Below we have proof that the CPEDV, The California Partnership to End Domestic Violence is opposing the use of GPS with DV. They say GPS is of no value it is a, “quick fix” like a pipe dream or something when in fact it is proven 100% effective.
If you are reading this email it is because you or someone you love or know is or has been a victim of domestic violence.
GPS is not a end all cure all but it is absolutely better than what victims of domestic violence in CA have now which is absolutely nothing.
There is nothing worse than living in fear, I think this is worse than taking the beatings. GPS is a tool that would actually aid victims to prevent further acts of violence and help give women and children a fighting chance to protect themselves.
Please join with me in protest of the CPEDV opposition of the use of GPS technology with domestic violence.
There are millions of victims in the state of CA and they all have family and friends in comparison to the 200 person CPEDV organization. By the pure numbers we should be able to raise more than 200 signatures in support of the use of GPS with DV.
It is not easy for victims to be brave. Most domestic violence victims are so beaten down that they have no hope, however if they see your posts and read that other victims, their family members and their friends are speaking out it is my hope that they will be brave and post also a letter of support for the use of GPS with DV.
United together we can make a difference for victims of domestic violence.
Thank you
Alexis A. Moore
Below is the proof that comes from the judge...
April 14, 2009
The Honorable Alberto Torrico
State Capitol
Room 319
Sacramento, CA 95814
Re: AB 1081 (Torrico) – Oppose Via Facsimile 916.319.2120
Dear Assemblymember Torrico:
The California Partnership to End Domestic Violence (CPEDV) regrets to inform you that after carefully reviewing AB 1081, we have decided to take a formal position to OPPOSE the bill. This measure would require court-ordered electronic monitoring of convicted domestic violence parolees and probationers, as well as violators of protective orders. While we appreciate your commitment to protecting the safety of domestic violence victims, we feel that this bill carries too many unintended consequences to move forward in its current form.
CPEDV is a statewide, membership-based coalition of 200 domestic violence service providers, advocates and individuals, who support innovative solutions to ensure safety and justice for victims and survivors of domestic violence and their children. Over the course of our 25-year history, we have worked with lawmakers and our allied partners to enact over 100 statutes.
AB 1081 is part of a nationwide effort to implement GPS monitoring for domestic violence offenders. While CPEDV has long advocated justice for victims and accountability for offenders, we have major concerns with this legislation, which are listed below.
• GPS monitoring should not be viewed as a panacea or “quick fix” for threats of future violence. GPS monitoring is only effective as part of a larger coordinated system. If not enough trained officers respond quickly when an offender approaches a victim, and if courts lack resources to hold offenders accountable, the monitoring devices will not be effective.
• GPS can complicate an already delicate dynamic in communities where relations between law enforcement and advocates are not strong. In order for a GPS system to be effective, it would be necessary for a community-based advocate to explain to victims how the offender tracking system works, and its benefits and risks.
• There could be unintended costs to survivors resulting from the bill’s stipulation that offenders pay for their tracking devices when possible. If offenders are required to pay for the technology it could complicate child support, rent or mortgage payments, etc., which can adversely affect the offenders’ victims and children.
• Active monitoring of perpetrators is only effective if an administrator continually monitors the location of offenders, 24/7. Additionally, perpetual monitoring would require the victim, who has not committed a crime, to be tracked 24 hours a day. This raises serious safety and privacy risks. It also creates a risk that the offender or offender’s attorney may try to obtain the victim’s location records in an effort to intimidate or harass the victim. For safety, a monitoring agency’s policies should restrict access to a victim’s location to the fewest staff possible, and routinely purge victim location records. Such best practices are not currently address in the bill. Additionally, any victim who is considering carrying a GPS device must be fully informed of all risks and benefits, provide consent before being tracked, and must be allowed to withdraw that consent at any time.
• Mandating a statewide “one size fits all” approach instead of rolling out grant-funded pilot projects in a few counties is problematic. GPS tracking may not be the most effective way to combat violence in all communities.
• The bill suggests that a “risk assessment” will be made to determine the likelihood of a perpetrator to reoffend. However the current bill language does not address the substance of these assessments, or important questions regarding their development and administration. Who does the assessment? If probation/parole assesses at a bail hearing and the hearing takes place in the middle of the night, what happens when certain counties don’t have 24-hour staff on hand to handle it? Will advocates and mental health professionals be involved in the development of this assessment? Is there certainty that victims who violate protective orders or are on parole/probation will not be fitted with a GPS device?
• It is critical to not divert existing resources, energy and staff time away from other vital community efforts like domestic violence prevention. GPS monitoring could work well when the entire community is ready for it, but it could complicate and/or derail other domestic violence efforts if introduced prematurely.
• While there are some victims who would be more likely to seek help from law enforcement as a result of this bill, patterns of domestic violence in some communities suggest that using GPS to monitor offenders will silence many others. This effect is most likely to impact victims of color, who might hesitate to invite such an invasive law enforcement intervention into their families and communities.
• GPS tracking should not be used as an excuse to release inmates in overcrowded prisons when budgets are strained. However on the surface it appears to be a good way to reduce jail and prison costs, and could easily be leveraged to this end.
CPEDV has been communicating with your office and we are committed to working with you to sensitively design legislation that incorporates GPS monitoring with appropriate safeguards. We strongly feel that this needs to happen before legislation of this scope is allowed to move forward. We recommend that you amend this measure to create a taskforce to consider the feasibility of a GPS pilot project in a few counties, to ensure that GPS monitoring is not endangering victims or being used inappropriately. In addition, the task force can be charged with developing protocols and procedures for using risk assessments (which data have shown to be unreliable), ensuring victim safety, educating domestic violence victims and service providers about this policy and training law enforcement and judges. Furthermore, the task force can be responsible for researching GPS programs in other states and talking to advocates, law enforcement and state coalitions involved to find out the pros, cons and best practices.
As you move forward with your bill CPEDV encourages you to consider all of the following recommendations:
• Develop a taskforce that would be charged with researching and developing the feasibility of a GPS pilot project in a few counties with a report to the legislature outlining best practices and costs associated with a plan.
• Victims should be included in the decision to use a GPS system. Allowing victims to participate will empower them to make the best choice for their personal safety, without fear that their abusers will influence their ability to seek help.
• Ensure that a risk assessment is administered by trained mental health professionals, or that law enforcement officials make the determination with the help of such professionals in coordination with domestic violence advocates, and with the judge’s ultimate discretion.
• Require that GPS technology only can be used to monitor perpetrators, and stipulate that it be used only as a tool to convict them when they violate the terms of a restraining order, not if they commit other crimes.
Thank you for your desire to protect survivors of domestic violence. As AB 1081 moves forward we hope that you will consider all our concerns and take appropriate amendments. We look forward to continued collaboration to ensure that unintended consequences are avoided.
Sincerely,
Kendra Harris
Public Policy Manager
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment