According to the justice minister’s office, 530 people were released through that program up to Oct. 16, 2025. Of those, 243 were rearrested for breaches of conditions or new crimes, 53 removed the device and fled, 16 damaged the strap and 12 let the battery die — making up just over 60 per cent of the total.
I feel like more information is needed. What counts as a breach of conditions? Are these conditions reasonable? Are there legitimate reasons why people may be breaching these reasons, and what are the reasons people give for these breaches? If 16 damaged the strap, we should ask how easily the strap can be damaged. Were these clearly intentional incidents of damage, or could they be accidental? If the battery dying is an issue, is this intentional or is it an issue with the device? If some number removed the device and fled, are there ways the device could be made more tamper-proof?
It seems to me that most of these issues could be resolved with improved tech (which is within current technological possibility), or improved comminication with ankle bracelet wearers to explain the conditions they must abide by.
The article makes the point that money spent on ankle monitors could be spent elsewhere - eg, on community outreach programs. I would also make a case for spending money on making prisons more rehabilitation-focused. But the benefits of ankle monitors over detention (especially for people who, it is important to remember, have not even been convicted of a crime yet) are obvious. Reduced cost for the judicial system. People can keep their jobs. They can maintain their social networks. They don't end up spending tons of time with hardened criminals who lead them down the path to committing more crime.
Idk, it seems like this is a hit piece on ankle monitors, when it should really be a critique of the current state of the specific devices used, and a call for better government negotiations (to lower prices) and improved technology and features.