MA SJC ruling that SO's on probation are grandfathered from GPS devices

[believe09]

This should spark some conversations here in MA: In a 4-3 ruling, SJC in MA ruled that SO's who were on probation prior to the 2006 law regarding GPS devices cannot be compelled to wear them. It is "an unconstitutional burden on their freedom." The dissenting opinion stated that the right of the public to be safe overruled the personal freedoms of the SO's.

Lawmakers and law enforcement are outraged.

http://www1.whdh.com/news/articles/local/BO122087/

[Salem]

The heck with the unconstitutional burden. The right answer should have been that laws/punishments are not retroactive. I adhere to this philosophy because if it is not illegal or only a $50 fine to cut your toe nails on Tuesday, but the law changes on Wednesday and the new law says it is a $100 fine and 10 days in jail, those people who cut their toe nails on Tuesday should not be faced with the $100 or 10 days in jail. That is a very, very simplistic analogy, but hopefully you can see what I mean.

Having said all that - I think MA is one of the weakest states in the US for punishment of its SO's and I think MA judges are far too lenient with these POS's. Also, I think anyone of these SO's that has a high chance of reoffending should be made to wear a GPS. It seems to me that there could be a way around the retroactive law WHEN it is known that the perp may reoffend. Or there should be a way to add it to the list of probation requirements. Maybe probation requirements for all SO's should include a clause that allows for new technology to be implemented when it is available to track the offender. Just some blanket clause....

Salem

[believe09]

I get what you are saying, Salem, but I am pondering whether or not punishments should be retroactive.

I knowingly break the law-I take my chances on being caught and being punished. These folks are on probation-they are not released because their punishment is over. Why shouldn't they be monitored? It is part of the punishment from having offended. Why do they get to be grandfathered? The fact is that Level 2's and Level 3's will likely reoffend. At least we can space out the time between offenses, or locate them by GPS if and when they reoffend. These folks are being monitored by probation officers already-as long as they make it to a weekly/bi weekly meeting with their probation officers, they are free as air.

We know that this does not work for the bulk of these SO's because we know they will reoffend. So the answer is that we will err on the side of the perp rather than on the side of society. HMMM.

[Sheromom]

Originally Posted by Salem

The heck with the unconstitutional burden. The right answer should have been that laws/punishments are not retroactive. I adhere to this philosophy because if it is not illegal or only a $50 fine to cut your toe nails on Tuesday, but the law changes on Wednesday and the new law says it is a $100 fine and 10 days in jail, those people who cut their toe nails on Tuesday should not be faced with the $100 or 10 days in jail. That is a very, very simplistic analogy, but hopefully you can see what I mean.

Having said all that - I think MA is one of the weakest states in the US for punishment of its SO's and I think MA judges are far too lenient with these POS's. Also, I think anyone of these SO's that has a high chance of reoffending should be made to wear a GPS. It seems to me that there could be a way around the retroactive law WHEN it is known that the perp may reoffend. Or there should be a way to add it to the list of probation requirements. Maybe probation requirements for all SO's should include a clause that allows for new technology to be implemented when it is available to track the offender. Just some blanket clause....

Salem

I think we should just put them down- that way we won't have to worry about their "freedom" or about them reoffending. ESPECIALLY if it involves a chld; just get RID of them already!!!!!

[Salem]

I agree believe - that's why I think there should be some kind of "blanket" clause in their probation requirements that leaves room for adding tracking when the technology becomes available. If there was a blanket clause - then GPS could have been a requirement without further ado...

These guys/gals need to be tracked. Maybe we pass a new law that says it is MANDATORY that all Level 2 & 3's are tracked, one way or another, regardless of when they offended? Legislation can trump the court. Generally speaking.

Salem

[believe09]

O/T I was in family court regarding some motion for my divorce and we were pretty far down on the docket. The court schedule was packed that day and some guy was flirting quite a bit with me...It was only when he finally sat down that I saw his ankle bracelet. (I only attract the finest) I stared pointedly at it, and he said that it was coming off in two weeks and he would then be free to take me out to the resturant of my choosing...how is that for ballsy? (I declined just in case you were wondering.)

[Salem]

(((((believe))))) - I know what you mean about attracting only the finest When I was younger only the really weird, really old or already married seemed to want to date me. UGGHHHHHHHH

Salem

[believe09]

Originally Posted by Salem

(((((believe))))) - I know what you mean about attracting only the finest When I was younger only the really weird, really old or already married seemed to want to date me. UGGHHHHHHHH

Salem

You are my long lost sister...