When a Protective Order Becomes More Than “Just a Piece of Paper!”

In working often with victims of crimes, one actually can readily see that, while the protective (or restraining, if your state so refers to it as this) orders intent is to protect the victim; however, the truth of the matter is often that the perpetrator views it just as a piece of paper standing between the perpetrator and the victim. If the perpetrator is so determined, they are going to ignore the piece of paper and pursue the victim with often the attitude of “you have to catch me first”; to them the risk of the violation of the protective order is small and they fear no consequence.

It is still always better to have the protective order than not for a victim because it actually allows them to call the police immediately if someone sees the perpetrator coming within the distance zone that they shouldn’t be in for the safety of the victim, rather than waiting for the perpetrator to actually approach them within a distance of immediate danger.

Now, in accordance to a blog posting on SLATE entitled, “Tracking Device: How about using GPS monitoring to stop batterers?”. The author, Maura Kelly, on May 4, 2007, mentioned:

“… Washington had a good tool in place: a state law that allows judges to impose electronic monitoring as a condition of a restraining order. When judges so order, the police can keep tabs on abusers with a technology best known to people who are bad with directions: the global positioning system.

Just as GPS can find a lost driver, it can also alert cops and targets whenever a domestic-violence offender enters a restricted zone, like the area surrounding a woman’s home or office. Police put an electronic bracelet on the batterer that sends a signal to computer servers at headquarters if he goes anywhere he shouldn’t. Then, if he violates a restraining order, they can call the woman to let her know that he is on his uninvited way. The idea is to buy women crucial time, even if it’s only minutes, so they can get away. The notification loop also kicks in if the offender tries to remove or deactivate the bracelet.”

I would encourage you to read the entire article written by Maura Kelly; however, it seems as a long awaited possible help to deter the perpetrator could be in the works. The effectiveness shall be seen in due time; it is too early to tell; however, hopefully, a program like this will be coming to an area near you.

Maura Kelly states further in her article posted insofar as funding for this program:

“Victim advocates would prefer that the government cover the cost of monitoring. They hope it will pay for itself with savings in other areas, like a reduced need for family shelters—where one-quarter of occupants are typically fleeing abuse—and fewer pricey murder trials. One potential source of funding is the federal Violence Against Women Act of 2005. VAWA is supposed to fund states to improve the investigation, prosecution, and prevention of violent crimes against women. The question is how much money Congress will put behind it. If fully funded, VAWA could mean $1 billion for the states, some of which could go toward GPS monitoring.”

It is time to turn the tables on the aggressors who often stalk their victims with GPS units to monitor their victim’s whereabouts.  Legislators need to know that we need such programs in place; advocate for your area as soon as you can to make sure that the message is loud and clear that we need more effective means of making the protective order much more than just a piece of paper.  Why not let the same technology behind the chip that they so readily use, help to keep them from their victims???

Any thoughts???