A piece of metal on an ankle shouldn't be the only thing standing between a vulnerable person and a fatal attack. Yet, following tragic killings like the murder of Stacy Hunter in Renfrewshire, where a woman was killed by her estranged husband while he was out on bail, the public is once again asking a grim question. Why aren't we tracking violent suspects before they strike?
Campaigners are demanding immediate legislative overhauls to mandate real-time electronic tracking for high-risk domestic abuse defendants. It's a straightforward proposition. If you are out on bail for a violent offense against a partner, your location shouldn't be a mystery to local law enforcement. Recently making headlines lately: Inside the Kennedy Center Demolition Threat Nobody Expected.
The Reality of Bail and Breaches
We treat domestic violence as a private family matter for far too long, and then act surprised when it escalates into public tragedy. Courts hand out restraining orders and non-harassment orders every single day. Pieces of paper don't stop bullets, knives, or physical force.
When a suspect violates a restraining order right now, the victim usually has to call emergency services, hope someone picks up immediately, and wait for officers to arrive. By the time help shows up, the worst has often already happened. Additional insights into this topic are explored by The New York Times.
Real-time GPS tracking flips that dynamic. Systems deployed in places like Queensland, Australia, and expanding pilot programs in the UK utilize proximity alerts. If a monitored individual enters an exclusion zone around a victim's home, work, or school, the system triggers an immediate warning.
Minutes matter. Sometimes seconds matter. Giving a victim a head start to lock a door or flee to a safe space can spell the difference between survival and a homicide statistic.
Why the System Fails Victims Right Now
Critics of mandatory tracking usually point to logistics and cost. Who pays for the equipment? Can't perpetrators just cut the bands off?
Let's address the second point first. Modern GPS monitoring anklets are tamper-resistant. Cutting or damaging the strap sends an instant notification to the monitoring center. It doesn't render the offender invisible; it generates an immediate police response for violating bail conditions.
As for the cost, jurisdictions implementing these programs—such as Oklahoma with Senate Bill 1325—often place the financial burden of the device and supervision fees on the defendant when feasible. More importantly, putting a price tag on a human life is a bankrupt moral argument. Governments routinely spend millions cleaning up the aftermath of domestic homicides through emergency services, child protective systems, and court costs. Investing that money upfront into prevention is simple common sense.
Shifting the Burden From Victim to Offender
For decades, the burden of safety has fallen squarely on the shoulders of the victim. Victims are told to change their routines, install expensive home security cameras, carry panic buttons, or relocate to secret safe houses.
That is entirely backward. The person who poses the threat should bear the restriction of movement, not the person trying to stay alive.
When courts mandate GPS tracking for domestic abuse suspects awaiting trial, it sends an unambiguous message. The state is watching. Every step an abuser takes toward a protected location is logged, monitored, and met with swift intervention.
We don't need more studies to tell us that domestic violence escalates. We already have the data, the technology, and the legislative templates. What we need is the political willpower to enforce tracking before the obituary is written. Stop waiting for the next preventable murder to take action. Demand electronic monitoring standards that actually protect people in real time.
