State Sen. Ed Charbonneau Wants to Track Criminals With GPS Collars

[rambone]

New Indiana Law Lets Government Track Criminals With GPS Collars

http://www.in.gov/portal/news_events/37641.htm

Charbonneau: Violent criminals could soon be tracked using GPS

STATEHOUSE (April 3, 2009) - Indiana could soon allow judges to utilize Global Positioning Satellite (GPS) tracking systems to protect victims of violence from criminals who break protection orders, State Sen. Ed Charbonneau (R-Valparaiso) said.

"Senate lawmakers unanimously agree that violent criminals in Indiana who violate restraining orders should wear GPS tracking devices, allowing courts to take action against repeat offenders and providing additional protections to victims," Charbonneau said.

According to Charbonneau - Senate sponsor of House Bill 1578 - GPS bracelets could be placed on felons to monitor their movements and detect if they are in restricted areas. GPS can track the exact location of the offenders at all times, making it easier for law enforcement to ensure that they're abiding with the terms of their release.

"For example, the system could monitor if criminals are staying away from the vicinity of their victims and their homes," Charbonneau said. "Victims could feel a lot more comfortable having this extra tool to supervise criminals."

Individuals who requested the restraining order could be alerted by e-mail, fax, text or page if the offender comes within the forbidden area, providing additional protection. An alarm on the GPS device can also be activated to warn others that criminals are in the area breaking their restraining orders.
To determine if the program should be expanded and include other criminal offenses, Charbonneau said costs associated with and the frequency of GPS monitoring in Indiana will be tracked. He said in the future, the state could use the technology to help monitor house-arrest prisoners and keep the prison population down.

HB 1578 will be sent back to the House of Representatives for further action.

Sen. Charbonneau represents Senate District 5, which includes Starke County and portions of Porter, LaPorte, Marshall, Jasper, Pulaski, and St. Joseph counties.

Its a slippery slope when it comes to stomping the 4th Amendment. If you have served your time and paid your dues, you get your God-given, Constitutionally-enumerated rights back.

Once we start eliminating the rights of one "class" of people, it becomes easier to do it to the next unfavored class. Next it will be drunk drivers, tax cheats, and habitual gamblers. Then will be returning veterans, NRA members, and "anti-change" protesters.

We don't want to walk down this slippery slope. You won't be any safer by tracking former criminals. Evil will always exist and the only way to be safe(r) is to be better armed and better trained than your attacker!!

UPDATE
Indiana H.B.1578 was signed into law on July 1, 2009.
​

 

[Indy_Guy_77]

Wow... this is a tough call, ain't it?

This is a Conservative vs. NeoConservative argument if I ever saw one.

 

[Blue Tile Spook]

I don't wish them to be on the street at all. If the crime warrants jail time, they should be in jail. If the crime is not worth jail time, then probation.

This just provides a tracking record and not a bit of safety for any potential victims. The police could prove his whereabouts in relation to a crime but it would do them no good in preventing a crime or stopping a crime committed by a person with the GPS bracelet.

I'm not a fan.

 

[jennybird]

First of all, it states the device would be used for "violent criminals in Indiana who violate restraining orders", not "former criminals" as rambone suggested.

My biggest issue with it is who would monitor these devices 24/7 and how? In theory it sounds like a good plan, but would it work in the real world? I don't know.

As for their "rights"... violent criminals should have very limited rights. Their victim's rights come first. If that means they have to wear a collar around their neck to make the victim feel more at ease, then I have no problem with it. That's whatcha get when ya go around beating up yer girlfriend.

This is only my knee-jerk reaction. I would need more information cause I'm analytical like that.

 

[Agent 007]

.

 

[Bill of Rights]

First of all, it states the device would be used for "violent criminals in Indiana who violate restraining orders", not "former criminals" as rambone suggested.

My biggest issue with it is who would monitor these devices 24/7 and how? In theory it sounds like a good plan, but would it work in the real world? I don't know.

As for their "rights"... violent criminals should have very limited rights. Their victim's rights come first. If that means they have to wear a collar around their neck to make the victim feel more at ease, then I have no problem with it. That's whatcha get when ya go around beating up yer girlfriend.

This is only my knee-jerk reaction. I would need more information cause I'm analytical like that.

The only problem is that the courts are not always completely on board with the concept of justice being blind. That is, it takes little more than an accusation to have a man be prevented from coming anywhere near his children and it takes an act of God and of Congress to have him gain custody of his children in any proceeding where the mother shows any interest in obtaining said custody. The courts do not recognize that having been born with a uterus does not make someone a fit parent any more than having been born with a penis makes someone an unfit parent until proven otherwise beyond a hint of a shadow of a doubt.

Would any of us argue the theory that a hypothetical man accused of violent acts would have to prove his innocence while a hypothetical woman accused of the same acts would have to be proven guilty?

Those of you with far more experience in the legal (court) system, please feel free to chime in with anecdotal evidence in either direction.

I stand against GPS monitoring of any free person.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[jennybird]

The only problem is that the courts are not always completely on board with the concept of justice being blind. That is, it takes little more than an accusation to have a man be prevented from coming anywhere near his children and it takes an act of God and of Congress to have him gain custody of his children in any proceeding where the mother shows any interest in obtaining said custody. The courts do not recognize that having been born with a uterus does not make someone a fit parent any more than having been born with a penis makes someone an unfit parent until proven otherwise beyond a hint of a shadow of a doubt.

Would any of us argue the theory that a hypothetical man accused of violent acts would have to prove his innocence while a hypothetical woman accused of the same acts would have to be proven guilty?

Those of you with far more experience in the legal (court) system, please feel free to chime in with anecdotal evidence in either direction.

I stand against GPS monitoring of any free person.

Blessings,
Bill

Ok, when you muddy up the waters like that it makes it much more difficult to see things in black and white. However, if it WERE black and white, I'd be ok with the monitoring of violent criminals for the sake of the innocent. Since this is the real world however, I guess they'll just have to present me with the facts of each individual situation and then I'll decide on a case by case basis who gets the collar according to my mood on that particular day.

 

[SC_Shooter]

I also read this to be referring to people with ACTIVE restraining orders, who had previously violated the order. In short, it seems to be directed toward people who can't seem to honor the order until it expires.

 

[SC_Shooter]

Ok, when you muddy up the waters like that it makes it much more difficult to see things in black and white. However, if it WERE black and white, I'd be ok with the monitoring of violent criminals for the sake of the innocent. Since this is the real world however, I guess they'll just have to present me with the facts of each individual situation and then I'll decide on a case by case basis who gets the collar according to my mood on that particular day.

Bill's got a point here (imagine that!). The courts certainly can muddy things up and turn what should be 'ok' into something that is clearly 'not ok.' I'm not "for" this monitoring BTW, I was just pointing out that it seemed to be directed toward active situations and not past offenders.

 

[rambone]

I don't wish them to be on the street at all. If the crime warrants jail time, they should be in jail. If the crime is not worth jail time, then probation.

If a person is obviously unfit to walk the streets, he should not be released. Keeping violent offenders locked up is one of the practical uses of our tax dollars.

This just provides a tracking record and not a bit of safety for any potential victims. The police could prove his whereabouts in relation to a crime but it would do them no good in preventing a crime or stopping a crime committed by a person with the GPS bracelet.

As you said, this provides no safety whatsoever. I see it as similar to other "####-Control" Laws that merely give the public a false sense of security and allow the Government to mock what is written in the Constitution.

...for "violent criminals in Indiana who violate restraining orders", not "former criminals"

My viewpoint is that if they are violent they should be locked up. We shouldn't be lulled into a false sense of security because our Government slaps a bracelet on ex-cons. You are on the right track by arming yourself and practicing. Personally I am a lot more concerned with your oppressive and bloated Government than ex-cons.

My biggest issue with it is who would monitor these devices 24/7 and how?

The simple answer is that your taxes will pay for people to pay for a service that gives the Government more power and sets a nasty precedence for spying on people.

In the time of the founding fathers, felons had NO fourth amendment rights....or any other rights, for that matter. Felons were considered civilly dead. All of this talk of "slippery slope" is nonsense.

I'm not saying you are wrong, because I don't know for sure. But the constitution doesn't have any amendments that declare that the unalienable rights of citizens who have been released from prison are allowed to be alienated after their release.

Further reading is needed. If you can provide some I am interested.

UPDATE
Indiana H.B.1578 was signed into law on July 1, 2009.
​

I see it as a dangerous precedent and I don't feel any safer. I also don't want to pay for any new "monitoring agency" that is paid by us to spy on people. You guys must trust your government more than I do. Only a couple months ago they called us all domestic terrorists. Wonder if that earns us our own GPS bracelets?

"Those who would sacrifice their Liberty for Security, deserve Neither.
-Benjamin Franklin
​

This whole thing reminds me of an article not long ago about how Britain installs CCTV cameras in the homes of "Dysfunctional Families." Who knows how one gets on such a list but it allows their Government to spy on anyone whom they paint this label on. Just a few years away for the USA...

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...to_install_cctv_cameras_in_private_homes.html


Rambone

 

[Lucas156]

This is just so wrong. Maybe if these "victims" carried a firearm they wouldn't be victims anymore.

 

[jennybird]

This is just so wrong. Maybe if these "victims" carried a firearm they wouldn't be victims anymore.

Now THERE is a novel idea! Instead of requiring the offender to wear a GPS necklace, they should require all victims to carry a GUN! Give the victims some training and turn em loose. The offender list just might shrink a little don't you think?

 

[Bill of Rights]

Now THERE is a novel idea! Instead of requiring the offender to wear a GPS necklace, they should require all victims to carry a GUN! Give the victims some training and turn em loose. The offender list just might shrink a little don't you think?

Require? No... but certainly allow and even encourage. I'd even go so far as to make a point of informing the former offender that the survivor of his/her attacks is now armed and that visiting him/her may be hazardous to his/her continued breathing and such action on the part of the survivor will not be punished by police.

That said, though, "you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink it." Requiring victims to be armed when they have not the mindset to defend themselves is the recipe for making come true the old saw about the gun being taken away and used against the intended victim.



Blessings,
Bill

 

[rambone]

I think you guys are getting it... Honor the Constitution and replace that false security with some real security!

 

[Lucas156]

I think you guys are getting it... Honor the Constitution and replace that false security with some real security!

thats what Im talkin about!

 

[Paco Bedejo]

This is only a good idea if our courts are perfect...and they're not.

If they're a quantifiable threat (solid evidence), lock them up. If they're only a suspected threat (accusations), leave their rights alone.

I see no reason to track people. It won't prevent any crime, whatsoever. Learning whodunnit doesn't really help any potential victims. This kind of measure is irresponsible on many many levels.

 

[hookedonjeep]

Many years ago, on a late night re-run of The Twilight Zone, I watched an episode that rings familiar to me now......

In the future, prisons would be done away with completely, having proven that they are ineffective at rehabilitation. Instead of ankle bracelets, or GPS tags, a man sentenced by the courts would have a mark placed on his forehead, and released back into society. NO ONE was allowed to speak to him, to assist him in any way, or even to look him in the eye. He was to serve his time as such, with robots that would fly around and monitor his progress - and punish him with pain when he did bad things. Also, anyone that violated the rules pertaining to his sentance would recieve the same fate. In the end, after a few years of essentialy solitary confinement without being actually confined; with good behavior, the mark was removed, and he was free to interact with society again.

Odd, I know; the idea that we are actually planning to "track" violent criminals with GPS tags. And yes, it IS a slippery slope, because once you begin to "track" violent offenders, who is next? Isn't it enough already that we can "track" our kids, our pets, and anything or anyone that we affix a GPS tag to?

IMHO...... if you commited a crime, and served your time - you should be returned to a status of equal citizenry. If the Bureau of Prisons felt that you had done enough time, and cut you loose early..... you have served your time required by the state. Placing a tag on someone will not stop them from doing evil again. The threat of police action will not deter them from comitting a crime again. The ink on a piece of paper (restraining order) will not keep them from harming others.
The solution is two-fold...... First - hold the Bureau of Prisons accountable. If they cut loose a convicted rapist early - and he goes out a does it again - hold them responsible for the ****-poor judgement that they showed. If they send a wife-beater on his merry way, back out into the world and he does something horrible and tragic - make them PAY. These are people who are entrusted to determine whether or not someone is TRULY ready to go back into society. Hold them accountable for their actions - or inactions, as the case may be.
Second, and most important....... arm everyone. If you know someone who has been a victim, or may become a victim of a violent crime - take the time to teach them the basics, of ALL forms of defense, and let them make an informed choice about their own security. Remember, knowledge is powerful stuff too..... you don't always need a gun to protect yourself. (although a 1911 is ALWAYS a good solution!) Let them know there are options - not just "well, you HAVE a restraining order, let the police protect you"..... we all know how well THAT works out...... and if they make a concious decision to defend themselves with a firearm - for God's sake, show them the RIGHT way. Having a gun helps, but knowing how to use it effectively makes all the difference. (Remember that whole knowledge is power thing..... you get it. )

However, if after being informed of the options available, they still decide to be a Sheeple, then let them graze in the fields of ignorance, for ignorance is bliss.

Bottom line - GPS tags may help the police find the perp after the deed is done, but that kind of defeats the whole "alleged" point of having the system.

Thank you for your patience through my rant.

 

[Bill of Rights]

...
Odd, I know; the idea that we are actually planning to "track" violent criminals with GPS tags. And yes, it IS a slippery slope, because once you begin to "track" violent offenders, who is next? Isn't it enough already that we can "track" our kids, our pets, and anything or anyone that we affix a GPS tag to?

I don't take issue with tracking things. For that matter, I don't take issue with tracking pets (in the sense that they are unable to speak up and identify where and with whom they belong.) I take issue with tracking individual free citizens, though those waters become muddy when we discuss small, pre-verbal children or post-Alzheimer's adults. I have no good answer for that quandary.)

IMHO...... if you commited a crime, and served your time - you should be returned to a status of equal citizenry. If the Bureau of Prisons felt that you had done enough time, and cut you loose early..... you have served your time required by the state. Placing a tag on someone will not stop them from doing evil again. The threat of police action will not deter them from comitting a crime again. The ink on a piece of paper (restraining order) will not keep them from harming others.

All true.

The solution is two-fold...... First - hold the Bureau of Prisons accountable. If they cut loose a convicted rapist early - and he goes out a does it again - hold them responsible for the ****-poor judgement that they showed. If they send a wife-beater on his merry way, back out into the world and he does something horrible and tragic - make them PAY. These are people who are entrusted to determine whether or not someone is TRULY ready to go back into society. Hold them accountable for their actions - or inactions, as the case may be.

Here we fall upon the issue of the Law of Unintended Consequences. If the BoP members are to be held personally accountable, could they not be expected to begin making every sentence a life sentence without possibility of parole? I know if I was going to be held accountable in this manner, I would look upon that action as "risk management".

Second, and most important....... arm everyone. If you know someone who has been a victim, or may become a victim of a violent crime - take the time to teach them the basics, of ALL forms of defense, and let them make an informed choice about their own security. Remember, knowledge is powerful stuff too..... you don't always need a gun to protect yourself. (although a 1911 is ALWAYS a good solution!) Let them know there are options - not just "well, you HAVE a restraining order, let the police protect you"..... we all know how well THAT works out...... and if they make a concious decision to defend themselves with a firearm - for God's sake, show them the RIGHT way. Having a gun helps, but knowing how to use it effectively makes all the difference. (Remember that whole knowledge is power thing..... you get it. )

This past weekend, I had a conversation along those lines with my mother, who is hopelessly liberal. Her (at the time, mine, too) home was robbed once when none of us were there and she recently (8 mos or so ago) had her purse snatched. It was quickly recovered, but it shook her up badly. In spite of this, she thinks me foolish to carry a firearm and is certain that it will be the death of me that I so choose.

However, if after being informed of the options available, they still decide to be a Sheeple, then let them graze in the fields of ignorance, for ignorance is bliss.

Sadly, this also is true. We cannot force them to take that responsiblity. We can stop putting LEOs at risk to defend those who refuse to defend themselves.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Blue Tile Spook]

I put the following words in a quote box because I want it easily recognized that I do not agree with this happening, but it is absolutely true, being discussed in the UK GOV at this moment.

Some in the UK GOV have realized that they have stepped over their legal limitations, but it has not stopped overzealous PMs from passing laws that severely effect their citizens. I have a moderate fear that we are quickly trying to follow the example of the UK GOV, even after having left that coutry 200+ years ago to separate ourselves from them.

Or we can do like the UK and let the officers on the street stop someone for, say, excessive speeding. The cop writes a ticket and fines the offender on the spot. They become judge and jury (Judge Dred, anyone?) all in one, nice, little traffic stop.

I'll write it again here. This monitoring has no positive value to me other than proving, after the crime has already been committed, that a violent, repeat law-breaker had been at the scene of the crime. If these are repeat criminals, likely to repeat their crimes, why would we just "tag and release" them?

 

[RCB]

I have to agree that any sort of tracking devices are a dangerous thing. And it is a slippery slope. There are a number of reasons why.

1. Slippery slope. While right now it is violent offenders who break restraining orders, why not apply it to violent offenders in general? And if not violent offenders, why not ex-felons, just to help ensure it doesn't happen again or have evidence if it does. And if for violent felons, why not for burglars and drug users? Honestly, half of the "violent criminals" aren't very violent at all. You know how many people are charged with battery for shoving someone or spitting on them or something similar? While certainly it can start a lot more, it muddies the water and makes for hard cases. Stupid on their part, but nothing worth jail or prison, other than it looks good on paper come election time. Many of us have been in altercations of that nature one time or another. With the hyper-sensitive culture we have today it makes me doubt the validity of many of the "crimes" out there.

-People MUST have a way back. EVERYONE makes mistakes, just some get caught. Forgiveness is a must for any society to continue on, uninterrupted. We are getting further and further away from that.

2. Convicted innocents. Fact of the matter, there are a lot of innocent people that get convicted for sometimes no greater reason that they don't have money. A very good friend of mine had a scuffle with her ex. He called the police, she didn't The public defender encouraged her to take the plea agreement due to a lack of eye witnesses. So she did. Even though she had the right to defend herself, because she wasn't on the offensive and because of a lack of money. She was innocent, but because the government made the only reasonable route be accepting a plea agreement. She was pinned.

3: Ever increasing laws. Every year more laws go on the record books. Every year hundreds of things are newly illegal or actionable. What is legal today can be illegal a year from now. I would wager that 9 out of 10 people will do something that is potentially actionable today. So much depends on the discretion of a single person. Laws are so broad any more that even if its not the intent of the law, you can be brought in for most anything.

4. Classing. As stated before, this helps perpetuate class creation. The problem with class creation is that it creates walls, encourages tyranny and robs everyone's freedoms. It's been documented in history, time and time again. It starts well intentioned, but due to the corruption inherent in ALL people, it WILL be abused horribly.

5. Promote responsibility. Even amongst criminals, people need to be responsible for their actions without oversight.