Ankle Monitors: Two, Privacy & More - Explained!
Do you know what it truly means to be under constant surveillance, your every move tracked and recorded? Ankle monitors, seemingly innocuous devices, are reshaping the landscape of the criminal justice system, and their impact extends far beyond the courtroom.
Ankle monitors are typically employed for the electronic monitoring of individuals under some form of legal supervision or restriction. The reasons and circumstances for an individual wearing two ankle monitors are intricately tied to their legal situation and the decisions of the relevant authorities or monitoring agencies. Multiple monitors might be a practical solution to enforce compliance across distinct legal obligations, particularly when dealing with separate proceedings and multiple charges. Courts may impose distinct bail conditions tailored to each case's nature and severity, necessitating multiple monitoring devices. A person may have two ankle monitors due to involvement in criminal cases with different parastatals or for various crimes.
| Category | Details |
|---|---|
| Purpose of Ankle Monitors | Electronic monitoring of individuals under legal supervision (parole, house arrest, bail conditions). |
| Circumstances for Multiple Monitors | Separate legal obligations, multiple court cases, different charges, distinct bail conditions. |
| Types of Monitoring | Location tracking (GPS), substance use monitoring (alcohol), or both. |
| Legal Challenges | Privacy concerns, potential for excessive punishment, Fourth Amendment implications. |
| Features | Vibrations, and alerts. |
| Charging | Requires plugging into a wall outlet; charging can take several hours. |
| Potential Drawbacks | Stigma, difficulty finding or keeping jobs, daily fees, debt and unemployment. |
| Additional Features (if any) | Some may include fitness tracking features, such as over 150 workout modes, blood oxygen monitoring (SpO2), stress monitoring, sleep tracking, and workout tracking. |
Reference: Pew Charitable Trusts - Electronic Monitoring in the United States
The use of ankle monitors has exploded in recent years, becoming an indispensable tool in the criminal justice system. These devices, often perceived as a way to track and monitor offenders while granting a degree of freedom, are far more complex than they initially appear. They represent a significant shift in how society approaches punishment and supervision.
The technology behind ankle monitors isnt without its flaws. Some consider electronic monitoring as an alternative to mass incarceration, a humane approach. However, the reality is more nuanced. The devices themselves, while providing location tracking, are not designed to record conversations, allaying some concerns about their intrusive capabilities, they primarily use GPS technology to track the wearer's location and movement.
When the device's battery is low, the wearer is required to plug the bracelet into a wall outlet for charging. The wearer cannot remove the bracelet, so they must remain tethered to the cord while it charges. This necessity can lead to significant restrictions on movement and daily activities, and can take a few hours to completely charge up an ankle monitor. This constraint highlights a core aspect of the system: the constant demand of the technology itself.
Consider the Oklahoma high school basketball players participating in the state tournament while wearing ankle monitors. Their situation exemplifies the modern reality of criminal justice, where legal restrictions and personal freedoms intersect. Similarly, the case of two Wilson High School basketball players, permitted to play while wearing ankle monitors after being arrested for robbery, sparks debates among school officials and parents.
This leads to a larger conversation, a discussion about the role of electronic monitoring in society and its implications for individuals. What are we truly talking about here? It is a matter of balancing public safety with the rights and well-being of the individuals under supervision.
For individuals under house arrest or other monitored sentences, ankle monitors become a necessity. However, the reality of wearing an ankle monitor can be a tough one. There are many myths surrounding this technology, often involving intense humiliation. There is the belief that everyone is watching, judging, and assuming the parolee is a dangerous criminal. In reality, most parolees are low to medium risk offenders. Yet, ankle monitors can also place parolees at risk of debt and unemployment.
The court has acknowledged that GPS monitoring is a search under the Fourth Amendment, necessitating that it be reasonable and not overly intrusive. This ruling emphasizes the balance between the need for surveillance and the individual's right to privacy. Some see electronic monitoring as a more humane alternative to incarceration, while others highlight its inherent flaws.
The stigma of wearing an ankle monitor, along with the difficulties of finding and keeping certain jobs, adds to the burden. Often, wearers face a daily fee for the "privilege" of being monitored, adding to financial strain. Securing the monitor with accessories like an "ankle monitor keep" may help with comfort and discretion, preventing it from sliding, twisting, or being easily visible.
Moreover, the use of such tools has faced legal challenges. The debate extends to questions of privacy and potential for excessive punishment, including the Supreme Court's consideration of GPS monitoring and the Fourth Amendment. Electronic monitoring is one element of a much broader conversation about the legal system, the impact of technological advancement on the lives of its citizens, and the need for fairness, privacy, and rehabilitation.
Even more profound is the question of how these digital restraints drive defendants into debt. Ankle bracelets, often promoted as a humane alternative to jail, come with a significant financial burden. The daily fees, the costs of maintaining the device, and the potential for violating the terms of their monitoring all contribute to economic hardship.
The discussion also touches upon the intersection of law and technology. Ankle monitors, like other GPS tracking devices, reveal intimate details about a person's daily life. This creates concern about privacy. With this data, law enforcement and correctional institutions can build a comprehensive profile of an individual's activities, raising legal and ethical questions.
For those in the justice system, electronic monitoring is a daily reality. From Henryetta High School basketball players to those on house arrest, these devices have become integral to their lives. The presence of these monitors, with their subtle vibrations and constant reminders, is a vivid indicator of the digital jail that is rapidly expanding across the country.
Ultimately, the use of ankle monitors has a long way to go. As the criminal justice system continues to adapt to the digital age, the conversation will shift from mere compliance to questions of rehabilitation, privacy, and the delicate balance between public safety and individual rights. It is a topic that will demand more attention, reflection, and, above all, compassion for those at the center of this evolving system.
Community Corrections gets nod to purchase ankle monitors SCRAM Systems
Learn How Far Can You Go With Ankle Monitor Before Buying It
Kentucky orders quarantine breakers to wear ankle monitors
