GPS Success Stories
GPS Monitoring Is the Least Restrictive Means to Ensure the Victim’s Protection
A 2012 Evaluation Study on GPS Monitoring Technologies and Domestic Violence funded by the Department of Justice examined the implementation of GPS Monitoring technology in enforcing no contact orders in domestic violence cases.
- The study found that GPS monitoring provided victim’s relief from the kind of abuse suffered prior to the GPS monitoring. (However, some noted problems and concerns over how agencies and courts applied the technology.)
- It was found that there were practically no contact attempts and fewer violations compared to those placed in traditional electronic monitoring or house arrest.
- Offenders enrolled in the program had a lower probability of being rearrested for a domestic violence offense during the one-year follow-up period, as compared to other offenders on other types of monitoring or supervision.
- It found that there was a similar conviction rates for offenders on GPS monitoring as those who were in jail during the pretrial period and a higher likelihood for conviction compared to those released on bonds without supervision.
- It also found that GPS monitoring protected the offenders from accusations, added structure to their lives, and enabled them to envision futures for themselves without the victim.
The full study is available here.
I personally credit the GPS monitor for keeping my daughter and grandchildren alive.
- “Domestic-Violence Offenders To Be Tracked Again”.
- “GPS ankle bracelets reduce domestic violence injuries in Connecticut”.
Maine: In February 2013 Gov. Paul LePage in Maine ordered the creation of the group to study the best ways of using technology to reduce the risk of domestic violence. The task force analyzed how electronic monitoring devices can be used effectively to reduce repeat offenses by those charged with or convicted of crimes involving domestic violence, sexual abuse and stalking.
The review confirmed that monitoring programs positively affect victim safety, reduce recidivism and improve the likelihood defendants will comply with conditions of release. It found that both high- and low-risk defendants should not be considered as candidates for monitoring and that the devices are most effective as part of a larger community response. It recommended that monitoring be used for certain defendants charged with crimes involving domestic violence, sexual assault and stalking; it should not be used in civil matters. Report available here.