December 14, 2017
News Latest News | Poll Questions | Republican Tax Bill | Roy Moore | Susan Collins

Comments for: Task force raises funds for electronic monitoring in domestic violence cases

Guidelines for posting on bangordailynews.com

The Bangor Daily News and the Bangor Publishing Co. encourage comments about stories, but you must follow our terms of service.

  1. Keep it civil and stay on topic
  2. No vulgarity, racial slurs, name-calling or personal attacks.
  3. People who harass others or joke about tragedies will be blocked.
The primary rule here is pretty simple: Treat others with the same respect you'd want for yourself. Here are some guidelines (see more):

  • I don’t see how monitoring would work in this situation. I do see how it works to keep track of a person who is restricted to their residence but to try and track people where ever they go could not be done in real time. I guess it would be possible to put an algorithem into computer software that would alert if the individual went near the other persons residence. If you were to try and monitor people real time you would have to have an operations center and track each individual as they mover throughout the country side. That would be difficult. Plus how would you know if the monitored individual doesn’t encounter the other person somewhere within town. Like a store.

  • Ben Hutchins

    I have serious reservations about anything that involves the phrase, “equip those accused of… crimes with an electronic monitoring device” (emphasis mine).  I know the counterarguments; they boil down to “but Domestic Violence is different,” which, I’m sorry, doesn’t wash.  Innocent until proven guilty is innocent until proven guilty – what of doesn’t and shouldn’t enter into it.  The potential for abuse of such a questionably legal practice should be both obvious and disturbing; besides which, start making special-case rules for certain crimes and you’ve set an appallingly dangerous precedent.

    • Anonymous

       Excellent. Couldn’t have said it better myself. It jumped out at me as soon as I started reading the article, keyword being “accused”.

  • Anonymous

    This is better than nothing, BUT these idiots need to be incarcerated PERIOD.  No second chances.  There is no reason to beat on a spouse or girlfriend or vice-versa.  We are supposed to be a civilized society.  Sadly, we are far from that.

    • Ben Hutchins

      This is better than nothing, BUT these idiots need to be incarcerated PERIOD.

      What, without even a trial?  They’re talking about putting tracking devices on people who’ve been accused, not convicted.

      • Anonymous

        One of the problems that I see is that even people convicted of domestic violence seem to have most of their sentence suspended in Maine.  Read the Court Reports in any Maine paper for verification of this statement on any given day. For all the alleged leniency of Massachusetts court system that people write about on these boards, Maine seems to have a much more lenient legal system.

        Another thing I would point out is that when an individual is arrested for domestic violence, there is usually a pattern of such arrests, even convictions, in the history of that person. How do I know that? I have had positions that have allowed me access to the criminal records of individuals, and perpetrators of domestic violence tend to have a track record of it, often with more than one partner.

        So then it comes down to whether bail conditions can include the tracking devices or whether judges should hold them in jail till trial. From what I have seen, bail conditions can include whatever the judge deems necessary. Or the accused can stay in jail till trial. It seems to me that the one that would benefit from the devices is the individual accused of domestic violence because at least that individual would not have to sit in the jail cell until trial.

  • Anonymous

    Time to stop talking about doing this and do it. There are 40 other states modeling how to go about a program so what is the problem? 

    • Ben Hutchins

      Well, one potential problem is that tracking people (let me just emphasize this one more time, since I’m starting to suspect people are skimming this article and missing this rather important detail) who have not been convicted of a crime as though they were farm animals is probably unconstitutional.

      • Anonymous

         Maybe as a condition of bail?  In the instance of the Lake case – his guns were ordered collected, which I am sure some would claim to be unconstitutional as well.

  • There are a few States in the Mid-Atlantic area that have gone with the idea of, when a TRO is issued by a Court Commissioner, to issue the abused victim a cell phone that is programmed with 9-1-1 ONLY as a means of providing the victim with some protection’s. The cellphone’s are the older one’s that have been turned in or are seized under court order a part of a criminal case’s evidence that’s been finalized and had their ‘card’s’ modified to the 9-1-1 standard. Realizing that cell service in Maine is sketchy at best, especially up in The County, this might not work in all of Maine. But given the problem, and with winter coming on, it’s something to try. Either that or we all wait for the next ‘call’ and start digging graves again. No one wants that so why can’t we get that simple idea across ?

You may also like