Using GPS To Track Abusers

According to Ms. Magazine, 7 states now use GPS (global positioning satellite) to track domestic abusers:

In most GPS systems, the offender is outfitted with an electronic anklet that communicates with a satellite. The victim can designate “exclusionzones,” such as her home or office, in which she would like to be protected. In the best programs, if her abuser enters these zones, police and the victim are notified immediately. In many cases, the offender pays for the cost of the monitoring, which is about $10 a day—much cheaper than the cost of incarceration.

In a sense, this seems like a great way to protect women. Police can interfere immediately if the victim is in danger, and a woman does not have to go into hiding if she fears for her safety. The abuser, not the victim, must be the one who is most inconvenienced. The victim is then free to continue living and working as she wishes.

Unfortunately, the idea of monitoring civilians raises quite a few civil liberties' issues. At a Coalition Against Gender Violence conference in February, one Harvard student offered up some concerns, as described by Katie Mapes:

Alanna Buchanan, '08, discussed the impact of GPS monitoring of batterers in black communities, noting that black women experience 35% higher rates of domestic violence than white women. In black communities, she noted, women may feel that they are betraying their community by turning men over to a racist system. GPS monitoring could also be used by police to disproportionately and unjustly monitor the activities of black men, not an unjustified fear in light of studies demonstrating a racist bias in the criminal justice system.

Compromising our civil liberties, even when dealing with criminals, is a very dangerous approach to our problems.

I am reminded of Catharine MacKinnon's call for censorship of pornography. It is true that much of pornography is violent, oppressive, dominating, and horrific. However, this censorship starts to pave the way for other violations of civil rights. Defining "pornography" is, in itself, difficult, subjective, and could lead to all kinds of right-wing nonsense.

Nadine Strossen writes in response to MacKinnon,

The feminist procensorship movement is a far greater threat to women's rights than is the sexual expression it condemns with the epithet "pornography." For women who cherish liberty and equality, Big Sister is as unwelcome in our lives as Big Brother. (From Defending Pornography: Free Speech, Sex, and the Fight for Women's Rights)

As women, when we fight for our rights, protections, and freedoms, we need to make sure that we don't lose the ones we already have along the way.