Why Aren’t We Using Tech to Protect the Public from Known Violent Offenders?

 By Tina Winterlik aka Zipolita

This week, like many Vancouverites, I was stunned — and furious — to hear that a man with a long history of violent assaults, including attacks on women and strangers, walked away from a halfway house and wasn’t located for three full days. Not only that, he was last seen walking around one of the busiest intersections in the city — Robson and Granville — while police issued public alerts that he was likely to reoffend.

Let that sink in.

He was a known threat. He was under supervised release. And yet, he simply walked away.

We live in a world where you can track a suitcase across continents with an AirTag. So why aren’t we doing the same — or better — for individuals who pose a clear, documented danger to the public?

Where is the technology that’s supposed to protect us?

AirTags. GPS ankle monitors. Dye packs. Geofencing. Tamper-proof devices with real-time alerts.
These aren't futuristic concepts. They already exist. They're used in logistics, parole systems, and high-security industries around the world.

So I ask again: Why wasn’t this man being monitored with tech that could have alerted authorities the moment he stepped outside the approved zone?

What's Stopping Us?

The answer is both frustrating and unacceptable:

• Red tape and bureaucracy — Agencies don’t coordinate effectively, and policy changes take years.
• Privacy and legal gray zones — In some cases, monitoring is viewed as too intrusive, even for high-risk individuals.
• Lack of funding — Halfway houses and parole officers are stretched thin. Tech isn’t always prioritized.
• Accountability avoidance — If they implement tracking and it fails, they fear lawsuits. So instead, they do nothing.

Meanwhile, the public is left vulnerable.

We deserve answers. We deserve action.

If someone has been assessed as likely to reoffend — especially with a history of unprovoked, violent assaults — then every possible step must be taken to prevent harm. And in 2025, that absolutely includes the use of technology.

This isn’t about punishment — it’s about protection. It’s about safety. It’s about common sense.

I’m calling on local officials, law enforcement, and community advocates to demand:

• Mandatory tech monitoring for high-risk offenders
• Transparent protocols and public accountability
• Investments in real-time alert systems
• Better communication with the public when threats arise

Because next time, we might not be so lucky.

Let’s make sure our city — and everyone in it — is safe.