Yeah. It seems to me the real issue here isn’t the concept of “supervised release with an ankle monitor”, but that it was used with a violent and irrational criminal. Somebody who stabs somebody else to appease an imaginary character isn’t someone you can trust to make a reasonable assessment of consequences for her actions. As she demonstrated with her escape attempt, in fact.
Caught!
She was 12 years old when she committed the crime in 2014.
Caught in less than 24 hours. Huh.
The point is, it’s cheaper. Cheaper than jail, cheaper than a halfway house, cheaper than someone monitoring them every day.
Welcome to the Late Soviet Union stage of US development.
It’s also kinder and less disruptive to their lives, and makes it easier to rehabilitate people. You know, the opposite of the Soviet Union.
Do you really think any of that would matter, if this kind of release actually cost more than putting them in jail?
I concur- but IMHO: non-violent felons.
Right.
For clarification, it’s a part of her supervised released, it isn’t a part of supervised release in general. There is no longer such a thing as probation on a Federal level apart from those grandfathered into it, which is presumably nobody at this point since supervised release replaced probation at the Federal level in 1987. The exact definition of supervised release on a state level varies by state.
I don’t know. But we can be happy about the practical benefits anyway.
One of the guys who came to square dances i organized showed up one day with an ankle monitor. I talked to him, and got his side of the story. I talked to a few others and got the other side of the story. (There was a significant he said/she said component.) I talked with some other leaders of the dance community. We decided that he wasn’t a risk to our dancers at our dances, and we told him he was welcome to continue attending. We were very much aware that isolating people from their community is counter productive to eventual rehabilitation. I explained our decision to the dancers who were freaked out enough to ask me about it. I don’t know whose side of the story was true, but i think it was a good thing that he ended up with the monitor and wasn’t incarcerated.
Anyway,
Ankle monitors usually work. They usually aren’t removed, and when they are, the person is usually captured. I think they do the job they are supposed to do pretty well.
A former co-worker of mine had one for a bit. It was some stupid drunken behavior that was pled down to something minor but he was under house arrest which meant that he had to be in his apartment unless he was at work. One time there was a glitch and it looked like it was disabled so the cops were dispatched and he had to wave at them from the parking lot. If he didn’t get to his apartment on time, he would have had to serve some jail time.
You say that like it’s a bad thing. Cheaper is good. Is it less effective? And even if it is, is it enough less effective to overcome it being cheaper? If so, make that case.
So we have one case in the OP where the ankle monitor system failed, and from that one case, the OP questions the entire validity of the system of ankle monitors.
Any system will have failures. To determine the value of a particular system, you need a well-founded data analysis, to investigate the failure rate. Armed with that data, you then do a risk analysis, which includes costs of alternatives, and non-financial values such as whether the ankle-monitoring system produces better results in reintegrating an offender into the community.
To put it another way: if one prisoner manages to escape from jail, we don’t then jump to “What is the value of jail if one inmate was able to escape?”
And, of course, as suggested by @Qadgop_the_Mercotan (who worked in the prison system of the state where the person in the OP was being monitored), the person in question who cut off her ankle monitor was only on the loose for about 24 hours.
Not all monitors just detect location. Some will detect alcohol use. I knew someone who was temporarily jailed on a drunk driving charge. Upon release he had to wear an ankle monitor. He was given a list of common products to avoid because they contained alcohol and could give a false positive. Having been to jail, it was a place to which he never wanted to return. So, he was very careful because a positive reading would put him back in jail. As noted above, the violator pays for the monitor along with the alcohol detector in his car. Getting jailed can turn out to be very expensive, not to mention the fines and lawyer’s fees.
I guess I would have thought that cutting off the monitor would be detected immediately, and then ‘on the loose’ for minutes. My point is, if she didn’t have the monitor and just walked out…she would have been on the loose for the same amount of time. The monitor did nothing. She easily cut it off with scissors, and wasn’t discovered gone until some 12 hours later.
Incorrect. They do send a signal when they’re cut. It would have taken longer to know if there wasn’t a monitor.
It was detected immediately; part of the issue, in this particular case, was that that information was apparently not relayed immediately to law enforcement.
https://wgntv.com/news/wisconsin/bodycam-footage-released-in-slender-man-escape/
And, from what appears to be a breakdown in communications, it was 12+ hours before the police were even notified about it and they still caught up with her that quickly.
It was about 2 hours after cutting off the GPS monitor that the DOC let the group home know about it and issued a warrant after confirming she was missing. But it wasn’t until the next morning that someone from the home called the police to let them know about it.
I would’ve thought something like this would be almost immediately relayed to the police, by the DOC.
While I’m here, I really wish news articles, as originally released, would remain static. In a case like this, for example, I’m trying to go back and re-read things but I can’t since all the articles I read have been updated.
Or, at the very least, add an ‘update’ section, but leave the original article intact.
Did you answer my question above? How much longer would it have been before someone noticed her missing if she didn’t have a monitor? Another hour? 12 hours?