Well, Now There's An Idea
mAss Backwards - January 12, 2006:
Boston Globe - February 15, 2006:
UPDATE: For the record, my opinion of this is somewhat parallel to that of Suffolk District Attorney Dan Conley, as reported in this morning's Boston Herald:
The reality is it will work about as well as our gun laws do in keeping guns out of the hands of "criminals bent on violence". But (and this is the main point of my posts on this matter), compared to City Councilor Consalvo's earlier proposal that would require me to install a GPS tracking device on my legally-owned handgun, it's (as my readers are wont to say) BRILLIANT!
So, you give the dirtbag two simple choices - either he lingers in jail (on a couple-million dollars bail) while awaiting trial, or he gets the electric dog fence collar.
Huh? What's that? You're telling me these bracelets aren't designed to remotely dispense electric shocks to perps who violate the conditions of their release? What a rip-off! Back to the drawing board, I say!
"Incarceration for hardened criminals"? Be careful, Dan. Some folks 'round these parts will accuse you of a hate speech crime with talk like that.
Here's a suggestion, you brainless, flaming sack of yak nuts - let's install satellite tracking devices in CRIMINALS. How many times do we read stories of violent scumbags being arrested in the City of Boston, only to find that they have - SURPRISE! - outstanding warrants against them at the time of their arrest?
Boston Globe - February 15, 2006:
Mayor Thomas M. Menino and Police Commissioner Kathleen M. O'Toole announced yesterday that authorities will begin urging judges to have electronic ankle bracelets placed on violent criminals put on probation.
The initiative will target repeat offenders, who officials say are driving much of the city's surge in crime.
UPDATE: For the record, my opinion of this is somewhat parallel to that of Suffolk District Attorney Dan Conley, as reported in this morning's Boston Herald:
But the city’s district attorney and one victim of violent victim [huh? - ed.] questioned last night how well a satellite’s eye in the sky can work to restrain criminals bent on violence.
The reality is it will work about as well as our gun laws do in keeping guns out of the hands of "criminals bent on violence". But (and this is the main point of my posts on this matter), compared to City Councilor Consalvo's earlier proposal that would require me to install a GPS tracking device on my legally-owned handgun, it's (as my readers are wont to say) BRILLIANT!
Suffolk District Attorney Dan Conley said that without a suspect’s consent, prosecutors could not demand the use of GPS tracking unless they held a so-called 58A "dangerousness hearing" to determine if the suspect can be restrained beyond normal bail requirements.
So, you give the dirtbag two simple choices - either he lingers in jail (on a couple-million dollars bail) while awaiting trial, or he gets the electric dog fence collar.
Huh? What's that? You're telling me these bracelets aren't designed to remotely dispense electric shocks to perps who violate the conditions of their release? What a rip-off! Back to the drawing board, I say!
"I am impressed with the possibilities," Conley said. "But it should not be a substitute for appropriate bail or incarceration for hardened criminals. Under current law, the court has very little authority to mandate the use of the GPS tracking system."
"Incarceration for hardened criminals"? Be careful, Dan. Some folks 'round these parts will accuse you of a hate speech crime with talk like that.
