Program Uses GPS To Track Sex Offenders 338
43 sex offenders in Pennsylvania's Allegheny County are wearing GPS monitoring devices as part of a pilot program designed to keep track of their movements. If the offender moves into an "exclusion zone," police are called. “Exclusion zones for example [are] schools, daycares, playgrounds, facilities where children congregate for those sex offenders,” John Hudson, a security consultant, said. “We’ve identified in their red zones. If an offender with a device goes into one of the red zones, an exclusion zone, we’ll be notified immediately.”
WTF (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Unfortunately, sex offenders have a very high recidivism rate. Real sex offenders, that is. People do get added to the sex offender list for the wrong reasons, IMHO. But real sex offenders have a disease that is not cured by jail time.
Re:WTF (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:WTF (Score:5, Informative)
So, what do you suggest we do, keep dangerous sex offenders in prison forever? How is that any less cruel than letting them go free, but keeping them away from situations likely to trigger their disease? It's more expensive, as well.
Re:WTF (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Look, if you're a danger to society, you should be removed from that society.
Finally someone that agrees that we should greatly expand the death penalty!
Re: (Score:3)
... or institute Muslim Sharia criminal law. Same thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Look, if you're a danger to society, you should be removed from that society.
Finally someone that agrees that we should greatly expand the death penalty!
Its funny to look at how ingrained some cultural beliefs are. "There is either picket fence suburbia with a school or daycare every 500 feet and a law preventing being within 500 feet of said building, or .. death".
Somebody with that illness might make an excellent farmhand at a non-family industrial farm, or as part of an all male all adult crew on a ship, or all male all adult construction worker or civil engineering project worker, or some weird child free "colony" type ideas come to mind in certain sem
Re: (Score:2)
DNA evidence should be mandatory and the results should be checked by at least three labs. Putting someone to death without failsafe, bullet proof evidence is wrong.
If you can make a case that ensures, absolutely positively ensures, that the defendant did the crime then I would not be closed minded to expanding the death penalty.
Re: (Score:2)
Cool. So you can kill someone, and never be convicted of it, just so long as you dont leave DNA around the scene.
Gotcha.
Any other great legal ideas?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Frankly its not hard to do either. There needs to be some failsafe evidence that the accused is guilty of a capitol offense. If there is no way to do this, well then there should be no capitol punishment.
Re: (Score:3)
Putting someone to death without failsafe, bullet proof evidence is wrong.
Convicting people of ANY crime without failsafe, bullet proof evidence is wrong. If wrongfully convicted people are being exonerated from death row, there's bound to be lots more wrongfully convicted persons languishing in prison for lesser offenses.
Most end up there due to prosecutorial abuses. Our justice system is rigged to produce convictions.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So we can go the 1960s-2000 US route and life imprisonment, or the Soviet route and medicate and isolate?
I like this third route, track and monitor while letting them have some sort of freedom. It costs less to the tax payer, allows more freedom for the convicted. This program is a condition of their parole, so they've volunteered for this tracking rather than stay in prison.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't put people that you've removed from society because they were a danger back into it if you think they still pose a threat.
Define "You" in the sentence above.
Define "think" in the sentence above.
Then ask yourself if you personally would like to live in a society where you could be imprisoned forever because someone "thought" you might commit a crime sometime in the future.
This is exactly what is happening at Guantanamo Bay. People being held because someone "Thinks" they might return to terrorism. Many, if not most who were released (freed, not simply transported to another prison) have returned to jihad. So they get held fo
Re: (Score:2)
If anyone who poses a danger to society must be removed from it, I'd say that about 30% of the society would be removed.
DUIs, sloppy gun keeping, establishments with poor hygiene conditions, there are millions of ways where people are endangering others in a serious way, and yet "removing them from society" is not only unjust, as completely impracticable.
Re: (Score:2)
If anyone who poses a danger to society must be removed from it, I'd say that about 30% of the society would be removed.
We're getting there.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_States [wikipedia.org]
Re:WTF (Score:5, Insightful)
But the whole crux of the argument is, "are they a danger?"
The "common knowledge" is that sex offenders are drooling perverts with no self-control.
Statistics and data don't back that up. In fact, they indicate exactly the opposite is true. Sex offenders are the least likely to have committed other crimes, to have damaged property, or caused physical injuries to others outside of of their obvious sex crimes. Being "black" is a much better indicator (statistically speaking only) of future criminal behavior than being a sex offender.
So are they REALLY a danger?
And if so, what does that indicate about other groups which have a higher than usual proclivity to crime, like males in their 40s who have never been married, or people who are on antidepressants?
Did you know, starting about 5 years ago, the greatest danger to kids aged 8-16 today other than accidents is actually suicide? Not abduction or murder, but suicide. Kids are treated like property, are locked up and kept "safe" their whole life and now they're killing themselves in numbers that far outstrip the number of murders and abductions that these wacky behaviors are intended to prevent.
Score one for the good guys, right?
They are locked away
Re:WTF (Score:4, Insightful)
Essentially, yes, keep them in prison until they're not a danger.
Of course, it only works to keep them in there if the prison industry is completely thrown on it's ear, and turned from a penal system into a treatment system, trying to rehabilitate instead of just incarcerate.
Remember though that there are different types of "incarceration", and some include home stay or open prisons. In essence, yes, these released people ARE still incarcerated, just in their own homes, and under constant monitoring. That may be the only balance that works.
Re:WTF (Score:5, Insightful)
The larger problem is, the recidivism rate is drastically increased by the treatment of those who serve their sentences when they get out. This applies not just to "sex offenders" but just about all of the population.
Can't find a job, can't get a home? Increased recidivism rate. Yet how many jobs ask for a background check and whether you've served jail time in the past X years when you apply, and won't hire anyone with any record at all?
Sex offenders get it really bad because of problems like this [go.com]. Imagine you're a "sex offender" whose only option, thanks to the "exclusion zones" getting bigger and bigger and overlapping all over, is to live in a shack under a fucking bridge. Now imagine you can't find work because any commute takes you through an "exclusion zone" even if you could find a job. Fuck, even "low income" or manual-labor jobs like construction are out of the question; you are actually under more restrictions than the illegal aliens even if you're desperate enough to work for illegal-alien, under-the-table slave wages.
Step one is reforming the prison system to work more towards rehabilitation and less to "throw them all in a dang pit and forget about it." In this, the Republicans really can be called Retardicans, because they're the ones calling for ever-increasingly-tough "punishments" constantly until the punishments massively outstrip the crimes and tend to serve not to rehabiitate, but forever debilitate the incarcerated so that they'll never be able to reform and rejoin society, ever. Retardicans are responsible for the fact that today's prisons are places where violent gang criminals [albanyherald.com] are taught to be even nastier.
Step two is making sure that, once people get out and reenter society, they're given a chance to actually reintegrate and become productive members. Our current system of "exclusion zones" may help somewhat, but it's far too onerous and makes it impossible for those caught in its web to survive. "Instant GPS phones the cops" is going to mean "fuck, he clipped the edge of it trying to get food in a grocery store" for these amazingly huge zones - a 2500 radius exclusion zone is 5 city blocks' radius.
Re: (Score:3)
I can't tell if you are serious or intending parody. Given that you posted as Anonymous Retard, I'll guess serious.
they had their chance and they blew it
If that's the case, you're arguing for the death penalty? For all "sex offenders"?
Remember that in some jurisdictions, a 19-year-old who has sex with his 15-year-old girlfriend is a "sex offender." "Sex Crimes" laws are enforced just as often because the parents don't like their daughter's boyfriend as because there is actually something involved.
You could
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How is that any less cruel than letting them go free, but keeping them away from situations likely to trigger their disease?
The problem is that this "well it's not jail, right?" attitude is precisely what made it so easy to put people on sex offender lists. If categorization really did mean an open-ended jail term (until, say, a qualified medical panel decides that the risk is low enough), do you think many people would still be in favor of treating indecent exposure and such as sex offense?
Re: (Score:2)
The idea of parole has never been insulting. That's all this is...parole. Screw up and back you go....
Re:WTF (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
How do you gauge something like that though?
It's never black and white, there's a reason for the grey area. I do a crime, I do some time. Am I safe for society? Who knows. I'll spout whatever your lawyer says to get you on parole.
How do I know you aren't a danger to society right now? How do I know you won't commit murder tomorrow? Should I lock you up as a danger to society? Or how about being Jailed for a decade - can I assume you've learned your lesson? The whole idea of the grey area is to be both fair
Re: (Score:2)
But real sex offenders have a disease that is not cured by jail time.
Which should kind of make you think that maybe we're not responding to their actions in the correct way. Imagine you have a dog that pisses in the house, and every time it does you lock it in it's crate for an hour but the dog's behavior doesn't change. Are you just going to keep locking the dog up every time it pisses inside or are you going to try something else to change the behavior?
Re:WTF (Score:5, Insightful)
That is a common misconception. In fact, the recidivism rate among people convicted of child molestation is lower than for any other kind of criminal. It is true that there is a core population of child molesters who are incurable recidivists, but that represents less than 10% of the total, and I think less than 5%. Look up real statistics from actual research on criminal behavior and don't rely on the stories fed to you by the media.
I retract my earlier statement (Score:5, Informative)
It appears you are entirely correct. I had always heard that high recidivism was the reason we treated sex offenders differently. Turns out that sex offenders have a lower recidivism rate than any other class of crime except murder. So why do we treat them differently?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_offender#Recidivism_rates [wikipedia.org]
Re:I retract my earlier statement (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I retract my earlier statement (Score:5, Interesting)
We treat them differently because as a society we do not want to think about this sort of crime at all. We don't want to understand it. It's scary and frightening and we would prefer to class those who commit these sorts of crimes as monsters than trying to understand why and what might be broken that would cause these sorts of things to happen.
I also have a theory that every generation has a way of trying to class a group of males as totally unfit. Men and women are born in approximately equal numbers, but in fact we are somewhat polygynous in our actual behavior. This requires getting a large number of males either killed, or out of the dating pool.
That last theory I realize is highly speculative and somewhat trollish. :-)
Re: (Score:3)
we are somewhat polygynous in our actual behavior. This requires getting a large number of males either killed, or out of the dating pool.
Or we need to acknowledge that women are promiscuous also; humans are not gorillas.
Re: (Score:2)
>I also have a theory that every generation has a way of trying to class a group of males as totally unfit. Men and women are born in approximately equal numbers, but in fact we are somewhat polygynous in our actual behavior. This requires getting a large number of males either killed, or out of the dating pool.
We already have the later - they're called /. readers...
Re: (Score:2)
Even if the recidivism rate was inline with other serious crimes, that still wouldn't explain why we'd let a convicted child murderer or a serial rapist go free after his or her prison sentence was complete, but not a child molester (or, as is more frequently the case, a public urinator or an 18 year old with a 17 year old girlfriend).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Is it possible that the recidivism rate is lower *because* we treat them differently? Isn't that the entire point of programs like these - to lower the recidivism rate?
I'd like to see the recidivism rate over time, since the moral panic of pedophiles and the subsequent complete destruction of any possibility for a normal life after conviction seems to be a recent thing.
Re: (Score:2)
There you go, clouding the issue with facts.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree. However there are the stupid mistakes + a hard ass judge.
General Rule of thumb if you are older (Age/2)+7 is the minimum age you should date for the US Culture.
So if you are 22 and younger mistakes of a healthy mind can be made, causing criminal time and branding for life.
Sex offenders have LOW recidivism rates (Score:5, Informative)
Not being full of bullshit: an easy process.
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately, sex offenders have a very high recidivism rate. Real sex offenders, that is. People do get added to the sex offender list for the wrong reasons, IMHO. But real sex offenders have a disease that is not cured by jail time.
I agree, but this "solution" is just a bit over the top. I didn't RTFA, but is there some kind of time limit to this (red zone for 5 mins = police)? Can it detect intentions (did the pedo try to travel near that playground or did it just happen to be along a route he was taking)?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
People do get added to the sex offender list for the wrong reasons, IMHO.
food for thought: That means, Mr. Allender wrote, based on studies of teenage sexual activity, that “nearly half of the teenagers in North Carolina and Virginia are felons.” [nytimes.com]
This tracking system appears to violate the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment, which provides that "no state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Re: (Score:2)
People do get added to the sex offender list for the wrong reasons, IMHO.
You mean like this guy.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/11/us/11bar.html [nytimes.com]
A Place on the Sex-Offender Registry for a Crime That May Be Off the Books
By ADAM LIPTAK
January 10, 2011
Re: (Score:2)
Really, I don't understand the whole "it's uncool to RTFA" thing. Reminds me of the redneck middle school I attended, where it was "uncool" to be intelligent.
Re: (Score:2)
Sad (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, does it work like Dan Brown's "GPS dot" in the Da Vinci Code?
/ can't believe I read that book all the way through
// should have followed my instinct to stop after the second blatant spelling error
/// haven't seen it, but maybe the first time the movie version is better than the book?
Re:Sad (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd say the scarlet letter is the public sex-offender registry, and that we also unreasonably impose a modern form of exile by making too many areas "exclusion zones" where past sex offenders are forbidden to live and work (so they end up living under bridges, at seedy motels etc., and at far greater risk of re-offending). I've actually thought for a long time that better, cheaper GPS technology would create a healthier alternative, but that unfortunately the older laws would never be repealed and we'd just create more layers of cruft on a poor system. That seems to be what's happening here.
Now, what they should do instead of adding GPS tracking on top of public sex offender registries and live/work exclusion zones, is use it _instead_ of those even more draconian measures. If we can track where every past sex offender is at any moment, that in itself is a powerful deterrent--a permanent record of movements would put any such person at the scene of any crime, and knowing there's a 100% chance of getting caught would deter most would-be offenders. Those not deterred, who re-offend even knowing they'd eventually get caught, would clearly be the worst of the worst and could be imprisoned permanently. But that other 99+ percent would be allowed to live normal lives, not be subject to public harassment by having their names and addresses and charges on a publicly accessible list, and be able to be productive citizens provided they don't spend more than a normal commute time traveling through real exclusion zones like school areas. And anyone afraid that their would-be babysitting neighbor or boyfriend shouldn't be left alone with their children could still find out if the guy's a convicted sex offender by asking him to lift his pant legs, but the general public need not know.
That will never happen because no politician wants to be the guy who says, "Yeah, let's get rid of the sex offender registries! We don't need 'em anymore thanks to technology!" But I think it would be a far better solution to the issue.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If they are so dangerous...why are they not kept in prison for the protection of society? Last I checked, that was part of the whole "prison concept."
The "prison concept" is still (legally) viewed as "Corrections", and is based on the pretty much totally debunked myth that you can change future behavior by locking someone up for a period of time. Even if there were a veiner of behavior modification treatment/education available in prison (there isn't), the concept would still be suspect.
Be that as it may, if you can come up with a way to rule out recidivism in advance, AND get it passed through the various legislatures, then we are all ears. But baring
Re: (Score:3)
we have this basic problem of incarcerating someone for a crime they MIGHT commit, which, most folks find unfair.
Yet nobody finds it unfair that we have lists of people who have to announce their crimes to their neighbours, who are barred from living or working in certain areas, and who have to now walk around with a bracelet on that starts beeping whenever they get "too close" to designated buildings? It has gotten to the point where sex offenders are actually forced to live under a bridge in some areas:
http://www.aclufl.org/tuttle/ [aclufl.org]
If this is not considered unfair, then why should a prison sentence be consi
Re: (Score:2)
I can't argue with that, because I agree.
Re: (Score:3)
Then keep them in jail.
But this "list" is not anything like what you just described. It is in fact mostly public urination, statutory rape based solely on age of consent not actual consent, and the like by the numbers.
Re:Sad (Score:5, Informative)
Because child molesters and rapists with amazingly high recidivism rates don't deserve the stigma at all. I'm sure you'd be comfortable hiring one to be a babysitter if that's your view.
False. Try ~5%. That's nothing compared to other crimes. Read this. [wikipedia.org]
Not false. (Score:4, Interesting)
"Sex crime" includes everything from pissing on the side of a building in an alley, to being underage and having consensual sex. Possession of certain pornography counts. Etc.
The wikipedia article you link to, in fact, goes to great lengths to cover all the ridiculous things that make someone considered to be a "sex offender".
Let's also not forget that rape crimes have the highest false-accusal rate of any category of crime; an astounding number of "victims" later admit they filed complaints only for revenge for something else. In fact, the false accusal rate is greater by a factor of ten (I'm too lazy to dig up the FBI and Wikipedia links, sorry.)
So, no shit the recidivism rate is low...most of them are innocent in the first place.
Re:Not false. (Score:4, Informative)
I wouldn't say most are innocent, but here's the links you were referring to:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_accusation_of_rape [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_allegation_of_child_sexual_abuse [wikipedia.org]
It appears that the false accusation rate with child sex abuse is probably higher than rape, but the numbers they quote is still pretty high (child sex abuse appears to be around 10%, and for rape is 2-8% -- the FBI said 8%). It also varies WIDELY upon the circumstance, location, etc. I can't find figures on other crimes, but if they are lower I'd imagine it's probably because it's harder to pull off as there is not much emotional appeal on the side of the accuser in other crimes (except murder).
With those figures in mind, it doesn't make a big enough impact on the recidivism rate even if you remove the innocents from that figure to claim that recidivism rate is way off. It's still incredibly low, especially by comparison to other crimes.
The Red Zone (Score:2)
Uhh.. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I've been saying this for years now. Of course it won't happen becau
foolish human... (Score:3)
because that is not what prison is for. The legal system is there to punish people for things that they have done, not a place to put people who might do something.
If you are going to use prison to keep 'dangerous' sex offenders off the street, I want at-risk children proactively locked up for life, because they are statistically most likely to become viol
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
... I want at-risk children proactively locked up for life, because they are statistically most likely to become violent criminals. Also, get more illiterate, minorities, and mentally disabled in there too, because they are more likely to cause problems for society.
We already do that. We segregate our homes by income, and run the "poor kids schools" like a wannabe jail, complete with guards, searches, lockdowns, locked doors, yard/exercise time, tight schedules, solitary confinement, guard patrols, sometimes uniforms, ID numbers instead of names ... All they need is some bars on the windows.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't really understand why people like this aren't kept in prison. If they have a high chance of committing another crime
In short simply because it's wrong. Our system of justice (lets not go into it's flaws at the moment) is basically crime -> conviction -> incarceration -> parole (maybe) -> freedom. You can't lock someone up based on what they _might_ do. That's the way the system is supposed to work, criminals are supposed to rehabilitated but, most of us know (believe) it really doesn't work that way.
If you divided "sex-offenders" into two groups 1) those with predilections to a certain behavior (sociopaths
Re: (Score:2)
Close the centers (Score:5, Funny)
How about just closing down the centers for the molesters full of children? Wouldn't that be easier than GPS tracking?
Who thought facilities to supply sex offenders with victims was a good idea in the first place?
Sounds good but.. (Score:4, Insightful)
While 1000ft exclusion zones around schools, parks, playgrounds, daycares etc sound like a reasonable idea to most people I've always wondered how difficult it must be to actually go places and obey them.
There are so many schools, etc in most populated areas how is someone supposed to get from one side of town to the next without coming within 1000ft of a schools property? Do they distribute maps? Obeying something like this would require so much effort that I doubt anyone who actually attempted it would be successful.
The local news here once ran a story that 90% of sex offenders live within 1000ft of a bus stop. Makes a great sensationalist story, but I would bet that 90% of all people live close to a bus stop.
Obviously some sex offenders need to be kept away from children, but other than forcing them to live in the middle of nowhere I don't see an easy solution.
And these aren't the only people exclusion zones are applied to, they are also used against people carrying drugs or guns, of course most people completely ignore this unless they are unfortunate enough to get stopped in front of an elementary school with a little marijuana.
Re: (Score:3)
I think you're on to something. You can't get more "in the middle of nowhere" than an island. The US needs to establish an island "colony" for the individuals on the list. Given enough time, the colony could even become an independent, thriving country.
Re:Sounds good but.. (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.aclufl.org/tuttle/ [aclufl.org]
Re: (Score:2)
I wish I could mod you informative.
I just don't get it.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I totally agree with you.
Re: (Score:2)
Personal freedoms are limited all the time without death;
1. hold office.
2 Purchase a gun.
3. travel to certain countries.
4. drive a vehicle.
5. come within a certain distance of certain people
6. associate with criminals
7. work for financial institution
8. obtain a security clearance
9. etc
All of these are things that someone 'functioning as a normal member of society' can do. Do we kill everyone who falls in these categories?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I just don't get it.... (Score:5, Insightful)
GP has a extreme view but his argument is valid as reduction to absurdity. And why indeed not just have them executed? In fact, let's all be honest here and burn them at the stake, because that's what sex offenders actually are in the view of the frothing masses: modern day witches.
"exclusion zone"? (Score:2)
> If the offender moves into an "exclusion zone,"
What, like, the mall?
Scarlet Letter (Score:3)
By the way, just so I don't repeat Orwell's mistake, this comment is not an instruction manual.
What "type" of sex offender? (Score:2)
Can't you be classified as a sex offender in the US for things as heinous as taking a slash or having sex in a public place? Something along the lines of a sexual offence being anything that's offensive and involves genitals, rather than committing a violent sexual crime (which is most people's definition of a sex offender).
TFA was light on any details, other than this being used on 43 out of 1100 people, but even if it's just for paedophiles I can't see them being able to step out of the house, since surel
Re: (Score:2)
What does "taking a slash" mean? Public urination? If so, then no, not even the most absurdly conservative jurisdictions would classify that as a sex offender.
Re: (Score:2)
It's considered public exposure, give or take... b/c you were pissing on a tree, somebody might have come up alongside you and saw your dong.
And yes, it does happen.
Re: (Score:2)
Not true, I'm afraid. A very little googling show's that unfortunate fact. A charge of public urination is often accompanied by a charge of indecent exposure, which is enough to get you on the list in a lot of places... sometimes, even if the act took place before the list existed.
This is scary stuff. Maybe not now, but in how easily its become "accepted."
Re:What "type" of sex offender? (Score:4, Interesting)
http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2007/09/11/us-sex-offender-laws-may-do-more-harm-good [hrw.org] is a good example of some decent commentary, FWIW. Its sad to me when the threat of someone taking away our right to large-capacity rifle magazines after a political shooting gets a national outcry, but the idea of lifelong movement tracking of people who may have committed victimless misdemeanors decades ago is silently accepted. Probably because anyone who comes out against it is afraid that they'll be branded with the "pro-child-molestor" label... and put on the list.
Re: (Score:2)
What does "taking a slash" mean? Public urination? If so, then no, not even the most absurdly conservative jurisdictions would classify that as a sex offender.
Then you'd be shocked to know that that happens. Also: piercing (like an earring) a minor without parental consult.
WTF (Score:4, Funny)
from the summary:
facilities where children congregate for those sex offenders
know, I'm pretty sure this is a comma placement issue, but if not, just WOW.
We sure are making it easy for sex offenders these days... But if that causes it to call the police, is that entrapment?
Odd.
Not new (Score:2)
I worked for a company that was developing this technology ten years ago. Once one has the ability to track a moving target it is trivial to check it the object in in a certain area. Here are some other applications we developed.
1. Check the a moving object was not within a certain distance of a point. Same idea as area but simpler to implement
2. Check that two moving objects do not come withing a certain distance. Restraining orders.
3. Check that object does not leave a certain area. Make sure disabled, il
What I really and seriously wish to happen... (Score:2)
it's too bad... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
It's just like the TSA and the new X-ray back scatter devices. There is a lot of money to be had by providing technology and services that grant the illusion of safety, but don't actually deliver on their promise.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm guessing this device does nothing when wrapped in foil, except perhaps alert the cops the subject is now "invisible".
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Wewease the secwet weapon... (Score:4, Informative)
they should just release the gps data to the public so WE can 'keep an eye' on them
Because you're not a law enforcement officer, and when the individual is paroled and reintegrated back to society they deserve just as much privacy protection as you and I.
When you put "'keep an eye' on them" in quotes like that it very strongly implies that you will 'take matters into your own hands' and 'make sure they don't hurt anyone again'. Modern America is no place for paranoid vigilante mob justice.
... i have 2 kids and yes, i should know who they are and if they are preying on my children.
Not all sex offenders predate on children. Some of them are on that list for no other reason than they got drunk and took a leak in a playground. The list is fundamentally broken. In large part because people fail to see sex offenders as being capable of rehabilitation, and feel like they need to 'keep an eye' on them. We have a justice system that includes rehabilitation and parole. If you think people are being released that are a continued threat to your children, your problem is just as much with the parole board as it is with the individual.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm talking about the real child molesters, not someone URINATING.
Really? That's not what the sex offender list is talking about - and that's the list that's being discussed here. Besides, how come by your argument the child molester gets on the list, but the child killer doesn't? And when/where does it stop?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Eh, I know people are modding you down and whatever, but I have 2 kids, and yeah. I agree, mostly. I think they should have to wear a bracelet that beeps loudly so we'll know who they are. Or something identifyable. A big tatoo on their forhead?
But not everyone. Considering that being 18 and sleeping with your 17yo girlfriend can get you classified as a sex offender, I think this should be selective.
Rape, yes.
Incest, yes.
others? maybe.
Re: (Score:2)
Eh, I know people are modding you down and whatever, but I have 2 kids, and yeah. I agree, mostly. I think they should have to wear a bracelet that beeps loudly so we'll know who they are. Or something identifyable. A big tatoo on their forhead?
But not everyone. Considering that being 18 and sleeping with your 17yo girlfriend can get you classified as a sex offender, I think this should be selective.
Rape, yes.
Incest, yes.
others? maybe.
Incest? Really? Just going with your statement (and hey, I've got a daughter too), why would you be more afraid for their safety from someone who committed the crime of incest? By its very definition, it'd be unlikely that your kids would be affected by that crime. And how can you justify that one, where multiple murders, or the rape of 18 year olds, wouldn't be similarly treated?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I would also hear arguments for tattooing them.