5 ms·

With the ubiquitous tracking technology we have these days, why are we still putting innocent people in jail? It's barbaric and unjust. Give them a GPS bracelet

• sokoloff 8y ago
  Suppose someone is accused of a mass shooting, murdering their neighbor, beating up their spouse, carjacking, or armed robbery. Right then, off you go; just wear this bracelet... Doesn't seem particularly reasonable to not incarcerate anyone before trial.
  • tdb7893 8y ago
    I think it makes sense to jail people who are an immediate harm to others like serial killers and some spousal abusers. Jailing for even things like armed robbery and carjacking seem often unnecessary if you can track people, very few people will keep carjacking and armed robbing while under surveillance like that.
    • hirundo 8y ago
      I wonder if there's a way to surgically implant a GPS transmitter so that they a) can't take it out with a high risk of dying and b) can be tracked by satellite. I suspect that the battery would be the big problem. On the one hand, if we're gonna do surgery on someone to surveil them hopefully it would be reserved for people actually convicted of a violent crime. On the other hand, I'd very possibly want the surgery myself if I thought the alternative was spending months in jail awaiting trial.
      • jakelazaroff 8y ago
        Compulsory surgically-implanted surveillance transmitters after being charged with a crime seems… extremely dystopian?
        • hirundo 8y ago
          For people not yet convicted, I agree. For the already convicted it seems less dystopian than locking them in a concrete and steel cage with violent felons.
          • saagarjha 8y ago
            Aren't the "violent felons" in prison, while those not yet convicted held in jail?
            • hirundo 8y ago
              Typically yes but it's not a fast rule. Prisons are for longer stays, but a shorter felony sentence may be served in a local jail. I knew a convicted violent felon who did most of a year in jail. His next crime was to kill his family and himself. Surveillance wouldn't have helped.
      • SketchySeaBeast 8y ago
        Is there a depth you can install something like that so that it's simultaneously not terribly invasive of a surgery and not able to be pulled out a determined individual?
        • penagwin 8y ago
          I would be HIGHLY against this idea of an implant, it feels far too distopian (and I'd argue possibly against a person's right to their body). I'm not in the medical field but I'm sure there's many places such as "closish" to an artery that trained doctors would have no issues getting at but a random joe with a switch blade may have issues with. I'd figure just detecting the temperature change and alerting the authorities would be easier though, then you can place it just like a standard animal tracker, e.g. a needle in their arm/back.
          • SketchySeaBeast 8y ago
            Oh yeah, it's horrifying to even consider. I doubt that being close would deter, it would just lead to more desperate people committing a form of suicide for freedom.
  • jdietrich 8y ago
    Posting a cash bail has no bearing on your risk to the public. If a judge thinks that you pose a high risk, you shouldn't be offered bail at any price; if you don't pose a significant risk, you should be offered bail conditional on your behaviour during the bail period rather than your ability to pay. The vast majority of people on bail aren't mass murderers or armed robbers, they're petty criminals and drug addicts. If you think a shoplifter might reoffend while on bail, then make his bail conditional on staying away from the local mall. If you think a domestic abuser might reoffend while on bail, then make his bail conditional on having no contact with his spouse. If you think that someone might abscond, then make his bail conditional on GPS tagging or regularly signing on at a police station. Bail conditions (with suitable monitoring) are fairer and more effective than cash bail.
    • philwelch 8y ago
      Bail conditions are all well and good, and it's not an either/or--even if you pay cash bail for a domestic violence charge, you're still required to stay away from the alleged victim. The purpose of cash bail is to make sure the suspect shows up to court. Which--sure, can be replaced with monitoring, and then instead of having a bail bondsman pick up bail-jumpers at zero cost to the taxpayer, the taxpayer can pay the sheriff's department to round up bail-jumpers instead.
      • mnm1 8y ago
        Sounds like a win win situation. We get rid of the scummy bail bonds men and we make the sheriff so his job all the while not putting innocent people in jail. Oh, what's that? You'd rather have innocent people in jail rather than paying the sheriff to do his job every once in awhile? That's quite an immoral position.
  • philwelch 8y ago
    Mass shooters are almost never captured alive anyway.
    • presscast 8y ago
      And this is completely irrelevant to the point at hand.