Electronic Monitoring vs. Private Surety Bail Bonds

Mr. Samuel R. Wiseman

(Florida State University – College of Law)

Re: Your article on EM vs. Bail

I would have to assume that you have not done your homework and due diligence on the effectiveness of Electronic Monitoring. Private Surety Bail has a 99% success rate at getting people to court and ensuring justice is served. If our clients do not go to court we then pay the court the entire amount of the bond and that money usually comes from the defendants family. Its the ultimate proven solution that when a defendant absconds his family is then responsible for his actions. All the while at NO cost to tax payers.

Electronic Monitoring is a false sense of security for people that don’t know any different. The general public hears the words GPS bracelets and monitoring of defendants. Well, what they see in movies and what is reality is not the same. Bracelets are cutoff daily by defendants wearing them. EM simply keeps the scared and honest people that made a mistake more honest. EM is not a behavior modifier for the bad guys. Also, when you take into consideration government monitoring of people I would ask you who pays for that? It comes from tax payers. And when those bracelets are cutoff by defendants who then pays the $1,500 invoice for that defective monitor? Also, once the monitor is cut and the defendant absconds who then chases down that defendant? Law enforcement? On whose dime? Tax payers? Private Surety Bail chases people down for times as long as 2 years on our own dime and our own time at no cost to tax payers.

Bail has been a proven method of guaranteeing appearance at no cost to tax payers and it is a self sustaining system that is paid for by the offender and his family. Not to mention that it is the only system in America that when it fails to perform it pays into the criminal justice system the forfeited amount of bail. Private Surety Bail promises accountability from its clients to the criminal justice system.

I invite you to do some research on the effectiveness of GPS units. There are many¬† articles about offenders cutting monitors off and published articles about the ineffectiveness of GPS. Here’s a few:
http://www.solresearch.org/~SOLR/cache/org/SO/SOSEN/booklet-Chelsea.pdf
http://sd28.senate.ca.gov/news/2013-02-25-sen-ted-w-lieu-says-gps-monitoring-system-risk-failure-without-quick-action
http://www.ktvu.com/news/news/crime-law/register-sex-offender-arrested-san-jose-home-invas/nWhFZ/
http://articles.philly.com/2012-04-12/news/31331637_1_pretrial-release-fugitives-court-system
http://www.cnycentral.com/news/story.aspx?id=873445#.UVWtARk1eX0
http://www.scpr.org/news/2013/03/06/36250/ca-sees-spike-parolees-who-cut-gps-monitoring-devi/

It is such a problem that law makers want to pass legislation that it is against the law to cutoff ankle monitors:
http://www.liveviewgps.com/blog/lawmakers-propose-bill-penalize-parolees-cut-gps-tracking-devices/

Quite possibly one of the more heinous of offenders: http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2013/mar/01/sex-offender-parolees-cut-off-GPS/

I can go on and on about the failures of GPS. And again, I would invite you to show me the failure rates of Private Surety Bail failing to get people to court to answer to their crimes.

Respectfully submitted,

Sean Cook

Comments are closed.