h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I doubt that the threat of such an implant would be a deterrent. Penalties (& high conviction rates) would have to be pretty severe to make any criminals think twice about committing crime. Many criminals appear not to have the same reasoning processes & would not be influenced by the associated penalty.

I think we would have to seriously reconsider what we wish to achieve & review what penalties can be imposed for particular crimes. If a person is considered too dangerous to be released back into society, then they should be imprisoned for the rest of their lives.
As part of a punishment & rehabilitation programme, as someone said earlier, a non-removable bracelet could be used - though I believe that the current electronic tagging system has not been entirely successful. I am not happy with the idea of a surgical implant, I see that fraught with a variety of issues.

surgically insert a chip? pah brand the buggres. like a cow, bend em down, heat up the iron and then stamp a big burnin 'F' for felon on their forehead.

Short answer? No.

Long answer? Well. This area has been carefully simmering under mainstream public awareness for a decade or so. Freelance researchers and economists know that companies stand to make incredible amounts of money through tracking technology, soon to be in everything from your passport, to your weekly groceries...seriously.

You see most people think that when you say someone is tracked that they have a tag or anklet locked to their body. This is soon to change. Big time I mean.

New 'sub-dermal microchip implants' fitted with RFID technology are making ground in the USA. News pundits and anchors are hailing it as the new booming market of the future, which on the face of it seems to be a good thing. Yes?

The most prominent of companies in this field are Verichip and Digital Angel, of which the latter name gives me the heebies.

However, a few hours surfing the net and theories abound as to the real end objective of this new tracking technology...

One whistleblowers story states 'its a ruse to get a two-way extra-low-frequency (ELF) transceiver into public concensus usage'. This is the most disturbing of all, because ELF frequencies can easily change and manipulate the human nervous system affecting emotions and behaviour, the mass usage of this technology could effectively enslave millions of people unwittingly to a mental slavery unthinkable to the layman.

How this could be done remains elusive, although a family was on prime time US television 'getting chipped' shortly after 9/11 so they can be 'safer from terrorism'. One only has to imagine a few nukes going off in the West.... what could happen then? (shudder)

The crucial aspect of this new technology is who decides who should and shouldn't be tracked and for which offences. If the decisions are too liberal this technology will be wasted, however, if the decisions are too authoritarian then we will be sleepwalking straight into a totalitarian police state.

(but then...thats the plan )

Personally I'd be for this but with certain conditions:

Firstly, if it was someone's first offense for a minor crime then they shouldn't be chipped. I think it'd only be effective for repeat offenders or those who can be legitimately considered dangerous. While I don't think being chipped would affect somebody's attempts at rehabilitation, I don't see why someone who made a stupid mistake and has vowed no to again should have their privacy removed in such a fashion

Secondly, if a person was a repeat offender but has stopped for a considerable length of time (at least 5 years, but more possibly as high as 10 or 15) then they should be able to have their chip removed. If they have been punished, reformed and shown remorse through reforming then they deserve to be rewarded.

Thridly, only one organisation (probably the police) should be able to access that data. No-one else has any right to know and revealing this information should be a crime in itself.

I think chipping could be a very useful resource for the police and would likely help them in doing their job. I also think that if you breach another's human rights by theft or attack etc then you should expect to lose some of your human rights and as rights go, I'd say right to privacy is a *relatively* unimportant one. Don't like it? Tough sh*t, don't do the crime.

Hi Hel

Interesting post, glad to see that 'down-under' this tagging is being used in limited or precise ways.

I must say however that I tend to follow MoG's line. There is far too much made of the criminal, his/her sentence. repentance, recidivism etc etc. it's a whole bloody industry , whilst the poor victims are just left 'to get over it'

Novo

Would anyone here disagree that this person should be 'chipped'?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/4730087.stm


az

<>

Well, what was said was not that they had forfeited their right to privacy, but that they have "no human rights", which would justify things like torture that don't actually protect the many. If they have psychological problems, the most logical solution would be to treat them; assuming this is impossible at this time, tracking them may be reasonable--but that's not the same as saying they have "no human rights".

Interesting idea--since the normal system for dealing with paedophiles on parole seems to be banning them from entering certain areas and requireing them to register where they live, why not a more limited system that would, instead of tracking them, simply detect whether they were in a forbidden area or at their registered home?

<>

I think, MoG, that this is a really very bad idea! That felons in the US already permanently lose their right to vote in a large number of states, is not a good thing! I'm sure you are aware that W., and his cabal used that fact to steal the 2000 election?

As anhaga has said, this 'implant' strategy could amount to lifelong punishment.

I guess what I'm not understanding is how, exactly, a tracking chip is the same thing as punishment. It wouldn't prevent the chipped person from going about their daily business. It wouldn't be a social stigma, like a brand or a visible bracelet. I don't see it as something that would cause the police to be spying on the chipped all the time--just would allow them to find and question the chipped if their path crossed the time and place of a crime that had been committed. I'm sure a system could be programmed so it *only* pinged if that confluence of events occurred.

To me that's not punishment, it's preventative, or at worst efficient use of police resources.

Della, different states have different laws regarding if and when voting rights are to be reinstated to felons. Yes, I believe the Bush gang messed with the system to shift some votes. That's a different sort of issue, though--from what I understand it was about disenfranchising people who *had* re-earned their right to vote, and cock-ups in the system dienfranchising others with similar names. My feeling is that it's fair to permanently dissolve certain rights of those who get caught and convicted of certain actions. People make crappy choices all the time. Why should the government exempt itself from removing benefits from those who make the choice to screw up? You can't count on Life to call "all free, no penalty" either.

<>

Voting is a not a benefit, it's a civil right. In the 1970s, the law here was changed, to allow people in prison to vote, then changed back, when a more right -wing government got in, on the (possibly mistaken) assumption that people doing time, would all vote 'left'.

AFAIK, NZ law now says that people doing less than three years (or maybe 2) can vote. It seems bizarre to me, to remove the right to vote *forever* from felons. What possible stake can they have in society following their release, if they are to be considered forever non-citizens? People can be rehabilitated! The removal of some rights forever, negates much of the work of rehabilitation.

PS - what other rights do felons lose?

You know, if you're looking the wrong way while driving you might kill someone. Or nothing might happen. If you do drugs you might end up messed up for life. Or nothing might happen. If you join the military to get through medical school, you might do your service in Florida, or in Iraq. *Every* choice, every act has a range of potential outcomes. I don't know *anyone* who's able to consider all the potentials for everything they do, and I imagine that if someone had that capacity they'd be rendered immobile. But *some* things are pretty predictable most of the time. Someone who has a lifestyle of criminal activity is likely to be caught, sometime. Most people who commit criminal acts are only caught occasionally. It's a gamble. Part of the ante they're gambling is the right to vote. That's pretty simple.

Voting is a civil right in the sense that it's open to people who fall into certain categories. Here in the US we don't let children vote. We don't let non-citizens vote. People have to be registered to vote, and they can only vote in certain elections. My cat is not allowed to vote, and even though she's pretty neurotic she's neither as useless, offensive, or vicious as my president. But he's allowed to vote. We don't let some felons vote. It's not a universal right to vote just because you feel like doing so, and feel like influencing an outcome. So actually it's more a priveledge which can only be revoked or granted within mostly-clearcut boundaries.

Felons aren't allowed to buy guns in Florida. I'm not sure, but I *think* that's the standard in the US. There might be other differences in rights which aren't coming to mind.

<>

I don't see your point about your cat, or children, really. What bothers me about barring felons *forever* is, as I said, that they will have no stake in the future, no matter how rehabilitated they are. Voting *is* in fact something people can do 'just because they feel like it', if they are adult citizens. I know many Americans believe that 'once a criminal, always a criminal' but that just isn't so.

Unfortunately, my opinions on human nature are not as generous or forgiving as yours, Della. I'd like to be a 'turn the other cheek' type. It would make practicing Buddhism much less complicated. Experience has taught me that I'll live longer being a 'Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.' type.

I wish I could send our 'rehabilitated' felons to your town, to live freely in your care. That's not very nice either, is it?

'Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.'

Hmm... now where have I heard that before??

Ohhh yyeeaaa.... your 'Thief in Chief' *tried* to say it once, but it sounded more like he was choking on a pretzel!

hehe ya see wot I did there

I think that people who advocate long term, or permanatly, tagging someone should be tagged themselves - but it should be done properly, it should be like a deer or a sheep tag - big piece of red plastic stuch into your ear cartilidge. It is the only way to stop the danger to society.

What do you mean? Tagging does not stop someone commiting a crime? Well I think that it should be set up so that it sends 30 000 volts through you at the will of the police. Or shops that you are in. Or children if you are near a playground. Or the army, or politicians if you ask them awkward questions (if you are not stopped from seeing them because, after all, you are tagged). If you drive then other motorists should be able to shock you too. Of course you employer should be allowed to shock you - make sure you are still awake and a productive member of society, beavering away in your cubicle. Most importantly if you do not agree with the ruling body then they should be allowed to zap you too.

If someone has served their time then you would, not only, be invading their privacy, you would be disregarding Habeus Corpus. Yes they were proven guilty of a crime, but they have done their sentence, and so are free again. That means innocent until proven guilty. Of course that cornerstone of a free society may not be so important to you (you seem to agree with the permanent disenfranchisment of criminals), but disregarding it is the start of a slippery slope, which ends up with most of the population tagged.

Of course a Big Brother watching everyone may not be so bad - if you do not do anything wrong, then you should not be complaining. Might make for a safer community, but I would not want to be a part of it. Sometimes the wrong thing is the correct thing to do. You need the free will to allow that, and unfortunately that allows people to be jackasses and numptys. It allows them to be nasty to each other, but it also allows them to rise above themselves.

Rehabilitation in prison is a contentious issue, and probably one deserving of another thread here. However, if you do not believe in it then why are you even bothering with prison at all? Tie them, line them up in facing a wall, blindfold them and garrotte them. If you believe in it, but only for some people then you have to be of the 'I would rather let 12 innocent men fry, than let one guilty one go free' persuasion. Which is just plain frightening. There are already systems in place for what have been classed the worst offences. They are not perfect, but no system is (including tagging).

Of course, for the best bang for your buck, you do not want to be tagging the small number of serious offenders, you want to tag all drivers. They are all potential murderers - charging around in their upto-2-ton projectiles. Automatically tracking speeding violations, erratic driving, talking on your cell phone, all could be monitored. Imagine the saving to life and limb then?

Thank you for reading my vauge ramblings and until later....
BCNU - Crescent

From a technical point of view, I don't think that anything like a GPS reciever and transmitter of position, or the alternative of some kind of beacon triangulated by a network of fixed recievers would be practical as an implant at present, which leaves the options of either a fixed external device (ankle bracelet, etc), or possibly a small implant and a non-fixed trackable external device (mobile phone, etc) which could sense whether it was near the implant.

I'd be wary of lifelong tracking, and be vary cautious about applying it to young offenders, some of whom may just have been hanging around with the wrong people when something happened - something that ended up labelling them for life could be negative in overall effect.
The flipside to that could be that if the kinds of people who lead other youngsters ended up trackable, it might be possible for the authorities to cheaply maintain sufficient presence to discourage people without convictions from hanging around with them. Presumably one of the most effective ways of reducing crime is discouraging youngsters from crime in the first place.
The flipside to *that* is that if a youngster does and up being tracked, if they *are* trying to reform, having police hovering around legitimate places where they hang out could hamper that process.


One place I see serious issues would be in the case of people with drug habits - whilst on one hand it might be very useful to work out where such people are, I'd be very cautious of what effect it would have on the whole dynamic - if someone is desperate for drugs, and seeking out dealers, and the dealers suspect that the person is effectively carrying a beacon, I'm not sure what would happen.
Would a constant supply of new [non-trackable] couriers be needed to act as go-betweens between dealer and client?

Possibly the end result would be a serious reduction in the drug trade, and/or a limiting of dealing to effective no-go areas for police, if such areas exist in a given region.


Assuming a tracking system was secure against counterfeit signals, it could be used to eliminate many people from police enquiries, and hence could presumably reduce wrongful convictions, especially of people who had no other convincing alibi.

The admissability of tracking evidence in court could be a tricky issue. At least in the UK, past convictions aren't allowed to be mentioned in court, to avoid prejudicing jurors, so potentially tracking information (which would imply previous convictions) might not be admissable either, which would seem to be omitting a potentially significant piece of circumstancial evidence.
I can imagine a victim's family going ballistic if someone was acquitted of a crime and it turned out they were an ex-offender who was very close to the crime scene.

However, presenting tracking evidence in court, especially in the case where it was unclear as to precise location, could damage the chance of a fair trial - I imagine many jurors would think "He has a past conviction, and he was somewhere near the area, so he's pretty much guilty until proved innocent".
I honestly don't know what the legal position would be - it seems either way there is a possibility of serious unfairness.

Even in the case where tracking evidence *was* inadmissible, presumably it wouldn't be fair to allow a defence to present an alibi if the prosecution were not allowed to counter with their [inadmissible] evidence, so jurors might be tempted to deduce the presence of tracking evidence by default if an alibi was notably lacking. In any situation where people suspected they might not be being told the whole story, there is room for unfortunate speculation.

Also, I rather doubt that a tracking system would end up limited to after-the-event checking up on the whereabouts of people. The potential real-time surveillance opportunities would simply be too tempting to pass up on for long.

Any comments on the article I posted in post 26?

The man is a repeated child sexual abuse offender who was finally kicked out of Australia and returned to the UK.

*Every* time this man has been released (and even while in prison) he has committed fresh offences. The majority of them sexual abuse crimes against children.

Such a person is (imo) an obvious and constant threat to society, even though he has completed his prison sentence.

My feeling is that in extreme cases such as this a chip that can detect a person's whereabouts would be both less expensive and also more effective than having him watched constantly by the police.

So perhaps this sort of thing should only be used for repeat offenders of violent crimes and especially in the case of paedophiles who have often been shown to be 'incurable'. Surely it is more humane than chemical castration (which may not stop them anyhow).

This would probably mean a change in laws so that a paedophile would in fact be given a 'life sentence' but only have to spend a part of that sentence in jail. The rest would be a life-long form of probation.


az

He has served his time, he should be released (no matter how distasteful it feels, and it does feel distasteful to me). The relevant authorities know about him, and will be using the current system to keep tabs on him. It is not perfect, but then no system is.

But here is something to look forward to - he is an old age pensioner now. After 40 years in Oz he will probably die in the first cold snap here - we do not do a lot for our older people here. On another, it has been 25 years since he got his hands on a kid. He will be in for a big shock if he tries it on with kids here and now. A bunch of boozed up nine-to-twelve year olds will probably do him over and leave him whimpering in a pool of his own blood. Also if, somehow, he does manage to hurt anyone else he will die in prison. Until later...
BCNU - Crescent

Afternoon Crescent ACE

Your post was perhaps tongue in cheek , but not an adequate response to Az's question. IMHO she is right, If there is a case for tagging , whaever the technology, this man must be a good one.

I also follow a lot of M o G's thinking, in that there are some folk who are just born to be a constant thorn in the hides of the law abiding. OK some criminals commit a crime, get caught, get sentenced , do their time and come out 'clean' so to speak. But that is not the character type that we are speaking about on this thread.

I thought we were discussing people who were proven recidivists, and/or were/are a danger to the rest of humanity. There are some individuals that you simply cannot help. They are incapable of, or unwilling to, see how their behaviour effects others - and in short often don't give a s**t.

Thats where I'm with M o G , tell them that fire burns - if they keep offending then let them suffer the cosequences, including permanent tags.

Novo