Whatever done in the dark will come to light... so when a person commits a crime and just because it was years, months, days, etc... ago don't be surprise when an officer pulls up on you and arrest you because of crime you committed and it was never handled. And because you didn't turn yourself in or missed a court date and the judge slams the gavel and give you a sanction that can turn your world upside down. Yeah its embarrassing but more than likely you know why your sitting in the holding cell in the county jail. More than likely if its your first offense you could get bonded or PR out... if you have priors, on parole, or probation you will be sitting until you see a judge for your verdict. The law has some unfairness about it and the way they handle situations but that's the way the cookie crumble. cancer80-456
I agree on everything you said because I feel like if you commit a crime and get away with it, it definitely will come back on years or months later it will come back on you, and your going to regret doing it. Also and being that they didn't turn they self in they make the situation worse depending on what it is so yeah probation or parole or some type of time is going to be taking places. Even though the police do over do they job. T456
I agree with you that whatever is done in the dark will come to the light. I also think if years has went by after a person has committed a crime it should be like it never happened, but only depending on the crime if it was a car theft then ok that's not as serious as a murder. Love456
I agree once a person commits a crime and get away with it after months and years then passed it's definitely still going to come back around on them. I do believe in karma. Also just like missing a court date there's no excuse there going to send your warrant out for your arrest and once you get caught depending on the situation your going to do a little time and once you bond out your going to be on parole or probation until further notice with the judge. I feel like the police can definitely over do there job when there taking things in there manor. T456
I definitely agree that some police officers over kill their profession. I believe with this device, they have gone way over the edge in trying to catch parolee's in another crime by just spying on them. It's almost like the device is doing their job for them, all they have to do is listen. BadWolf456
We can't forget that the police are not involved with these bracelets whatsoever. The example in class of the Criminal Justice Tripod (Police, Courts, Corrections). The court "leg" could order someone to wear a bracelet as a condition of their probation. The corrections "leg" could order that bracelet as part of parole. The police "leg" though, they cannot order someone to wear these bracelets or monitor them. ISP456
It’s one thing to require a parolee to have visits with their P.O. and discuss how everything is going, but it’s completely different to spy on someone without them knowing. I agree with this article that this type of technology conflicts with the parolee’s civil rights. Yes, the parolee has to wear this to pay for the crime that they committed, but I don’t agree that they deserve this type of punishment. For example, if the police can’t even search your belongings without a warrant, then why would they be allowed to put this type of spy device on you without a court warrant? BadWolf456
For the most part I agree with what you say, although; I do have a conflicting opinion on one matter. Some people may deserve that type of punishment, murderers or rapists. They have committed some of societies most heinous crimes and some cant be trusted. Some need constant supervision if only to prevent any possible crimes. BHS456
I agree, if the courts want to put something that could record them at any time, it should be disclosed before the individual receives it. If it is already on them before they know that it records them at any time, there is not much they can do about it... except for not speak when they think it is recording.
The obvious issue being addressed in the article is the possible infringement of civil liberties by the technology used in the ankle bracelets. The technology used in the bracelets can make conversations between the parolee and whom ever they're talking to be heard. This can violate the attorney-client privilege, however; conversations between the parolee and someone who is a ne'er do well could tip off the parole officer to future acts of delinquency. The issue has its downs but it also has its ups, I foresee some court rulings to determine the future of the use of this technology. BHS456
I agree. Attorney- client privilege is there for a reason, it basically protects conversations had between an attorney and their client and keeps them private. Using voice recordings in ankle monitors to listen to them is breaking that privilege. Although using it to record conversations between persons who could commit more crime could have its perks. fdemt456
I think your right, it can infringe on civil liberties. However thats not what this technology was ever meant to be used for. Its here so officers can keep track of offenders whereabouts and activities not listening in on conversations with offenders and their attorneys.USA456
On some levels, I agree with the voice recording on GPS bracelets. I do understand how it can violate civil rights and is unconstitutional... but I believe that it could alert authority when more illegal activity is taking place when an individual is confined to their homes. However, if individuals knew that these devices could potentially be recording at any time, they would be more careful about the actions they take while being on home confinement. I think if the courts want to have GPS monitors that can also record conversations, it needs to be clearly stated, so that no "rights" are violated in the process. tay456
i agree they have to be alert and careful where they go and what they are doing, it keeps a supervision on them so they are not out committing more crimes or hurting the public in any way, i think its another way to help them btter themselves to and stay out of trouble.
in my opinion, i think gps bracelets are a good way to keep some one under some sort of supervision, i think that the gps bracelet keeps that inmate from going other places than thier home and possibly committing another crime, it also keeps them in thier home and only thier home, it gives them a little bit of freedom but they still have to follow some rules and be good.
Ankle bracelets are a good tool to help keep track of and document where the wearer is and has been. I think that having voice recording on ankle bracelets may be a little much but it isn't killing anyone. It can violate constitutional rights that an individual has but it could also in some way be useful. Listening to a conversation that could be pennant to an investigation could be helpful. Although listening to a conversation between the parolee and his/her lawyer probably shouldn't be done. fdemt456
This article was about offenders on probation, parole, or released on bail who wear GPS monitoring bracelets. What makes this controversial is the new added technology which puts cellular capabilities into the bracelet. This enables a feature on the bracelet to be turned on which then allows the bracelet to act as essentially a speaker phone. Some experts are calling this a violation of rights. I think implemented properly, this is not a violation of rights or even close to it given certain things take place. First, I think that there needs to be disclosure to the person wearing it. Second, when the offender has protected conversations such as with his or her attorney or even his or her doctor, that the bracelet be removed or disabled. Given those circumstances, I feel that it is well with the rights of the government. When I worked in California, there was a thing there called a fourth waiver. What that meant was, an offender has given up there right against searches from law enforcement as a condition of his or her parole. Yes that person is protected by the fourth amendment from reasonable searches however, to be placed on parole they had to give up their fourth amendment protection from searches. This meant as a LEO, I did not need their permission to search their car or person upon discovery that they were a fourth waiver. Is that fair? I think so. Nobody is forcing them to be on parole. Nowhere in the US Constitution does it say that all citizen are to be given the right of parole. If the offender is not ok with that, then they can remain incarcerated. If they don’t like it, tough. So again, as long as these bracelets are implemented properly, I don’t see a problem with them. ISP456
I think this article is interesting and brings up interesting points. The ankle bracelet program is something that i support and i feel like it does good things for parole/probation officers by helping them keep track of their offenders. The article was talking about how they are unconstitutional because people can eavesdrop on conversations that are picked up through the bracelets. They said the bracelets are phone bracelets and when the conversation is over it will tell you its disconnected so anything after that should not be recorded. The offenders should be notified before they ever agree to put the bracelets on and should be completely aware of every aspect of the program and what they can and cant be charged for while wearing the device. USA456
I agree with the ankle bracelet I think it’s a good way to monitor criminals with. I do think that everybody deserves some type of privacy and in the article I think the man in the articles privacy was violated and it violated the attorney-client relationship. I found the article interesting because I didn't know you could eavesdrop on the person with the monitor attached to them conversation. I think Government officials and lawyers and judges know about all the things they can do without letting people who commits crime know what’s going on. If all citizens good and bad knew it would be law suits left and right. In this article I think what happened was a mistake and the client’s lawyer just pushed things to the point that they could win the case. Once again I agree with ankle bracelet monitoring but not to the point where they don’t have some type of legal privacy. Love456
When a person commits a crime against there community they give up a lot of there rights that are given to the individual. I don't think of it as spying on an innocent person, rather looking in on a criminal to make sure there not doing wrong. If a offender feels violated by having to wear a device that keeps them monitored then tough, they commited a crime and gave up that right. -Corps456
Whatever done in the dark will come to light... so when a person commits a crime and just because it was years, months, days, etc... ago don't be surprise when an officer pulls up on you and arrest you because of crime you committed and it was never handled. And because you didn't turn yourself in or missed a court date and the judge slams the gavel and give you a sanction that can turn your world upside down. Yeah its embarrassing but more than likely you know why your sitting in the holding cell in the county jail. More than likely if its your first offense you could get bonded or PR out... if you have priors, on parole, or probation you will be sitting until you see a judge for your verdict. The law has some unfairness about it and the way they handle situations but that's the way the cookie crumble. cancer80-456
ReplyDeleteI agree on everything you said because I feel like if you commit a crime and get away with it, it definitely will come back on years or months later it will come back on you, and your going to regret doing it. Also and being that they didn't turn they self in they make the situation worse depending on what it is so yeah probation or parole or some type of time is going to be taking places. Even though the police do over do they job. T456
DeleteI agree with you that whatever is done in the dark will come to the light. I also think if years has went by after a person has committed a crime it should be like it never happened, but only depending on the crime if it was a car theft then ok that's not as serious as a murder. Love456
DeleteI agree once a person commits a crime and get away with it after months and years then passed it's definitely still going to come back around on them. I do believe in karma. Also just like missing a court date there's no excuse there going to send your warrant out for your arrest and once you get caught depending on the situation your going to do a little time and once you bond out your going to be on parole or probation until further notice with the judge. I feel like the police can definitely over do there job when there taking things in there manor. T456
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree that some police officers over kill their profession. I believe with this device, they have gone way over the edge in trying to catch parolee's in another crime by just spying on them. It's almost like the device is doing their job for them, all they have to do is listen. BadWolf456
DeleteWe can't forget that the police are not involved with these bracelets whatsoever. The example in class of the Criminal Justice Tripod (Police, Courts, Corrections). The court "leg" could order someone to wear a bracelet as a condition of their probation. The corrections "leg" could order that bracelet as part of parole. The police "leg" though, they cannot order someone to wear these bracelets or monitor them.
DeleteISP456
It’s one thing to require a parolee to have visits with their P.O. and discuss how everything is going, but it’s completely different to spy on someone without them knowing. I agree with this article that this type of technology conflicts with the parolee’s civil rights. Yes, the parolee has to wear this to pay for the crime that they committed, but I don’t agree that they deserve this type of punishment. For example, if the police can’t even search your belongings without a warrant, then why would they be allowed to put this type of spy device on you without a court warrant? BadWolf456
ReplyDeleteFor the most part I agree with what you say, although; I do have a conflicting opinion on one matter. Some people may deserve that type of punishment, murderers or rapists. They have committed some of societies most heinous crimes and some cant be trusted. Some need constant supervision if only to prevent any possible crimes. BHS456
DeleteI agree, if the courts want to put something that could record them at any time, it should be disclosed before the individual receives it. If it is already on them before they know that it records them at any time, there is not much they can do about it... except for not speak when they think it is recording.
Deleteforgot to add tay456 for above comment!! tay456
DeleteThe obvious issue being addressed in the article is the possible infringement of civil liberties by the technology used in the ankle bracelets. The technology used in the bracelets can make conversations between the parolee and whom ever they're talking to be heard. This can violate the attorney-client privilege, however; conversations between the parolee and someone who is a ne'er do well could tip off the parole officer to future acts of delinquency. The issue has its downs but it also has its ups, I foresee some court rulings to determine the future of the use of this technology. BHS456
ReplyDeleteI agree. Attorney- client privilege is there for a reason, it basically protects conversations had between an attorney and their client and keeps them private. Using voice recordings in ankle monitors to listen to them is breaking that privilege. Although using it to record conversations between persons who could commit more crime could have its perks.
Deletefdemt456
I think your right, it can infringe on civil liberties. However thats not what this technology was ever meant to be used for. Its here so officers can keep track of offenders whereabouts and activities not listening in on conversations with offenders and their attorneys.USA456
DeleteOn some levels, I agree with the voice recording on GPS bracelets. I do understand how it can violate civil rights and is unconstitutional... but I believe that it could alert authority when more illegal activity is taking place when an individual is confined to their homes. However, if individuals knew that these devices could potentially be recording at any time, they would be more careful about the actions they take while being on home confinement. I think if the courts want to have GPS monitors that can also record conversations, it needs to be clearly stated, so that no "rights" are violated in the process. tay456
ReplyDeletei agree they have to be alert and careful where they go and what they are doing, it keeps a supervision on them so they are not out committing more crimes or hurting the public in any way, i think its another way to help them btter themselves to and stay out of trouble.
Deletesnakebite456
in my opinion, i think gps bracelets are a good way to keep some one under some sort of supervision, i think that the gps bracelet keeps that inmate from going other places than thier home and possibly committing another crime, it also keeps them in thier home and only thier home, it gives them a little bit of freedom but they still have to follow some rules and be good.
ReplyDeletesnakebite 456
Ankle bracelets are a good tool to help keep track of and document where the wearer is and has been. I think that having voice recording on ankle bracelets may be a little much but it isn't killing anyone. It can violate constitutional rights that an individual has but it could also in some way be useful. Listening to a conversation that could be pennant to an investigation could be helpful. Although listening to a conversation between the parolee and his/her lawyer probably shouldn't be done.
ReplyDeletefdemt456
This article was about offenders on probation, parole, or released on bail who wear GPS monitoring bracelets. What makes this controversial is the new added technology which puts cellular capabilities into the bracelet. This enables a feature on the bracelet to be turned on which then allows the bracelet to act as essentially a speaker phone. Some experts are calling this a violation of rights. I think implemented properly, this is not a violation of rights or even close to it given certain things take place. First, I think that there needs to be disclosure to the person wearing it. Second, when the offender has protected conversations such as with his or her attorney or even his or her doctor, that the bracelet be removed or disabled. Given those circumstances, I feel that it is well with the rights of the government. When I worked in California, there was a thing there called a fourth waiver. What that meant was, an offender has given up there right against searches from law enforcement as a condition of his or her parole. Yes that person is protected by the fourth amendment from reasonable searches however, to be placed on parole they had to give up their fourth amendment protection from searches. This meant as a LEO, I did not need their permission to search their car or person upon discovery that they were a fourth waiver. Is that fair? I think so. Nobody is forcing them to be on parole. Nowhere in the US Constitution does it say that all citizen are to be given the right of parole. If the offender is not ok with that, then they can remain incarcerated. If they don’t like it, tough. So again, as long as these bracelets are implemented properly, I don’t see a problem with them.
ReplyDeleteISP456
I think this article is interesting and brings up interesting points. The ankle bracelet program is something that i support and i feel like it does good things for parole/probation officers by helping them keep track of their offenders. The article was talking about how they are unconstitutional because people can eavesdrop on conversations that are picked up through the bracelets. They said the bracelets are phone bracelets and when the conversation is over it will tell you its disconnected so anything after that should not be recorded. The offenders should be notified before they ever agree to put the bracelets on and should be completely aware of every aspect of the program and what they can and cant be charged for while wearing the device. USA456
ReplyDeleteI agree with the ankle bracelet I think it’s a good way to monitor criminals with. I do think that everybody deserves some type of privacy and in the article I think the man in the articles privacy was violated and it violated the attorney-client relationship. I found the article interesting because I didn't know you could eavesdrop on the person with the monitor attached to them conversation. I think Government officials and lawyers and judges know about all the things they can do without letting people who commits crime know what’s going on. If all citizens good and bad knew it would be law suits left and right. In this article I think what happened was a mistake and the client’s lawyer just pushed things to the point that they could win the case. Once again I agree with ankle bracelet monitoring but not to the point where they don’t have some type of legal privacy. Love456
ReplyDeleteWhen a person commits a crime against there community they give up a lot of there rights that are given to the individual. I don't think of it as spying on an innocent person, rather looking in on a criminal to make sure there not doing wrong. If a offender feels violated by having to wear a device that keeps them monitored then tough, they commited a crime and gave up that right. -Corps456
ReplyDelete