Brian
Lv 5
Brian asked in Politics & GovernmentLaw & Ethics · 10 years ago

Sex offender suggestion- your thoughts?

Does this seem fair & legal?

Sex offenders should be either required to have a GPS chip installed into their body, or they wear a non-removable bracelet with a GPS on it. (I like the bracelet idea- it would let people know that the person is a registered sex offender, and kids/girls could stay away from them.)

The GPS would be monitored by a Federal database, and the location of all registered sex offenders would be easily seen.

Now let's say that a child is kidnapped or missing. A law enforcement officer could pull up a GPS tracking screen that would show what sex offenders were in the area, and where they moved to. It would show the patterns that the sex offenders follow. It would show if they were checking out schools or "fishing" for kids after school by driving the same routes after school hours.

With that said- I suggest that this technology start being employed for all felons, and not just sex offenders, however in light of the Chelsey King, and Amber Dubois cases- the GPS would have shown the movements of the criminal, and perhaps helped solve the case earlier, or even caught the guy before he killed another person.

If you all like this- let's make it law. Write your elected officials!

Update:

5coripo:

Why not try to read the question. Your rude and offensive answer will be reported.

10 Answers

Relevance
  • 10 years ago
    Favorite Answer

    Interesting that you bring up Chelsea King, because at the time of her murder California already HAD a law on its books requiring GPS tracking....

    ..What became known as "Jessica's Law" added millions of dollars in cost to the already strapped California penal system and, of course, made heroes of the legislators who sponsored it....As the Chelsea King case shows, however, there is no way to measure the new law's effectiveness against its cost.

    Please note that Jessica's Law was named after Jessica Lunsford, who was murdered by another multiple-offender who had been released and was subject to Megan's Law, which was named after Megan Kanka, who was murdered by another multiple offender who had been released...

    So perhaps instead of coming up with new laws that let legislators grandstand for a few months, how about they start enforcing the laws already on the books and STOP RELEASING THESE VIOLENT OFFENDERS INTO SOCIETY IN THE FIRST PLACE!

  • 4 years ago

    1

    Source(s): Criminal Records Search Database - http://CriminalRecords.raiwi.com/?JnPi
  • Anonymous
    10 years ago

    Joshua.

    Over here this idea was considered better from a rights pov because it allowed offenders back into society to live their lives rather than keeping them incarcerated.

    A trial over here in UK was completed in 2006, link below.

    To surmise there were a no. of problems.

    Battery life, the offenders had to recharge the batteries, it was a specific offence to let them run flat.

    Monitoring was very expensive about 50 UKP per offender, where specific high risk offenders such a paedophiles etc were concerned a prompt police response would be called for and for those catagories of prisoner the cost becomes higher to the extent that it may be cheaper to keep them in prison. Cost here is about 38000 ukp per year for prisoners i believe.

    Some probation officers did not like it.

    More research/ better technology is required.

    AFAIK we have returned to purely curfew monitoring but dont know for sure.

    I gather that Florida ran a 300 person trial, anyone have linke to results please ?

  • 3 years ago

    Has he labored in shape? Did he do penal complex time? How long has he been out of penal complex? Has he held the different jobs because of the fact that getting out of penal complex? How previously because of the fact the offence? Has he had rehabilitative counselling? those are all questions that could desire to be responded till now thinking his next pass. I went back to college in my 40s, and this is not any longer easy. The recommendations does not paintings as quickly once you become previous ;) it would be functional for him to physique of recommendations a pair of shape companies, tell them the region, and ask in the event that they might hire him, if he had a level. no rely if or no longer they might could matter on precisely what his offence grew to become into. If he indignant against a infant, I doubt if absolutely everyone will hire him. particularly, given his age and criminal checklist, he could be extra powerful setting up his very own employer particularly than attempting to connect an modern-day one. He could desire to attend to & oversee smaller jobs like renovations or additions. besides the shown fact that, if human beings know that he's a intercourse criminal, he could have undertaking getting initiatives.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 10 years ago

    well i think its fine for sex affenders but not ALL felons, i am 28 years old i was in a bad relationship when i was 19. i was abused by my live in boyfriend and one day defending myself in a fight i cut him on his arm. i was arrested and charged w corprol injury to a spuose i am a convicted felon. for defending myself from a man who was arrested 4 times for beating me. i am now a nurse never been in trouble before nor after that insodent but should i have gps or a braclet? no i dnt think so. not all felones are the same! so for all felonei say no sex affenders yes!

  • 10 years ago

    This is an awesome idea!I think that this would be a great thing to keep these pervs in line and keep our children safe. The laws for sex offenders are WAY too lenient. I will write my elected officials and hope it works. Good luck on your end

    Source(s): tired of hearing about kids being kidnapped and killed every time I turn on the news
  • 10 years ago

    Why just sex offenders? Why not monitor all of the violent criminals that get out of prison? Or the guy who kills someone because they were drunk, we should track them so we know they don't go to bars.

    Define sex offender...there are guys who went streaking in public and now they are considered sex offenders, or guys who urinate in public. Why waste tax dollars on these guys?

    Waste of tax money and violation of human rights. Get out of here you conservative republican.

  • 10 years ago

    I hate this, and I will do everything in my power to prevent such a disgusting violation of human rights from ever being practiced. If you support this then you are worse than Hitler, I hope you know that.

  • 10 years ago

    i totally agree . that would be way easier and make everyone know that who and what they did. and keep the kids of today safe i like the breaclet one

  • 10 years ago

    I like this idea, it could keep all kids/teens very safe.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.