House Bill 1 is proposing to allow a court to place GPS monitors in domestic violence cases. This bill would "permit a court to restrain a respondent from going to or near specified locations" and "permit the petitioner in a domestic violence order case to inform the court of places the petitioner does not want the respondent to go into or near." It is certainly a good idea to enforce restraining orders and keep abusers away from the person they abuse, but at what cost to the "respondant's" personal liberty??? Does this apply to persons convicted of domestic abuse or persons accused? The language seems to suggest that an accused person can be forced to wear a GPS monitor and pay for its implementation and this to me seems over the edge impinging on accused (not convicted) person's liberties.
It is also surprising to note that this measure passed the house by a vote of 97-0. Will not one person stand up for personal liberties only because they will be labeled a protector of abusers? Is politics that important?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment