Playing Keep Away with GPS

Lawmakers in Minnesota are taking steps to ensure the safety of victims of harassment or assault with the help of GPS trackers. The new program, proposed by Rep. Clark Johnson, DFL-North Mankato, allows both defendant and plaintiff to be fitted voluntarily with GPS trackers to ensure that neither party comes too close to the other. The benefit for the defendant is that they will receive a shorter jail sentence, allowing them to be released back into society faster and allow them to get on with their lives. The benefit for the victim is that they can have more peace of mind to know that there is someone watching over both them and their assailant to ensure that things don’t escalate between them. It ends up being a win-win situation for all parties.

The Source of Change

Johnson cites the efforts of Jamie Erickson, whose friend, 19 year old Josselyn Bishop, was killed in 2011 by her boyfriend. Such a system might have prevented that death, had it been in place at that point. The main idea is to keep the parties separated to prevent flare-ups between two people who have a history of violence between them. The problem with many domestic abuse cases is that the two parties know each other well and often have complex relationships that may put the two in the same place at the same time frequently. With this law targeting people who are family members, it is all the more difficult. However, the GPS trackers will allow authorities to monitor the location of everyone and become involved before more violence occurs.

The Proposal in a Capsule:

GPS tracking is voluntary by both defendant and victim

If the two parties get too close, authorities will be notified

Distance requirements will vary from location to location

Opposition in Congress

While the bill appears to be a win-win, it does not quite have universal support. Many do not outright oppose the proposal and pilot plan already in place, but are concerned for those who are affected by it. The nice part is that this is mostly a volunteer program that gives people (both victim and defendant) the ability to opt out of it if they are uncomfortable with it. Still, some representatives are adding amendments to address their own concerns. Some are concerned over the lack of a uniform policy on the distance requirements of the two parties. As it is now, each region of the state can set its own guidelines, which some oppose. However, there are vast differences in how a ten mile radius would impact someone living near the city versus those living on the outskirts. With that in mind, the regional determination seems most appropriate.

Success So Far

This program has been piloted for the past year in Ramsey County, where roughly 28 defendants have opted to be a part of this plan. Out of that small group, only two violated their restraints, but in both times the victim requested the meeting. How this would play out with a larger number of people remains to be seen, but the GPS tracking technology works and performs the required job of keeping people apart. Would this put an undue burden on authorities to constantly monitor the movements of a growing number of people? How many would voluntarily violate the restraints in order to meet up with each other (which overall seems like a bad idea anyway)? Again, domestic abuse is a complicated matter with a variety of associated complications and problems involved. Would this be successful long term? All of these questions are important and would probably only be answered over time.

Guarantees Going Forward

While GPS tracking offers a good method of keeping victims safe, it will not be the answer for every domestic abuse case. While it can be very effective, the severity of the abuse is also important to understand, as well as the anticipation of future threats. If there is a situation that is too dangerous for the victim to continue in, GPS tracking might not be the best option. More jail time for the defendant might be the best option. For each case, individual consideration is important to investigate to make sure things go safely long term. Unfortunately, some people just won’t care if they are being monitored or not, and that will be the job of the judge to determine the ongoing intent of the defendant.

The bottom line as this proposal goes through the process of becoming a law will always be what is best for the victim. This appears to be a safe way for the victim to use GPS tracking to seamlessly get on with her life, as well as trying to find out if the defendant can continue to function in society. The technology is out there, so finding the best possible use of it will be helpful and important in maintaining individual safety and security.

Playing Keep Away with GPS