We ask that young first offenders (19 or under at time of offense) be excluded from GPS, especially since there is no evidence that it would do any good.
“There is simply no evidence to suggest that residency restrictions or GPS monitoring will lead to decreases in recidivism.” Californians Against Sexual Assault, a victim advocacy & assault prevention organization, from ballot statement created for Prop. 83, Nov. 2006. https://www.calcasa.org/
“It’s another example of feel-good legislation to get communities to feel that actual action is being taken to stem the problem. GPS monitoring and residency requirements are not going to do anything with the vast majority of offenders. They’re just not.” Pamela Schultz, childhood sexual abuse survivor, author of “Not Monsters: Analyzing the Stories of Child Molesters,” associate professor at Alfred University. http://sentencing.nj.gov/downloads/pdf/articles/2007/Jan2007/news15.pdf
Unintended consequences – Residency and GPS requirements will have the unintended consequence of making victims less likely to report the crimes. “If something happens inside your family and you report it, it’s going to be plastered all over the place. Not only is the offender under public scrutiny, so are the families of the victims.” (Schultz, ibid.)