Once Fallen
"Through Knowledge and Wisdom Shall We Rise From The Ashes"
<---- BACK TO INDEX ----

GPS Fact Guide And Sample Letter
Derek "The Fallen One" Logue
August 1, 2008

Note: Below is a letter I wrote for someone in New York State. The yearly cost per offender at a rate of
$10 per day is $3650. Multiply that number by the number of applicable offenders, and always make sure
the state understands most former offenders CANNOT AFFORD to pay.
______________________________

May 14, 2008

Dear _____________,

   I am writing to you this evening to voice my concerns over S. 479, the lifetime GPS requirement for Tier
III former sex offenders. I am concerned the GPS devices are costly and ineffective in reducing sex crimes,
but constitutes such a great burden to both law enforcement and to the former offenders who have served
their time and are struggling to successfully reintegrate into society.
   According to the New York State Registry website, New York has just over 26,773 registered sex
offenders, 6,660 of which are currently listed as a Level 3 offender [1]. It has been estimated that the cost
of GPS is around $10 per day per device[2]. If the law was applied to all 6,660 offenders currently on the
list, the state will have to shell out $24.3 Millions dollars per year just to maintain the devices. The chances
of passing the expenses onto former offenders is unlikely, as most former offenders struggle to find steady
employment in a slumping economy and employers hostile to people with criminal records. If New York
later adopts the Adam Walsh Act, as Oklahoma did, expect the number of Level 3 offenders to rise to as
much as 78% of the total sex offender population [3]. Using the AWA formula as provided by Oklahoma,
the number of Level 3 offenders would equal 20,883 at a total cost of $76.2 million per year!
   The use of GPS devices should be reconsidered, as the technology suffers from numerous limitations.
Among the common technological problems: “Geometric Dilution Of Precision” (GDOP), meaning if the
angle of the receiver to the satellite is too small, the satellite may give a false reading; satellite visibility-
buildings, metal, and other terrain obscures the signal; speed limits- if it is going above a certain speed, it
will not work; and temperature limits- will not work in extremes of temperature [4]. Washington state did a
test run with “passive” devices (passive devices merely record where the person has been and must be
uploaded to read, whereas active devices send out constant signals), and found 4000 “notices of
violation,” the vast majority of which were false alarms due to technical difficulties [5]. The batteries could
fail to charge, be defective, or possibly leak or explode.
   GPS use also raises a number of ethical and constitutional issues. One senator who voted against the
Wisconsin bill stated it would create a “big brother bureaucracy” and was unnecessary [6]. Most states are
imposing the devices on all offenders, even low-risk offenders. It raises questions on the limits states can
invade in the private lives of freed citizens. There is also a question of whether the devices violate the
fourth amendment ban on unreasonable searches and seizures [7].
   With all the concerns and limitations regarding GPS, it makes little sense to pass such sweeping
legislation. Both the state and the offender will be burdened with the number of false alarms, as noted in
the Washington study. Furthermore, GPS does not monitor the offender’s actions, just location, and can
easily be removed by an offender who is determined to re-offend [8]. In other words, GPS will not prevent
crimes, but places an undue burden on the state and the offender both. Former offenders are concerned
of being “branded for life,” a mark of infamy which lowers his chances at successful rehabilitation and
reintegration. Such expenses would be better spent on prevention, treatment, and reintegration programs
that are proven effective in reducing sex crimes in general and reducing recidivism rates for convicted
offenders.
   Therefore, I encourage you to withdraw support of NY S. 479 in favor of more effective and less
burdensome laws. Thank you for your time.

Sources:

  1. http://criminaljustice.state.ny.us/nsor/stats_by_county.htm
  2. Elise Castelli, “Global positioning to track sex offenders.” Boston Globe, Sept. 21, 2004
  3. Nicole Marshall, “Sex offender law faces opposition," Tulsa World, Oct. 28, 2007
  4. www.unc.edu/~cahoon/problems.html
  5. Jonathan Martin, “GPS tracking beset by problems of terrain, technology, and time.” Seattle Times,
    Sept. 28, 2005
  6. Steven Waleters et al. “GPS tracking for sex offenders OK’d.” Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, April 25,
    2006
  7. Katherine Mieszkowski, “Tracking sex offenders with GPS.” Salon Media Group, Dec. 19, 2006
  8. Associated Press, “States Track Sex Offenders by GPS.” July 30, 2005

____________________________________________________

From my "SO Fact Guide" page:

GPS Tracking
  • iSECUREtrac (www.isecuretrac.com/sa_so.asp). The company website boasts GPS devices
    accurate to within 15 feet, customizable zoning and scheduling to ensure offenders are where they
    are supposed to be, and claim to having “the greatest impact on reducing re-offense.”
  • By June 2006, Twenty states had proposed or passed GPS tracking bills-- California, Florida,
    Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Maine, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri,
    Montana, New Jersey, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, and Wisconsin
    (National Conference of State Legislatures, June 2006). Many of the proposals require monitoring
    for life.
  • Of course, GPS is not without its limitations and critics. Many of the problems arise from the
    technology itself. Among the common technological problems:
  • “Geometric Dilution Of Precision (GDOP), meaning if the angle of the receiver to the satellite
    is too small, the satellite may give a false reading;
  • satellite visibility- buildings, metal, and other terrain obscures the signal;
  • speed limits- if it is going above a certain speed, it will not work;
  • and temperature limits- will not work in extremes of temperature (www.unc.
    edu/~cahoon/problems.html).
  • Washington state did a test run with “passive” devices (passive devices merely record where the
    person has been and must be uploaded to read, whereas active devices send out constant signals),
    and found 4000 “notices of violation,” the vast majority of which were false alarms due to technical
    difficulties (Jonathan Martin, “GPS tracking beset by problems of terrain, technology, and time.”
    Seattle Times, Sept. 28th, 2005).
  • One senator who voted against the Wisconsin bill stated it would create a “big brother bureaucracy”
    and unnecessary (Steven Waleters et al. “GPS tracking for sex offenders OK’d.” Milwaukee Journal
    Sentinel, April 25th, 2006).
  • GPS doesn’t monitor the offender’s actions, just location, and can easily be removed (Associated
    Press, “States Track Sex Offenders by GPS.” July 30th, 2005).
  • Most importantly, most states are imposing the devices on all offenders, even low-risk offenders. It
    raises questions on the limits states can invade in the private lives of freed citizens. The batteries
    could fail to be recharged or defective. There is also a question of whether the devices violate the
    fourth amendment ban on unreasonable searches and seizures (Katherine Mieszkowski, “Tracking
    sex offenders with GPS.” Salon Media Group, Dec. 19th, 2006).

Other Articles of Interest:
SPECIAL TERMS OF USE

The letter can be used, I strongly suggest you rewrite it slightly to suit you needs, because if 50,000 of us all sent the exact same letter, we
only waste paper. So at least rework it, don't plagiarize!

This site (c) 2007-2008 Derek "The Fallen One" Logue. No portion of this site may be used without the expressed written consent of the
author.