GPS Safety Blanket

California has used GPS monitoring on parolees and probationers since 2005. Placing sex offenders on GPS monitoring systems has helped California feel safer in the midst of criminals. The number of individuals on GPS monitoring has been steadily rising since 2005, with California being the only state where all paroled sex offenders are monitored. GPS monitors have been proven to reduce crime due to a number of factors. Sex offenders are continuously being monitored, which deters the chance of recidivism. GPS also gives law enforcement a chance to catch sex offenders before commit any offenses. Though GPS has proven to help somewhat, it still falls under heavy criticisms. Are GPS monitoring and residency restrictions really helping, or are they merely a safety blanket for concerned parents?

A main criticism of GPS monitoring and residency restrictions of sex offenders stems from the way in which they are enacted. In her article "Applying the Lessons of GPS Monitoring of Batterers to Sex Offenders," Pamela Foohey states, "Legislation aimed at preventing sex offenders from re-offending often comes about in response to public outcry after a convicted sex offender re-offends or merely moves to a particular neighborhood, town, or state." It seems that these restrictions come about not out of a dire need to protect our children, but out of the necessity to ease the worrying minds of parents. Also, it has been argued that GPS monitoring does little to deter recidivism, because sex offenders generally operate out of a preference for a victim’s particular characteristics, not their location.

The specifics on legislation regarding GPS monitoring and residency restrictions are not perfect. They have been called over inclusive, because they are generally designed to address the problems potential strangers pose to children. It does not take into account that most victims of sex offenses are assaulted by acquaintances, family members, or people they know. On the other side, these specific legislations have also been argued to be under inclusive. They do not prevent sex offenders from coming into contact with victims; they simply stop them from coming into contact with certain locations. Residency restrictions have been criticized because sex offenders do not go next door to offend, rather they choose to offend elsewhere in order to not be detected.