The mother of a murdered woman is pushing to make mandatory GPS tracking for those who have had a protective order filed against them the law in Kentucky. Diana Ross’ (not the singer) 29-year-old daughter Amanda, a successful businesswoman, was gunned down by her ex-fiancé, a former state legislator in Kentucky and the son of a former governor.

Because of past threats, Amanda Ross had a permit to carry a concealed weapon, but because she didn’t know her attacker was lying in wait for her, she never had a chance to defend herself.

In Kentucky, where Ross is attempting to have Amanda’s Bill passed to protect others, domestic violence homicides reveal a horrifying statistic. Intimate partner violence plays a role in 45 percent of the homicides of women in Kentucky, according to the Lexington Herald-Leader.

In the 15 states where it’s already legal, courts use GPS tracking to enforce restraining orders against accused batterers who have previously violated the order. Generally, the GPS laws allow courts to order an accused domestic violence offender to be fitted with a GPS tracking device when issuing an order of protection or as a precondition for receiving bail. The victim wears a bracelet that warns when the offender gets closer than the protective order allows.

Many of the current GPS laws don’t cover victims of domestic violence who don’t live with their abusers. In many states, that describes most victims. They don’t qualify for GPS tracking protection orders from the courts.

State laws vary in defining who should be tracked, and implementation is highly uneven. For example, GPS tracking may be unavailable within a given county even though that state has passed the law.

The Arguments over GPS Tracking for Domestic Violence

Is this a reasonable use of technology to warn victims when their accused batterers have violated a stay-away zone, or is it, as some argue, a violation of the accused person’s constitutional right to the presumption of innocence unless convicted?

Proponents argue that GPS tracking may give victims time to summon help if their attacker is violating a restricted area. Further, it’s proof that the accused has violated the restraining order and gives police the evidence they need to arrest the offender. The technology, where employed, seems to do its job; few violate protective orders while wearing the GPS tracking device.

Those opposed argue that it’s an expensive use of technology that really doesn’t give victims any more protection than a restraining order. Further, it lets police departments that are doing a poor job of order protection enforcement off the hook. Even if victims receive warning, they might not be any safer if the police do not respond in time. GPS tracking, they argue, would only give victims a false sense of security.

What do you think?

Learn More About GPS Tracking and Domestic Violence

Visit these resources to learn more about this issue:

Read this National Domestic Violence Hotline post by a mother of an abuse victim who fought for and won GPS tracking of her daughter’s husband in Illinois.

Learn more about how the system works from this NPR interview with Michael Bischof, the brother of domestic violence murder victim Cindy Bischof. The campaign by her family and friends after her death at the hands of her ex-boyfriend led to the passage of Cindy’s Law, GPS tracking legislation in Illinois, in 2008.

Does your state have a GPS tracking law? Find out.

Survivors in Action, a network of domestic violence survivors and their families, provides a good breakdown of domestic violence laws in each state.

Read the Survivors in Action founder’s story and why she supports GPS tracking.

Can just anyone buy information about you and use it to stalk you? The answer might shock you. Learn more about data-furnishing companies.