When news broke that Memphis victims of alleged domestic violence and sexual assault were wearing GPS monitors, cries of “that is not okay” rang out.
The Memphis Police Department is under fire for an alleged pattern of misconduct towards female victims of crime. The latest incident involves Sexual Assault Kit Taskforce revealing that dozens of sexual assault and domestic violence victims were outfitted with GPS ankle bracelets.
The October 2017 monthly report of the Sexual Assault Kit Taskforce acknowledge that 17 sex crimes victims and 52 domestic violence victims had been fitted with the devices, which are normally used only for those on probation, parole, or out on bail while awaiting trial.
This came on top of earlier furor that 12,000 rape kits remained untested in Memphis, which gave rise to the task force. One of the women whose kit went untested, and whose rapist allegedly attacked six more women after her, was Meaghan Ybos, who went on to form “People for the Enforcement of Rape Laws,” and discovered the use of GPS monitoring.
The GPS devices, which are tracked in real time, “provide an extra measure of safety by alerting victims when alleged perpetrators out on bond come within a certain range of victims who voluntarily wear the device,” taskforce leader Dewanna Smith told me in an October 23 e-mail.
The monitors are worn voluntarily, and for the purpose of alerting victims should their perpetrator come within range. What makes this “not okay”?
“If somebody accused of rape is enough of a risk that a victim would need to wear a safety monitoring device,” said Carrie Goldberg, a New York civil rights attorney and pioneer in the field of sexual privacy, “then perhaps it would make more sense to rethink that [perpetrator’s] being on the streets in the first place.”
These words might seem jarring coming from someone characterized as a “civil rights attorney,” as they are the antithesis of civil rights. But this is “Revenge Porn Carrie,” the least effective but most promoted voice in rationalizing the evisceration of constitutional rights invented by the Cyber Civil Rights crowd. Good to know that she has no better grasp of the Sixth Amendment than the rest of them.
Goldberg, who defends victims of hacking, leaking, and other online assaults, was also concerned that defense attorneys for the accused would be able to subpoena the GPS devices and use that information to discredit victims.
“This really seems like a weird way to control victims — and not make the streets safer from criminals,” she said.
What the voluntary wearing of GPS monitors has to do with “controlling victims” is unclear, but then, clarity just fogs up the feelz with facts. Being “accused” doesn’t make one guilty, or even the accuser a victim, but that’s just how a lawyer should view things. The fear of a complainant of her alleged perpetrator may be real, regardless of whether there is any basis for it, but would that be enough to hold a person in jail rather than afford the person reasonable bail? But that too is just lawyer talk.*
As for why a GPS monitor might “discredit victims,” that’s unclear. While there is nothing about wearing a GPS that inherently discredits anyone, should it turn out that it demonstrates falsity by an accuser, then that’s how evidence works. That’s how facts work. If someone deserving to be discredited is discredited, then the law has prevailed.
The unasked question here is why offering scared victims an option that might protect them is a bad thing? Much as people like Goldberg would have every male accused of domestic abuse or sexual assault pre-emptively jailed without bail to “make the streets safer from criminals,” there is still that constitutional issue about reasonable bail, plus the other question about convicting before punishing. Maybe some guy isn’t guilty? Maybe cases of domestic violence and sexual assault shouldn’t flip the entirety of our legal system on its head so that defendants are presumed guilty and, even if they’re not, better to jail them than take a chance?
That the task force has come up with an option to offer alleged victims seems like the sort of thing everyone should applaud. Of course, some might posit that every accused perpetrator released on bail should be watched 24/7 by cops to make sure he goes nowhere near his accuser. That’s an expensive, unwieldy and probably unconstitutional answer. Or should the police have magic powers that allow them to know when a perp gets too close to a victim? That would be cool, but might be hard to achieve.
The reaction to this is likely to fall under the “victim blaming” rubric; why should the victim have to wear a GPS monitor? The obvious answer is that they don’t. It’s voluntary. Wear it if you want or not. But then, this shows the inherent absurdity where ideology meets the real world.
There may well be good cause for a victim of domestic abuse or rape to be afraid that their perpetrator will return to harm them. They may well need protection from a dangerous person, a serious threat to their life. This is a means by which police can be alerted to the danger and take action, long before a 911 call can be made, if it can be made at all.
Is the point to protect victims of domestic abuse and rape? If so, then why would anyone who cares about their welfare attack a potentially effective means of protecting them? Why would anyone put a feminist-agenda plank ahead of saving someone’s life? Or is the problem that police can’t do the voodoo that would make advocates happy by magically appearing in a flash to save them without any action on their part?
The magic isn’t going to happen because it’s not real. If you want to protect victims from harm, the cops are offering an option that could help. Everything may be problematic, but complaining about the unfairness of it all isn’t going to save anyone from harm. The GPS monitoring of victims may not be the option that soothes all feelings, but if it works and saves a life, then it does its job. This is okay.
*It’s also worthy of note that in New York, where Goldberg is admitted to practice law, the only basis for bail is to secure the return to court. There is no safety component. It would seem that she should be aware of the law.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I would think this program would provide solid evidence if the accused is harassing the alleged victim, or the reverse, too. Its a neat use of technology.
That seems like a far more likely result.
Why does it have to be an ankle bracelet? What does an ankle bracelet do that a cell phone app can’t do? The cops are probably using the only technology they have available, but better tech should ameliorate this problem.
There’s your opportunity! Write an app, sell it to police departments and make a killing. Or maybe that’s not the problem at all.
I think I understand your point that the issue is not about the the bracelets (maybe).
But still the big, bulky ankle monitors make you look like a perp out on bail or on parole, even when you’re not. Much better would be the cell phone app with a panic button that automatically starts recording audio, visual, and GPS when triggered and forwards it to the police. Nice record of events and location.
Thanks, for the idea, now all I need is a cell phone app coder to write it.
“It’s wrong” unless it’s cute. Give it a try.
This is one of the few occasions that I don’t really want to be Captain Obvious, but the fact that “What does an ankle bracelet do that a cell phone app can’t do?” was even asked rather requires a response, IMO.
What does an ankle bracelet do that a cell phone app can’t do? Resist being disabled or removed from the wearer. That’s kind of an important feature, and the cuffs were kinda designed to, you know, keep working and stay on people who might have reasons to want to remove them.
So, when writing those apps, you might want to keep in mind that the alleged perp might allegedly want to remove/disable the phone from the alleged victim in order to allegedly do something bad to them. GPS data placing the cuffs together might be, like, all incriminating and stuff, if something bad were to happen.
I would have thought the answer to the question would be obvious to the casual observer, but apparently, it isn’t.
Oh sure, NOW you want attorneys to know their state and local law. You are so mean.
Law. It’s what we do.
As a CDL, do you think that the availability of this sort of “extra” protection for victims would affect your ability to get bail, in any marginal cases?
Of course. If the prosecutor argues that bail is needed for the protection of the complainant, I would certainly respond that there are other means available that could protect the complainant without keeping the defendant jailed. It serves all interests.
Sorry. I read your post, and I read the linked “In Justice Today” article, and I don’t understand at all how wearing GPS ankle bracelet can protect someone. I thought that the GPS monitor told the police where the wearer was. Does it have some inverse function I hadn’t heard of, like buzzing if their attacker is in the neighborhood?
I presume (since I have no knowledge of the tech involved) that it must, or none of this makes any sense. I also presume if it didn’t, someone would have said so as it would fundamentally undermine the rationale for using it.
I read the article and to a technophile it is crystal clear:
“The idea is that victims can be alerted when alleged perpetrators come within a specified distance of the victims.”
This means that there is a technical means for alerting the victims, and that, to avoid tiring people who are easily tired, the technical details are being left out. I can understand why this foments outrage; as you say, it could provide correct information to the police in either direction, and one of those directions would be bad.
“An earlier version of this story used the word ‘scandal’ which has been edited to ‘incident’ for clarification purposes.”
Such responsible journalism!
OK, Got it. The alleged perp is wearing a monitor, so the system knows where he is; if the alleged victim is also wearing a monitor, then the system also know where she is, and can tell if they are within a specified distance of each other. The ankle bracelet might or might not have anything to do with the actual alert mechanism, but it’s essential to detecting whether there’s anything to alert about. They theoretically could have used some less “stigmatizing” system for tracking her location, but they are just piggy-backing on an existing location tracking system that is built around the ankle bracelets.
Thanks for the elaboration.
Assuming all the alleged victims are female and all the alleged perpetrators are male.
It’s possible there is some there there with the complaint, but, of course, it’s difficult to figure that out from the incoherent sputtering of the people who don’t understand why everybody else is not equally outraged.
This technology could be life-saving. But like any other new technology that greatly expands the surveillance capabilities of the police, it may require even more watchers for the watchmen.
We all know how the cops always follow their instructions. Even if they do follow their instructions in this instance, it could easily be done in a coercive manner: “You don’t _have_ to wear this, but of course, we can’t guarantee your protection if you don’t, and frankly, it might seem kind of suspicious if you don’t.”
And, of course, no perp ever has a good cop friend, and there aren’t any bad cops who might like to know where a vulnerable woman is, and no GPS-monitoring computer system ever got hacked.
Space aliens, too. None of that has anything to do with the use of GPS monitors per se.
A few years back I worked on this issue in connection with some legislation in my state — there is some tech that allows for an alert if the victim’s and attacker’s bracelets are in too close proximity. As I recall, some systems send an alert to whoever is monitoring the bracelets, others I believe send the victim an alert. I seem to recall that some systems allow for all parties to have an alert — which has the effect of also aiding someone who unintentionally violates a protective order (for instance, if X cannot be within a certain distance of Y, and X and Y go to the mall at the same time).
In my work on this issue, which involved work with many advocates for victims, I never heard the “demeaning to the victim” argument. Just goes to show I was talking to the wrong advocates, I guess.
Sensibilities change. Remember when Steve Martin was funny?
Truth be told, I never thought Steve Martin was particularly funny. But Mel Brooks on the other hand. . . .
Yeah, but what has Mel Brooks done for us lately? (wrote some clueless millennial).
Victims choose whether they want a device to carry. They don’t wear them (in fact, victim devices have no strap). Accused rapists and certain violent domestic violence suspects are required to wear devices as a condition of bail release during the pretrial period when victims are particularly at risk. All victims have geo-fences constructed around addresses they choose (home, work, school). In addition, victims who choose devices have natural mobile fences around their persons. If a suspect comes too close, police are alerted in real time. If warranted (not an accidental intrusion- determined in real time by 24/7 monitors), the victim is called and police are dispatched. More than 160 arrests have been made.
There you go, Dr. Letting the facts confuse the Narrative.
If it’s okay with you, can we first make sure they’re facts before we build a statue? Remember, internet, something, something, dog?
Before we even LET anyone build a statue. No sense letting any more potentially offensive statues out of the chute.
And do you have a basis for saying this (which I assume relates to Memphis)?