In our last blog post, we looked at a case decided by the North Carolina Supreme Court that involved an appeal of a satellite-based monitoring program for sex offenders. A dissenting judge provided some valuable insight as to why monitoring sex offenders is counterintuitive. Today, we will discuss exactly how the monitoring is conducted and discuss why the program is inadequate to prevent sex offenses.
In our last blog post, we discussed the use of satellite-based monitoring of sex offenders. The practice, which allows sex offenders to be tracked through GPS ankle bracelets, has come under fire for its flawed approach. Not only is monitoring intrusive, but it also does not prevent further sex offenses from being committed. Today, we will continue to discuss satellite-based monitoring of sex offenders by looking at a recent case decided by the North Carolina Supreme Court.
In 2006, North Carolina's legislature approved satellite-based monitoring of sex offenders. The monitoring was touted as a means of protecting the public after convicted sex offenders were released from prison. The law was called "An Act to Protect North Carolina's Children/Sex Offender Law Changes." At the time, many states were enacting similar sex offender legislation after receiving funds for pilot programs from the federal Adam Walsh Act.