Tracking "Watermen" is not necessarily legal, a read of this story tells us, whoever boarded the boat to install the mysterious device (Here revealed) has violated Maritime Law as to when a boat may be boarded. The silence of the ACLU may very well signify they are working on a waterman case and a possible lawsuit. GPS devices are riddle with problems and costly, and vendors say, they will not prevent crimes.2-22-2011 Maryland:
A freshman delegate from the Lower Shore has introduced a bill that would require certain convicted sex offenders to wear a GPS tracking device at all times as a condition of probation or release from prison. Delegate Mike McDermott, R-38B-Worcester, pointed out that authorities only know where these offenders tell them they are living or working, but have no means to track them in their daily travels and routines.
Maryland's chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union has expressed opposition to lifetime electronic tracking of convicted sex offenders, saying it is an ineffective deterrent to repeat offenses, and also saying it could increase recidivism rates and "gobble up" law enforcement resources.
Oddly, the ACLU has not issued any official statement on a related issue -- the state Department of Natural Resources use of similar tracking devices on watermen's boats to catch poachers.
The ACLU statement about tracking sex offenders is focused on the fact that the devices do nothing to prevent crimes, but only become useful after a crime is committed. That is true, but why then is it apparently (based on the silence) acceptable to track watermen who are, admittedly, breaking the law, but not in a way that could possibly impact anyone in the way that a sexual assault would?
And while tracking sex offenders may not actually prevent any crime from being committed, it would without question make it a lot easier to figure out (and prove in court) who committed the crime and where any missing victims might be located.
Besides, nobody is talking about tracking registered sex offenders whose crime involved consensual relations between teenagers or young adults who straddled the age divide (one 18- to 21-year-old and one under-18 partner, for example). Tracking would be for serious or, as McDermott phrased it, "bad sex offenders" who are convicted of Tier III offenses --incest, first-degree rape, sexual abuse of a minor and sale of a minor, along with some additional second-degree offenses and other specific situations.
The cost is minimal --$10-$27 per offender per day. A portion or all of this cost could be borne by the offender, and even if that isn't possible, it's far less costly than lengthy incarceration.
If surreptitiously placing GPS devices on boats to catch poachers is OK, surely there is no valid objection to similarly tracking convicted sex offenders. ..Source.. EDITORIAL from delmarvaNOW.com
2 comments:
"cost would be minimal", who do they think they're kidding. Even at just the middle of the range they gave, say $20.00 per offender per day. That's an average of $600.00 per offender per month, or $7200.00 per offender per year. I don't know about you, but I don't know very many people, and zero RSO's who have an extra seven grand to spend. Even if the state were to cover half that cost (which you know will never happen) that is still $3600.00 a year. Why not just slap a brand on our foreheads and label us as second-class citizens, the new sub-human culture in society.
No employeer is going to hire a person who might be pulled in from a job simply because he/she happened to be working in the area where a crime was committed. They can't afford that type of public relaions scandle, not to mention the loss of work time associated with it. All this would do is guarentee what RSO's would be permanently unemployeed and most likely homeless. And as such, they wouldn't be able to cover the cost of the GPS unit, which would be a violation of thier release. Meaning that they would be tossed back in jail because they couldn't pay to be free men and women. Can we say violation of constitutional rights.
"who are convicted of Tier III offenses... along with some additional second-degree offenses and other specific situations"
Knowing their philosophy, I believe that just about covers everything.
People tend to forget that the registry itself was initially only for violent and predatory offenders; then they added additional offenses, changed what constitutes a registrable offense, and some went so far as to reclassify any sex offense as a violent offense even if there was no violence, the end result being the overly inflated registry we have today.
Post a Comment