The state’s highest court has rejected a challenge to the state law that requires GPS monitoring during probation for people convicted of certain sex offenses involving a child.
The court said the law gave judges no discretion on whether to impose the GPS monitoring during probation, and the Legislature had good reasons for enacting the law. Full Article
“Permissible legislative objectives concerning criminal sentencing include deterrence, isolation and incapacitation, retribution and moral reinforcement, as well as reformation and rehabilitation. … The provisions of [the law] reasonably can be viewed as serving many, if not all, of these goals,” – Justice Barbara Lenk
Does anyone fin this quote as scary as I do when she includes words like incapacitation and retribution? And why do reformation and rehabilitation seem to only be mentioned as an afterthought?
At least the article did say “The court noted that it did have concerns about GPS monitoring during probation when it is required ‘regardless of any individualized determination’ of a person’s dangerousness or risk of reoffending.”
This judge has been drinking way too much Kool-aid. I had a hard time getting past the fourth paragraph which states “GPS monitoring ‘MIGHT’ deter future or repeat offenders” and then says ” ‘WOULD’ promote the security and well-being of the general public.”
So… Which is it? “Might” or “would”? Probably neither considering the two guys who are up for murder while wearing GPS bracelets. And honestly, consider that this case is against a guy who was busted for CP dissemination. Likely ‘Limewire’ or something over the internet. How does monitoring his whereabouts protect the innocent citizens or children of our great nation in his case? It’s ludicrous.