Community Chat

[lolakimono]

I had not heard of this KY law before (and there is ANOTHER Amanda's Law which deals with carbon monoxide).

It looks like there have been problems IMPLEMENTING the law.

Here is the history:

Murder Victim's Mom Fights for GPS Stalker Law

March 13, 2012

By ADAM SECHRIST via 20/20

When Restraining Orders Don't Stop A Killer

In the months following her daughter's murder, Diana Ross knew she had to do something to protect other victims of domestic violence.

On Sept. 11, 2009, Ross' daughter, Amanda, was shot to death outside her Lexington, Ky., apartment by her ex-fiancé, Stephen Nunn. Nunn was a former Kentucky state legislator who championed laws protecting victims of domestic violence.

Shortly after Amanda Ross and Nunn got engaged, violence escalated in their relationship.

In February 2009 Ross filed for an emergency protection order against Nunn. Nunn continued stalking her for months, culminating in the incident in September, when Nunn shot Amanda as she left for work.

Nunn was prosecuted under the same domestic-violence law he had helped pass years before, and sentenced to life behind bars without the chance of parole.

For Diana Ross, this wasn't enough. She set out to give her daughter's life a legacy in the form of a more protective domestic-violence law, to be called Amanda's Law.

"We felt like we needed to make changes for other people, so it would benefit future victims of domestic violence," said Diana Ross.

The law, sponsored by Kentucky House Speaker Greg Stumbo, passed in 2010. It expands the use of GPS tracking devices to protect victims of domestic violence from their past attackers.

However, the law that passed was not as strong as what Ross and Stumbo had advocated.

"It's not effective right now," said Ross. "The judges are not using it yet. And it's my fear that it's going to take another high-profile murder to get the attention."

Ross said the law wasn't effective because it does too little, too late: Judges can invoke it on a case-by-case basis after a protective order has been violated.

Ross and Stumbo are working to change the law so that victims of domestic violence, including dating partners, can get a GPS bracelet that alerts them when their past attacker is within a certain distance from them.

Diana Ross played a central role in the creation of "Amanda's bill," new state legislation that would require those served with orders of protection to wear a tracking device so police -- and potential victims -- can keep tabs on their whereabouts.

According to the federal Electronic Monitoring Resource Center at Denver University, 12 states currently have laws allowing judges to order people to wear GPS monitors that send an alarm to victims and police if the perpetrator enters areas restricted by the order of protection.

Ross said such a bracelet could have saved her daughter's life.

"Amanda, she would have never walked out the door that morning," said Ross. "She would have known that he was out there because she also could have worn a bracelet that would have warned her, rather than a phone call. She would have been warned that he was out there in her area."

Ross said it's her mission to help protect as many "Amandas" as she can.

"It will definitely save lives if you know that person," said Ross. "You have a fighting chance if you know that person is in your area -- you can at least do something to protect yourself."

[occasionalrain]

Unless the person has been convicted or is out on bail, it seems unconstitutional to require them to wear a bracelet or any other tracking device. It could work in reverse, a person who has claimed to have been the victim of domestic violence, people do lie, not proved in a court of law, could use this devise to find the accused perpetrator and kill them.

We have rights in this country, or at least we used to have rights.

[MOONRISER]

It seems as though the guilty have more rights than the innocent!

[lolakimono]

I think the problems with implementation are the same ones as with the restraining order. If someone wants you dead, they will hire someone to make it happen if they can't do it themselves.

Of course, I DO watch a lot of the murder channel (ID).

[occasionalrain]

On 1/5/2014 MOONRISER said: It seems as though the guilty have more rights than the innocent!

No one is guilty until it's proven and still we have thousands in prison for crimes they didn't commit.

[MOONRISER]

Kinda hard to go to prison without a guilty verdict. There have been some who were innocent, but no even 100 have been found not guilty.

[belledejour]

On 1/5/2014 lolakimono said:

I think the problems with implementation are the same ones as with the restraining order. If someone wants you dead, they will hire someone to make it happen if they can't do it themselves.

Of course, I DO watch a lot of the murder channel (ID).

I was thinking it sounds like an extension of a restraining order---- it's a fact something needs to be done about stalking.

[occasionalrain]

On 1/5/2014 MOONRISER said: Kinda hard to go to prison without a guilty verdict. There have been some who were innocent, but no even 100 have been found not guilty.

You misread or I was unclear. My sentence was an objection to what I understood as your assumption that those accused are guilty when they have yet to be found guilty. The second part was that even those found guilty may not be guilty so apparently the system still favors the accusers whether it's the state or an individual.

[MOONRISER]

My first statement took into account the people found guiltyby virtue of the courts! My second remark was maybe fewer than100 guilty verdicts have been wrong onthe thousands that have been guilty. It was a overall analogy of years and years. There has also been tremendous amounts of time and tax payers money to send the guilty to prison. You are innocent until proven guilty still is the motto of America. If they do the crime they do the time. The losers are the families left to put the pieces back together again.