GPS Tracking of Sex Offenders

From Foxnews.com. Dateline May 31, 2006. "Many states are initiating programs that track registered sex offenders using Global Positioning Satellites, or GPS sometimes for life. 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." Later in the article, "But opponents argue that process, particularly if it's for life, is excessively punitive and invades the privacy of offenders after they've served their time."

Political correctness and civil rights are two things most inmates lose upon their incarceration. Still those things are, and in most cases should be, considerations after a person has paid their debt to society. However, in the case of sex offenders, especially child sex offenders, I do support a permanent high tech tracking system.

The facts support the argument that a percentage of sex offenders upon release from prison will seek out and offend again. Our children are too precious and fragile to allow their innocence to be robbed from them. If it is with in our power to increase the odds of a safe environment for them then we should act responsibly and do so.

I propose surgically adding GPS tracking to the offender somewhere deep inside the body (like the pet tracking chips we have placed in our beloved pets). This would allow the offender the appearance of a normal citizen and insure that the offender could not remove it. The probation and/or parole people could simply use a device to insure from time to time that the offender still has it in place.

I propose that we take it one step further. There should be a “fail-safe” mechanism in place that would sound an alarm to authorities if a device were stationary for a period of time in an area that might be suspect or even illegal for the offender to be. For example, if the offender were to approach a school building a device inside the school would detect and log the approach silently. If the offender were to remain inside the zone of detection for more than a given period of time, (say 30 minutes), the device inside the school would send some type of alarm to the local authorities. The authorities would be required to send someone to speak with the offender.

In this manner, if a child were to be abducted in less than the 30 minute window of time the device still passively logged the approach of the offender and the authorities at least have a starting point.

Does this violate the offender’s civil rights? I maintain it does not. As I posted on 03/16/06 in agreement with a judge ruling on a murder trial, he stated, “You’ve forfeited your right to live.” Similarly, a sex offender has forfeited their right to certain civil liberties.

By doing something like this, it eases the burden on already over-crowded prisons. I do NOT advocate early release for the sake of easing crowding, but by adding a plan like this it would inevitably ease the problem.

Some might say that this adds to the “Big Brother’s Watching” complex that our nation, indeed the world, is heading for. If we do this for sex offenders, why can’t we do it for speeders? Maybe there is some logic to that argument, but we’re going to get there eventually anyway. Already our streets have cameras to record moving violations and deliver the punishment to your home courtesy of the USPS.

Civil rights for offenders of violent crimes, to include sex offenders, should have limitations even if they’ve paid their debt to society. Some states have adopted a “three strikes and you’re out policy;” this would not be all that different if employed properly.