It’s worth remembering, however, that when the modern prison emerged in the late eighteenth century, it, too, was promoted as a “reform,” a positive replacement for corporal or capital punishment. Early prison reformers — many of them Quakers bent on repentance and redemption — suggested that cutting people off from the rest of the world would bring them closer to God. (The word “penitentiary” comes, of course, from “penitence.”)

Would you rather we be beating people?!?

The 1800's idea was that people would be reformed through prison, not that it was a way to punish. We seeked to bring people "to god" (remember, 1800's speak, they meant "to be moral again")

Our modern system having so many prisoners is because we jail people for drugs, and we have prison systems based on making money from the state. Those need to end before anything else. House arrest isn't the issue here.

In prison, the loss of one’s civil liberties is glaringly apparent. The strip search, the cell sweep, and the surveillance of letters, phone calls, and visits are givens. For those whose homes have been “prisonized,” however, basic constitutional rights also crumble. Probationers and monitorees are subject to warrantless searches and drug tests; probation officers have ready access to their homes. In fact, though seldom thought of this way, the ankle monitor is essentially a constant, warrantless search.

Again, are we forgetting that these are people who are in jail? You may disagree with that so many people are put in jail for so many reasons, but this is pure alarmism. Yes, you lose rights by being in jail. Yes, house arrests means you do not gain those rights back. It's not a literal "get out of jail free" card, it's a system that ensures that you can be trusted not to steal, not to do drugs, and so on. Not one designed to repress political discussion.

I would assume that the punishment for breaking the law while in house arrest is to go back to prison.

The kids run for it when it beeps.” Another noted that his child repeatedly strapped a watch around his ankle “to be like Daddy.”

Again, the alternate is to have the kid not growing up with Daddy. Is this such a horrible thing?

Beyond the physical and emotional burdens, those under monitoring often pay for their confinement in the most literal possible fashion. As Marissa Alexander discovered in Florida, private companies often exact fees from the people they’re imprisoning. They average around $10-$15 per day – in addition to installation costs and fees imposed for drug tests or other “services.” Those unable to pay may be re-incarcerated in a cycle that harkens back to debtor’s prison.

This is absolute bullshit. Prisoners should not have to pay to be imprisoned, I cannot agree more there.

We shouldn't put more strain on someone who was likely driven to crime by strain in the first place, we should ensure our systems encourages them to better themselves. Again, it all falls down to that we have turned prison into profit, and that is a very bad thing.

So vote against it. I plan to do so. Although, I really need to start keeping a list of things I need to remember when I go to vote. (starting to see why parties exist).

“If police arrested lots of bankers and lawyers for cocaine use and for hiring expensive sex workers, we might see predictive policing algorithms sending cops to patrol rich suburbs or fancy hotels in downtown areas. Instead, the algorithms simply reproduce the unjust policing system we’ve got.”

Most bankers doing those things are doing them indoors. Secondly, most bankers do not do those things. That's why it's such a big deal when one gets caught doing it, it's rare to see it happening.

In recent years, as the barriers between local law enforcement and the country’s intelligence agencies have broken down, opportunities for race-based targeting within communities have multiplied. For example, under the banner of counterterrorism, national and local outfits have colluded in intensifying the surveillance of Arabs and Muslims. The Electronic Frontier Foundation notes the dissemination of “suspicious activity reports” through national police and intelligence networks with titles like “Suspicious ME [Middle Eastern] Males Buy Several Large Pallets of Water.” In this way, “predicting” crime falls in line with racial and religious profiling.

This is a bit of an odd topic because I both agree and disagree with this practice. On one hand, we shouldn't be profiling for searches. On the other hand, terrorists are going to be more likely from the middle east.

However, we shouldn't forget that most people from the middle east are not terrorists, and assuming they are isn't going to make them very patriotic. I say it's a bad practice overall.

In Albuquerque, for example, police have begun using the software to flag “bait” items, such as copper wire and cars, placing them in targeted neighborhoods. If the items are taken, arrests can be made on the spot or police can continue to track them (and the people who’ve taken them), enlarging the area that is directly surveilled.

What is the problem here? The people stealing things like this shouldn't be.

Is it unfair to target specific regions? Honestly, it's a situation you need to be more of an expert on to say much about. Does using this "bait" bring down crime in an area? Does it raise crime by providing more opportunity to steal? More info is needed.

The body cameras that President Obama proposes all police wear face outward. As constitutional lawyer Shahid Buttar notes, they monitor anyone who crosses their path, including people suspected of no crime, “without the individual basis for suspicion constitutionally required to justify a police search.”

Monitoring the public is allowed, fine, and long considered constitutional. Monitoring private mail, private activities, etc, is not. My google searches should remain to me only, but my public facebook posts should be seen by all.

There are already cameras on every street corner. Police cams change nothing.

Constant video footage means more opportunities to convict people of the small “crimes” occurring all the time, from jaywalking to selling loose cigarettes to causing a public disturbance.

This is a good thing. The fines will stop these things, which are bad, from happening. If we don't want them punished, we should vote to make them legal in our cities, states, and governments.

your house is your prison. Your block is your prison. Your school is your prison. Your neighborhood… your city… your state… your country is your prison.

Yes, if you are the sort of person who has broken the law, I have zero issue with this. If you were unjustly persecuted, the issue is that system, not the far better home-arrest one.