MA- GPS alone won’t protect us

9-1-2009 Massachusetts:

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled recently that sex offenders convicted prior to 2006 cannot automatically be required to wear GPS devices to monitor their location. The decision set off a hue and cry regarding questions of public safety, with some critics even suggesting that it would result in sex offenders flocking to Massachusetts.

But the likely result will be quite the opposite. The decision underscores that, while GPS monitoring can be a helpful tool, it’s no substitute for active human supervision of released offenders. The court decision will likely push Massachusetts toward a more comprehensive approach to safeguarding its citizens.

Electronic monitoring has been used since 1964 to keep track of individuals convicted of drug possession, drunk driving, domestic assault, housing fraud, and credit card fraud. More recently, it has been used to supervise sex offenders. But does GPS monitoring of sex offenders provides the protection we assume?

There is a perception that offenders with GPS supervision are constantly watched, and that such surveillance alone prevents further crimes. Not so. Most GPS monitoring enables the parole or probation officer to track an offender’s movements after they have occurred. If an offender is prohibited from being within 100 feet of a school, an officer will not likely know that the offender went within 100 feet of a school until after reviewing the data showing the offender’s movements. In rare circumstances, an offender’s movements may be monitored in real time 24 hours a day by a technician or officer, but this is labor-intensive and expensive.

Also, the reliability of GPS monitoring suffers from technical problems including cellular interference - similar to dropped cellphone calls - and from the ability of some offenders to remove the bracelet without alarming surveillance officers. Moreover, GPS cannot prevent contact with possible victims within approved zones, such as the supermarket. Finally, most sexual assault victims know the perpetrators, whether as extended family members or community acquaintances, and GPS will do little to prevent that victimization.

Indeed, using GPS to track the sex offenders who are most likely to re-offend does little to curb their behavior. After a while, with little personal intervention by professionals or supervision officials, an offender is likely to ignore the device in an effort to satisfy destructive and antisocial urges. While the officer will eventually discover the offender’s violation, it may well be too late to prevent another victim from being attacked.

GPS is best used in conjunction with many other tools designed to reduce the risk of re-offense. A wise approach concentrates on those most likely to re-offend. Such parolees should be given a comprehensive re-entry plan that may include work, counseling, and other obligations.

Electronic monitoring can be geared specifically toward checking compliance with this regimen. Rather than just tracking offenders through GPS this model focuses on supervising how offenders interact with the community - and on promoting an active, constructive relationship between an offender and a parole officer - in order to reduce the risk that the offender might return to criminal behavior. The officer explains to the offender the responsibilities regarding the supervision plan including attending meetings and therapy sessions and staying away from people and areas that could potentially trigger a relapse.

The GPS device is then used to identify flight patterns, enforce curfew requirements, validate whereabouts and maintain exclusion zones. The GPS device supports the officer’s ability to keep the offender focused on rehabilitation and risk-reduction; just as importantly, it is used to re-enforce positive behavior.

Massachusetts is fortunate to have this knowledge and experience close at hand. Since 1996, the state Parole Board has employed a comprehensive approach to supervising and managing sex offenders in the community. Ten years later the board introduced GPS - but it never assumed GPS could take the place of human supervision. Instead, the board employed the devices to support the existing management model for released sex offenders. In 13 years of the program, with and without GPS, there has not been a single sex offense committed by the more than 275 sex offender parolees on this caseload.

GPS is helpful but alone is insufficient. Policy makers in Massachusetts and nationally who are interested in enhancing public safety need to follow the evidence. ..Source.. by John Larivee is chief executive officer of Community Resources for Justice. Len Engel is the organization’s policy and project coordinator.