over and over all of the things that happened that led up to the restraining order. At one point she was even told to wait until he was convicted and it would be easier then (the DA ended up dropping charges because they couldn't prove it was her ex and not her teenage brother or father who did it. She moved in with her family when she left him, then he came after her twice and beat her up. Couldn't prove for sure he was there and the others were not, etc... talk about being screwed over by the justice system for chosing to live with male family members one town over instead her mom or sister 1000+ miles away).

It took her 3 months to get the restraining order (the second attack happened during that wait). Honestly, you have to convince a judge the other person is a threat to you which means the other person already did something wrong... you should have to give up a few of your rights (ie, gps monitoring) because you aren't abiding by the law anyway.

I'm not saying it shouldn't go both ways too. Although less common/less heard about, there are women who threaten and commit violence against others that should be subject to the same treatment.

As a civil liberties person, this really frightens me. What next? Tracking of children because they could be kidnapped? Tracking teenagers so you know where they are? Tracking college students so they aren't abducted? Tracking pregnant women so they don't run away from their husbands? Tracking mothers or fathers so they don't steal the kids in a custody dispute?

I don't like that door being opened, and it really frightens me that tracking technology could be used for other "public good" ends, even when the person with the bracelet has not done anything wrong.

Taisa -

Thats the problem. What if no crime was committed? You dont need to commit a crime to get a restraining order against someone.

If we apply it to men under a stigma of potential law breaker, well then get ready to wear one for a jealous/controlling husband. Its bad enough the whole key logger fiasco in the name of "protecting teens on the net" - but reality has shown an overwhelming acceptance of jealous spouses using this in the home for nefarious purposes.

Just like drug testing, warrantless wiretaps, secret arrests, incarceration without pressing charges, key loggers, etc etc etc. Its really silly - If this will save so many women maybe abortion should be illegal too. I mean, we are saving lives, regardless of the civil rights impact right?

I am COMPLETELY in favor of this. Too many women have already been killed or hurt by repeat abusers. Putting a criminal's civil rights above his victim's is just silly. C'mon people! Priorities!!

PS. Don't waste energy attacking each other here. That's what they want us to do. Keep focused on the real enemy, please.

I am COMPLETELY in favor of this. Too many women have already been killed or hurt by repeat abusers. Putting a criminal's civil rights above his victim's is just silly. C'mon people! Priorities!!

-- ACS

"Putting a criminal's civil rights above his victim's is just silly. C'mon people! Priorities!!"

The problem of course is that people don't become criminals just because you say that they are. You need to prove this stuff before you can take away extremely precious things like a persons freedom.

All this makes me think of is a local man who was put on house arrest with a GPS ankle bracelet who managed to get over to the home of the girl he raped and shoot her in the face. Some help the tracking device was.

I don't really know how I feel about the idea in all situations, but it seems like, if the person has made threats to do violence to another person, and has harmed the person in the past, that should be enough evidence for using the bracelets. While many people who have restraining orders against them haven't been convicted of any crimes, quite a few have been--at the very least those who were already convicted of some prior abusive act should definitely be made to wear them. And I think there is all sorts of precedent for compromising privacy rights when foreseeable harm may result. For instance, if you tell your therapist you want to kill someone, they have a legal obligation to divulge that information, even though doing so compromises your right to privacy re: medical records, etc. And anyways, even it isn't always effective, and even if it can't always be used in every circumstance, it seems to me that it certainly would prevent some acts of violence. It certainly could have helped Rebecca Griego. She was shot by her ex boyfriend in the middle of campus; she did everything right; she went to the police, she got a restraining order, she told everyone what he looked like and how to watch out for him, and then he disappeared. If the police had known where he was, they could have taken him into to custody and maybe she would still be alive.

While many people who have restraining orders against them haven't been convicted of any crimes, quite a few have been--at the very least those who were already convicted of some prior abusive act should definitely be made to wear them.

I'd support that.

"Some help the tracking device was."

Yes,I totally agree. Also, sometimes the police aren't able to catch criminals, so we should probably do away with the police force. Also, sometimes condoms don't prevent a pregnancy, even when used perfectly! We should all stop using condoms.

Most restraining orders require a hearing in front of a judge to keep them in effect, beyond the emergency issuance. Most restraining orders carry the threat of jail time for a violation so they are sort of a pre-empting probation situation. They are already being monitored for behavior with the threat of jail. There are also those with criminal charges brought but get slap on the wrist sentences. Putting bracelets on these perps would be within established terms of other criminals release conditions.

Something like this also makes it extremely easy for the prosecutors to prove they violated said order. It would have a record of the violation rather than the victim stating the perp showed up at her house and then it becoming a he said she said due to no witnesses.

Yes,I totally agree. Also, sometimes the police aren't able to catch criminals, so we should probably do away with the police force. Also, sometimes condoms don't prevent a pregnancy, even when used perfectly! We should all stop using condoms.

Uh, way to put words in my mouth. All I'm saying is a monitoring device isn't much help if nobody's bothering to monitor the wearer, which is what happened in the case I referenced.

My friend had her abuser-turned-stalker incarcerated. It was next to impossible. After working for months with three different law enforcement agencies, they finally agreed to lock him up when he'd caused property damage.

What he'd done to HER was pretty much a non-issue.

He got out of jail. He continued to stalk her. He went back in. He'll be out in another six months.

When he gets out, I'd be quite in favor of fitting him with an exploding collar with a proximity sensor. Anything to keep him away from her. I'm pretty sure he's going to kill her eventually.

Cops won't take the word of stalking victims. They also won't waste much (read: any) time investigate the crime. Once you're getting stalked, you're pretty much fucked, so this GPS thing sounds good to me, if only as a way to gather evidence of the stalker's pattern of behavior.

How is a bracelet going to make the flawed system "take the word of stalking victims"? We all agree that these monsters need to be stopped, some of us just don't believe this particular abuse of human rights will help the problem.

Because if police can tell that a stalker is engaging in suspicious behavior (spending too much time near people they're not supposed to be near) maybe it will make a difference to /some/ of them.

I just think you have to weigh the abuse of human rights of being attached with GPS against the abuse of human rights of being stalked and potentially assaulted or killed. Something like 75% of women who are murdered by a male acquaintence were first stalked by him.

Of course, depending on how much the GPS /cost/, they could very well be putting that money into more efficient abuse fighting measures... (especially if they don't pay attention to it, as bridgetka raised that concern)

Nina,

That stat is not important. The real question is how many men who have restraining orders slapped on them actually go on to harm their ex-girlfriends, and, of those, how many could be helped by this bracelet.

Not to be sarcastic regarding the civil liberties issue, but killing the stalker is a foolproof way to ensure that he will not harm the woman - and it certainly is more effectual than giving her about a minute's worth of warning that he's coming to get her.

Nevertheless, we don't do that, because we don't trample on people's rights.

The idea of placing a GPS monitor on a convicted sex-offender, etc. would probably be a good idea, especially in reference to physical abuse, etc. However, this wouldn't be a long term solution to harassment. For example, if the GPS was to break or deactivate, and the person had enough time to escape, no matter how soon the "control center" knew of this person's departure, the person still would be gone, and there wouldn't be anything that the department could do about it. One idea that could possibly amount into a civil/humanitarian rights issues would be embedding a GPS chip into the multiple offender's skin, which would prevent any removal/deactivation and allow for the proper authorities to continue to keep a watch on this person long after parole has subsided. The greatest issue at hand here is the idea that no matter how many women we could save, we are stepping on the inalienable rights of a man.

I just think you have to weigh the abuse of human rights of being attached with GPS against the abuse of human rights of being stalked and potentially assaulted or killed. Something like 75% of women who are murdered by a male acquaintence were first stalked by him.

-- ACS

"How is a bracelet going to make the flawed system 'take the word of stalking victims?'"

I think that the whole point of the bracelets would be to create a syste, where finding a violation of a restraining order would not have to be based on anyone's word at all. In fact, making violations of an RO an objective determination, instead of a "he said she said" would be one of the biggest benefits of a GPS system. If a reliable bracelet were to indicate that a RO batterer were in prohibited territory, I think that a judge would have to find a violation of the RO - in fact, barring some sort of very meritorious defense, a failure to find a violation in such a situation would probably be a reversible error.

And on a broader point, although many judges have bad records on domestic violence cases, one of the best ways to get judicial intervention is to have a clear violation of a court order. I've had practicioners tell me that many a judge doesn't seem to mind (or give credence to) a woman getting beat up, but will get pretty pissed off if a court order - i.e. *their* order - is violated.

Certainly those bracelets are appropriate for people who have suffered a criminal conviction. After all, we can put them in jail--therefore a bracelet (which is less invasive) is OK.

But I am a tad uncomfortable with them for ROs. Although ROs are putatively given through the oversight of a judge, they don't carry anywhere NEAR the safeguards for the accused that a normal trial does.

Now, with the case of a 'standard' restraining order, that's probably OK. They actually often have a pretty huge effect on the accused as is, even without a trial.* But we need something to use. And ROs seem a reasonable compromise.

These are much more restrictive than the standard RO. They give the government a look into everywhere the person goes; that's a significant increase in monitoring. And, of course, they're a physical presence, while a normal RO is merely information.

There's nothing wrong with throwing the book at a rapist after a conviction. Jail, monitoring--hell, chemically castrate them for all I care. But with the limited process we have now for ROs, the bracelets seem wrong.

*It's not uncommon for the accused to be kicked out of their housing, for example. This is a pretty major effect for the poor.

Woah. I'm glad to see that some people are defending the idea of civil liberties in the abstract, but VERY dismayed at the total lack of race or class analysis here.

I don't have the time to read through every single comment here, but I did a "FIND" search and not a single post above uses the words "race," "color," OR "black."

Uh, this is not ok. The binary thinking of female victims vs. evil criminals is highly problematic for communities of color in this country. As Samhita has tried to point out in her blogging about the Duke rape case, people of color cannot take for granted that the criminal justice system is fair or in any way acts in their interests. The argument that "well, if he's convicted, he shouldn't have any civil liberties" presupposes, among other things, that we all agree that all convictions are totally valid and just.

I believe that most women of color feminists will and should oppose this law. "'Potential Safety' trumps civil liberties" is the argument that leads us to fascism. If you think I'm exaggerating, go ask one of the many thousands of Arab OR Muslim OR South Asian immigrants who've been rounded up on suspicion (not even formal charges!) of "terrorism."

Or, if that's still too abstract, ask some working-class Black women how they feel about the number of men from their community who are in prison. I bet you will find much more ambivalence among them about this law than we read above. Of course, that disparity probably has something to do with who generally reads blogs and spends time posting to them.

I'm NOT saying that all working class women of color will oppose this law, and certainly not denying the reality of both victimization and the culture of fear that domestic violence contributes to. All people deserve to be safe. The fact is, however, that this nation’s prison-industrial-complex has spent the last 25 years locking up as many people as possible, the overwhelming majority of whom are people of color. (Total number of people in US prisons, jails, or on parole in 1980= about 500,000. 2005= over 2.1 million.) This has created a situation where in poor Black communities, virtually everyone has a friend, relative, or acquaintance who has done time in prison or jail. This has caused lasting, indescribable damage to the community. In other words, those most affected by our nation’s obsession with punishment, even though they themselves are more likely to be victims of crimes, often have a radically different outlook on whether “lock ‘em up� really makes any of us healthier and safer.

Jeff G:

I agree the disproportionate imprisonment of black men is horrible. For me, this idea of GPS tracking just does not sound as severe as throwing someone in prison, or whatever. I wouldn't have a particular problem with the police putting a GPS tracking device on me, because I'm not going to stalk anyone (i.e. make repeated unwanted visits to their proximity). Also, I don't think GPS devices hurt whole communities, just the men accused of stalking who have to wear them -and then, only if they continue to stalk.

(I AM against the Patriot Act however, because I think it covers way too many things with too little reason)

One of my friends told me that the highest incidents of lies about rape were white women lying about being raped by their black boyfriends: they know that the society we live in is biased and they know they can use it to their advantage.

I imagine that the same goes for DV or any other issue, where one party seeks to exploit (undeserved) higher social standing to destroy the other. That is one of the many reasons that I'm opposed to invasions of personal privacy: they tend to influence (and harm) the most vulnerable groups.

"One of my friends told me that the highest incidents of lies about rape were white women lying about being raped by their black boyfriends"

I want to see the study for that. It may be true, or may not, but the incidences of people lying about rape are very low in general.

I would imagine the number of black women being stalked by a black man or a white man and ultimately becoming the victim of a crime are far higher than the number of white women falsely accusing their black boyfriend of rape.

Also if I was ever falsely accused of rape (and I have been, by someone I had not so much as ever even talked to). I would much rather have a GPS device attached to my leg, than go to prison (I'm not African America though).

Nina: I wouldn't have a particular problem with the police putting a GPS tracking device on me, because I'm not going to stalk anyone (i.e. make repeated unwanted visits to their proximity).

I think you're slightly missing Jeff's point, though, Nina. Okay, so you wouldn't mind being forced to wear a GPS tracking device, because you're not a stalker. Would you mind having to submit to a blood test once a month to test for drugs, because you're not a drug user? Would you object to the police searching your home once a week to look for bomb making materials or drugs or child porn? As I take it, Jeff's point is that the black community are already overwhelmingly the targets of police action, so there's a lot of mistrust there. There's the impression that the police and the legal system are stacked against the black community- so why should this be necessarily different? Why should they think that it's going to be used justly or only against those who deserve it, when so many other aspects of the system seem not to be being applied justly?

And then there's the issue of "Well, I'm not one of those people, so I don't mind this." That's the line of reasoning used to justify a lot of the Patriot Act, though, isn't it? Random searches? Why object if you've got nothing to hide, right? I'm not saying that's where you're going, but I think that it's easy to see how that path gets started down.

Also, I don't think GPS devices hurt whole communities, just the men accused of stalking who have to wear them -and then, only if they continue to stalk.

But they do hurt communities if they're not used justly. They're a tremendous invasion of privacy, they're a visable marker that YOU are a person the state deems worth watching. If you see someone wearing a state issues GPS tracker, you're not going to have notions about the sort of person that is?

And, again, you have to keep in mind what Jeff is talking about: how does the black community know that the police are really looking out for their best interests when the system seems to be stacked against black defendants? It's easy to say "Well, this would only effect the bad people" when you're coming it things from the position that the legal system isn't stacked against you.

Jeff: Thanks for posting that. I hadn't thought about it from that perspective, and I appreciate you pointing it out.

It's always easy to give up someone else's civil liberties. It always starts with the corner cases that seem "worthy".

this could work very well and save many lives in the case of domestic violence if used correctly. I would suggest this as an intermediate step for those - REGARDLESS OF RACE AND GENDER - who break a restraining order. Currently if you break a restraining order, depending on your police, they get varying degrees of wrist slaps before they get put in jail. this could save on jail space, provide greater proof for legal proceedings; and most of all aid in the safety and peace of mind of the victim.

It would have been better for my friends who have suffered domestic violence to know that they won't be on your street waiting for them to walk to the bus stop. It is horrible watching a friend peer round the door into their own kitchen in case their abuser is in the back garden.

Yes it could be abused but these things are generally trialled - ankle tags are already used as punishment in lieu of jail time or for those on parole, they've even been an amusing coronation street sup-plot.