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

It occurred to me that we probably already have the technology to implant a global tracking chip into people safely, and I was thinking that it might make sense to put them into certain types of felons, especially if they have a history of repeated offenses. It would make it easier to find sex offenders when they suddenly disappear, especially if they're under suspicion of having committed a fresh crime. It would also be handy to pop one into career burglars, car theives, etc. if there were a way to store the information collected by the tracking system for a while.

I think it's reasonable to violate someone's right to privacy in that fashion once they've been proven to not give a damn about other people's rights to property or safety from attack. How do y'all see it?

I think you need to consider carefully, MoG:

The legal issue here is not simply privacy (which is a minor issue); it's actually a question of sentencing and that old bugbear 'cruel and unusual punishment'. Are you really interested in considering a life-sentence for theft? (Perhaps it would be easier to just transport them.) Is it appropriate to consider an extra little something to inflict on an individual who has already paid their debt to society?

If one concludes that it is impossible for someone to reform, have at 'er. But I see it as a slippery slope. If legislators get away with passing life sentences for minor crimes, I will worry.

I think it's a slippery slope too.

Earth, as far as I'm concerned, is a great civilization - or collection of them (If I just keeping telling myself that... ) If we just say 'the hell with it' and start tracking everybody, is earth still a great 'civilization'? There are better ways to deal with crime. Morally unambiguous areas, too - urban renewal, gun control, more cops, etc. Sticking a chip in someone's ear suggests to me that we're out of ideas.

I'm just talking about an *implant*, not a life sentence of torture, anhaga. (Loads of people here are *full* of implants, very little is left to nature, so it's not a totally bizarre concept.) They could be set free as usual once the prison term is up, wouldn't have to be bothered at all by it unless they were shown to be in the same place and time a crime occurred. Then they could be efficiently picked up for questioning if that were deemed sensible. Cops already keep databases on known criminals to check into when things happen. It would just cut through a whole bunch of searching for someone who doesn't want to be found, and if they weren't there they wouldn't be even be bothered for misplaced questioning.

Putting the people who are caught and convicted in prison, til the prisons are overflowing and some prisoners have to be let out early, often to commit more crimes, in order to open a space for a fresh batch of convicts seems kinda out of ideas to me, too.

'They could be set free as usual once the prison term is up'

So you mean, implant instead of prison?

I think you'd have to distinguish between offenders not just the offenses. If we are talking about only the really extreme offenders, then maybe. If it's a more common approach then there are all sorts of complex issues including how this would affect rehabilitiation.

I can't see the justification for chipping car thieves for instance.

And there'd be an immediate underground trade in hacking or bypassing technology. I'd prefer to see society address why so many people commit crime.

Also I think it's a violation of human rights to force someone to have something implanted in their body. I could only rationalise that for very severe cases. A non-removable bracelet or anklet I would have less problem with, but again it depends on the offender.

On a slightly related note, the National party here in NZ wanted to introduce a road user charge system where everyone's cars were tracked by satellite to see how far they travelled so they could pay accordlingly.

For non-violent crimes it might make sense to give a shorter prison term, maybe spend the saved money on actual programs to *help* the people find a way to live in society, rather than continuing with a life of crime. That's better than punishing them. Does keeping people stored in prisons *really* repay any debt they might owe to society for crimes committed? If they could be tracked it might help to prevent recidivism in all but the most incorrigible cases.

Should be only in use for people who hurt children and women.They have no human rights in my opinion.
And the chip should be implanted in the wrist if they try and remove it .If they try and remove it .It should let out a poisonous gas and kill them


Perhaps the latter is a bit extreme but you get my thoughts.

Again, MoG, just to be absolutely clear:


Are you saying implant instead of prison? Because, after all, if they're in prison, there's not much need of the implant unless they escape, and if they've done their time, it's the slippery slope that Jodan and I mentioned.

Are we talking implant instead of prison, implant while on parole, implant removed when time is served?

Just to be absolutely clear, anhaga, I've not sorted it all out in my mind yet. It's one of those Ideas that flutterd through, and I look to other people's ideas to see what I need to adjust about mine.

I think some prison time is necessary, because I think people won't *care* about getting caught if there are no unpleasant repercussions. I think prison time could be used towards counseling, learning a career, loads of things more useful than just being there. I think the time spent in prison could often be reduced, if it were truly about fixing people rather than just punishing them.

I also think an implant should be permanent and that laws should be made that let people know *in advance* that they'll be implanted for life if they're convicted. So I definitely wouldn't go around popping a LoJack up the butt of every released felon, starting tomorrow. But felons in the US already do lose some rights, permanently, that the rest of us who haven't been convicted have.

I see this idea as being really pragmatic, a time, manpower and money saver, with potential to induce reform sometimes. It's not a punishment, more a deterrent and it wouldn't be done to anyone who hadn't already *shown* themselves to be a predator of one type or another.

the govt, here in australia is bringing the use of statlitte tracking og convicted sex offended, once they are released, this will be done through the use of a permanantly placed anklet

'But felons in the US already do lose some rights, permanently, that the rest of us who haven't been convicted have. '

That one has disturbed me ever since I first learned of it.

everybody should be given a chance ofcourse ,but if the criminal is believed to be capable of committing the smae crime or similar crimes continuously.
why shouldnt he/she be tagged the duty of the law is to protect the innocent ,and taking away certain human rights from others is not exceptable but in some cases is the only outcome.
To protect the majority of the public is the only way

<>

Besides being sexist, that statement only makes sense if you trust the government never to falsely convict someone. If you don't, you might want to think twice about decided some criminals don't have human rights.

You know why it doesn't disturb me? Because the *victims* of crimes aren't suddenly freed of the repercussions in their lives just because the perpetrator is sitting in jail.

Here's my example of that:
My car was stolen a few years ago. I was pretty poor, just making my bills but nothing to spare so I didn't have theft insurance. But I owed no money on the car, and it had only 50,000 miles on it, so it would have lasted me for ages. They caught they guy who stole it. My car was pretty trashed, to the point that between the impounding fees *I* had to pay if I wanted it back, a new transmission and new wheels, I was never able to get it back. Fortunately my job was nearby, so I was able to walk or ride the bike to work. However, I was severely limited regarding getting a better job somewhere else, because public transport here is a joke. So for a couple of years I was stuck in crappy jobs with abusive managers, and I had a really big victim complex going, and I felt I had no other options. When my parents gave me their old truck I was able to work doing what I love for lots more money, and I've been pretty happy ever since. But that kid who stole my truck *confessed* to 7 other burglaries in my neighborhood. That was his plea bargain, god only knows what all they had on him. It was his first conviction as an adult-- he'd been in and out of custody for burglaries since he was 14. And since he finally spent about 6 months in jail for stealing my car and the other 6 burglaries I've gotten three automated calls letting me know that he was being released from jail, again, for further crimes.

So I really don't *care* if people who commit crimes have to deal with lasting repercussions, just like their victims sometimes do. If it's laid out in advance, and they decide to try their luck anyway, well, sometimes you lose. Tough shit.

for protecting females from over baring men is sexist??
Secondly what as the part of the goverment falsifying someone by mistake or deliberately got to do with this disccusion?? thats relevent now never mind if we introduced a form of tagging.

If you dont trust the goverment you dont trust them with anything.

Your implication is that crimes against women are more serious than against men. You may have specifically meant rape, but "hurting" covers a lot more than that. So what you said basicly was that crimes against women and children are inherently more serious than those against men.

The point is that even an honest, non-corrupt government makes mistakes. Which means you have to consider how much power you want to trust it with. You have to give it some or it is pointless, but you have to have some consideration for the fact that mistakes will be made and you presumably want to limit the damage they will do. So taking away a person's human rights is a bad idea if you can't be certain that the government doesn't make mistakes. And no human government is going to be perfect, because humans make mistakes.

but doesn't the need of the many outweigh the need of a very very few, here in australia, the government it bringing in the legislation to track about 4 repeat sex offenders, who have served their sentence, and I for one would support this change, these people have forfeited their right to privacy, they have diseased minds and we need to watched them, they are unable to controll themselves, but by our own law, we cannot lock them up for life, so instead they will be monitored for the rest of their lives