Iran: GPS To Reduce Prisoner Numbers

Here in the US, many prisons rely on GPS tracking devices in order to monitor those who have been released in the hopes they stay on the straight and narrow. Iran’s Judiciary is planning to introduce GPS technology in its prisons as well, but for the opposite reason: to reduce the number of people locked up in prison. The idea is to affix GPS tracking devices on those prisoners who did not commit a violent crime.

The less violent offenders will be able to spend their jail time at home. Though it won’t be quite as bad as jail, it does impose restrictions on one’s life. The prisoners will be restricted to stay within a specific area, spelled out in their sentence.

Deputy Judiciary Chief Ebrahim Raeisi said, “Our judges should use alternative punishments whenever they can. In addition we are going to use electronic GPS monitoring that the prisoner has to put on his hands or feet so that the authorities can monitor his moves and make sure that he does not move out of the jurisdiction that he is supposed to be in.”

The project does not have a set date of implementation, but the judiciary has conducted its preliminary study of the plan. What they found during these preliminary studies, according to the spokesman for the Majlis Legal and Judicial Commission Mohammad Ali Esfenani, was that they could reduce the number of inmates by removing one thousand qualifying prisoners in the first stage alone.

“There are around 7,000 to 8,000 inmates in Iran that I think are qualified for the program. We have already bought around thousands of these GPS [devices] that can be used around prisoners’ hands or ankles,” said Esfenani. “Most of the prisoners that qualify have committed financial crimes. I think that a plan will effectively reduce the number of prisoners.”

The GPS devices can be used anywhere the prisoner goes, even in subways. The system only sends out location data every half-hour, showing authorities their whereabouts. Besides the US, the Netherlands, Thailand, and France are also using GPS devices to keep tabs on prisoners.

The difference between the way the US approaches the GPS tracking of criminals and the way Iran approaches it lies in the fact with what type of criminal is being tracked. Where Iran feels the less dangerous criminals should be tracked, we concentrate on the dangerous bunch.

Most of the time, those in the US who are tracked have committed a violent crime, whether against a woman or child, and the GPS monitor is placed for the safety of the victim(s). It’s the best way to keep them safe while ensuring the criminal is abiding by parole terms.

However not everyone agrees that it is a good idea. While most will agree that it helps reduce the number of prisoners taxpayers are feeding in the prisons on a daily basis thus making room for more dangerous criminals like murderers, it can become an issue of privacy rights.

I can hear you out there — how can someone expect any right to privacy when they have so egregiously violated the rights of another human being by abusing or harming them? Well, some states are doing this for the life of the offender. Some advocates believe that this lifetime tracking is far longer than any human should have to endure having their every move monitored. They’ve served their time, say the advocates, so there should be a definitive end to the monitoring.

And that’s the other problem. Each state is different, so there are different sets of rules no matter where you go.

David Sobel, general counsel for the Electronic Privacy Information Center said, “Bottom line is that decisions on the use of this kind of technology, which can be characterized as very invasive of the individual’s privacy, need to be made on a case-by-case basis… If it is used it should be the exception and only applied in the most egregious cases.”

Sobel feels that the majority of these offenders are actually doing the right thing and trying to change their outlook and tendencies. “Lifetime monitoring would erase the concept we have of people paying their debts to society and moving on in an equal footing,” said Sobel.

But others disagree, arguing some offenses just warrant extreme measures. For example, in Missouri, a bill was sponsored by Sen. Matt Bartle, spelling out stricter rules for those found guilty of committing a sexual offense, mainly that they would be required to wear a tracking device well after their sentence was served.

“I think the general public is really not terribly confident that we’re getting it right when it comes to pedophiles — that this individual, case-by-case approach is leading to some very horrific situations.”

Where do you stand on the issue of GPS monitoring of criminals? And which idea works better — tracking those committing serious offenses, or those who merely committed a financial crime? We’d love to hear your stance on the issue.

Iran: GPS To Reduce Prisoner Numbers