Brain Microchips for Criminals
 

Now, my friend was arguing with me... On whether or not criminals should have microchip inserted into their brains so that the police could track their location. He was pro-microchip, his main reason being, "If say a pedophile has a chip in his brain than the cops can tell the instant he enters a school... And they can arrest him before he commits another crime. Isn't that good?"

I'm anti-microchip. My reason being: If the government starts putting microchips in criminals, than its only a step away from putting them in minor-offenders and juvie kids. Than after they've accomplished that, whose to stop them from coming up with an excuse to put a chip in every citizen? We're all capable of crime... And therefore does that justify treating us like animals? Does it? I just find the entire idea disgusting and inhumane.

~~~~~~~~~~~~

What do you think? For or against?
Do you agree with me or my friend?

Why not just use a microchip for the neck? Like they do with animals now and days.

How is that any different from inserting in the brain, Bartuc? XD Haha.
I mean, the neck directly connects to the brain, so its all the same, right?

All if you to do is put it into the skin. You do not need to put it in a vital part of the body. That alone is too dangerous to do.

I know, bartuc, but scientists have already tried putting microchips in people's brains and succeeded in not damaging any necessary tissue.

Plus, if its in the brain than the police could even send out an electric shock to the criminal...
Hmm, I suppose if you were ONLY using the chip to find a persons location the skin would be the best place....
Of course, I think the police have other motives.

I wouldn't want to be tracked by the government/police all the time. o.O;;

I agree with Thoth Star--it's inhumane. It would be one thing if it was used only on rapists and pedophiles, but in reality, it would probably end up being used on all criminals, regardless of they they did. And what if an individual was wrongly accused of a crime? >.<

Thats exactly what I was thinking, Pixore... I've been wrongly accused of a crime before and eventually my record was wiped clean and I was let go, but if microchips were allowed I'd have one probably even though I'm an innocent citizen.

I think there was a discussion about something similar years ago: putting microchips under the skin of children. This would make it a lot easier for the police to find a missing child (the Maddie McCann case would've been solved within a week). I thought that was a nice idea while the children are still young, but when they become teenagers, they'll want the chip out of their bodies.

Criminals are a different story, though. I would not have a problem with it if a murderer or a terrorist got microchipped. For "smaller" crimes, like stealing or vandalizing property or severe physical assault, I'd use a two strike policy - if they do it again after a first punishment, they get microchipped.

...Actually, I wouldn't really have a problem with it if everyone were to be microchipped, on the condition that your location isn't just accessible to anyone. Like, if you go to the police office to have someone's location checked, you must prove that you're close family or their spouse AND you can only check once every month or so (unless the person has been missing for 24 hours), to prevent people from using the chips to control others.

If you don't do anything against the law, you don't need to fear such a chip.

Edit to add: it would be much easier to solve murder cases or homejackings if everyone were to be microchipped. A mask wouldn't conceal your identity anymore: police could just check who was at the crime scene at the time it happened. The problem with fingerprint/DNA recognition is that they actually need a sample of your fingerprint/DNA to compare it with (and gloves leave no fingerprints at all), so if they never find the right suspect, the criminal goes unpunished. You can't conceal an identification chip.

What if you just want to get away from someone though? What if children were abused by their family members and needed to get away from them? Or if you had a restraining order against your ex-boyfriend/husband? o.O;;

And what about corrupt police officers? The profession, unfortunately, doesn't always attract moral individuals. I can see the potential for abusing the system and I would definitely not want to be a part of it. If someone tries sticking a microchip in me, I'd get the hell out of the country. >.>

I'm against putting microchips in anyone, including pedophiles and murderers. Chances are, a pedophile isn't going to commit a crime somewhere obvious like a school anyway.

Not to mention that people are innocent until proven guilty. And just because someone was proven guilty once, that doesn't mean that they are guilty of taking advantage of all other opportunities for crime that come their way. Putting microchips in a person so that you can try to cut off all opportunities for crime seems pretty pessimistic to me.

@Vol: Yes, but the whole child aspect seems irrational. Not that many children go lost.... And plus, that's the parents responsibility not the tax-payers (and yes it would be the tax-payers paying the for the chips). Also, all the side effects of microchips in the body are still unknown. I'm sure it would cause some nerve damage, and what about all the EMF it might cause to circulate in the blood... That could increase cancer dramatically.

You don't think that seems a little harsh?
What if its only a child who stole twice... Would you chip him/her too?

Gah, that idea scares me to death! D:
Why must people be so full of fear?
So were you for the phone tapping too?

Well, if you're a hacker, than yes, those chips would be accessible to you (so just about anyone can access them). Wow, we have a lot to debate on, I think. Hahah. XD

@Pixore: Yes, it would make it easier for the police to know the whereabouts of the suspect... but once again, one case turns into many.

I'm the same way. I think the whole microchip idea stinks of Fascism. ><
Yes, not all cops are goody-goodies, so the corrupt police men could use the chips to control the minds of these people... How horrible!

@juniper: Exactly. Pedos aren't that stupid.

I agree 100%. People can have a change of heart...
I think its only right to allow people to mature and change, not to cage them in a categorization for the rest of their life.

The reason we have prisons/the law/the criminal code/etc.
Is to reform others. To make bad people good again. Microchips are condeming people before they've done anything. It's also discrimination. You're not alowed to discriminate against someone whos done a crime.

I don't think it should be done. I don't think that there's anything wrong with tracking criminals... but I agree that if it starts with one group of humans that it will spread until it reaches the entire populous and I would be far too frightened to want to go through the surgery to make that happen... I really don't have a problem being tracked because I'm a good law abiding citizen. I don't do anything against the law that could get me thrown in jail. I've only ever gotten one traffic voilation (speeding ticket). *shruggs* Mine's more a fear of the procedure than anything else. Even though they've been able to successfully do it before. There's no telling if i'm going to have a bad reaction to the medication they put me under with. I've only been in a real surgery like 3 times in my life. And 2 of those were minor. I have a son. I can't afford to die on an operating table just so the police can put in a chip to track me...

I'm against micro-chipping the mind. There just comes a point when security and privacy conflict, and this is one of them. No matter how much crime it may prevent, there will be people who will resent it, and once enough do, there will be even more crime than before in response. Possibly more organized too >.>

And putting a chip in everyone's head just screams uprising!

@ Pixore: if you want to get away from someone who abuses you, you go to the police with evidence of the abuse. They won't be so stupid as to give the abuser your location. And restraining orders are in a data file, if the police sees that you've got a restraining order against someone of whom you're asking the location, they won't help you (or they'll arrest you for trying to break the restraining order). About corrupt policemen: ... I have no idea what the situation is in America, but cops do not take bribes here. In the rare case that a cop is caught taking bribes, it's all over the national news and the person is stripped of their job.

@ juniper: even if a pedophile doesn't enter a school, if everyone has a microchip, it can be checked if an abused child was close to him at the time when it happened. Microchip + DNA examination of any possible semen, hairs... on the child = evidence that cannot be proved wrong.

@ Thoth: there aren't that many suicide bombers either, so it's irrational to protect a country against them, right? Just following the logic you used here.
If you think child abduction is next to nonexistant and that it only happens to parents who neglect their children, you're painfully, painfully mistaken. Just a 1hr drive from where I live, there was a guy who abducted children, locked them up, abused them and murdered four of them. He abducted two of his victims when they were biking home from school together. But hey, microchips couldn't have helped to find these children before they were killed, right? Because this stuff doesn't happen in Cotton Candy Land, where every child is supervised by at least one adult 24/7. A more recent example? Just today, the newspaper reported on a man who was just divorced and whose two children went missing two days ago. They were probably abducted by his ex-wife's family and taken to her homeland Russia, but no one knows where to start looking because Russia is HUGE and the family could be anywhere. Nevermind that microchips would've helped this father find his children, the fact that this doesn't happen often is enough of a help to him, right?
Maddie McCann disappeared one night from her parents' holiday apartment while her parents were two streets away. Her two younger siblings were asleep in the same apartment but they weren't abducted. No one heard or noticed anything. She has been missing since 5 May 2007 (that's over 1.5 year), but I'm sure her parents will be jumping for joy if you tell them microchipping children is useless and scary because child abduction hardly exists.
*pant* Sorry, I just cannot understand how people can pretend child disappearances are nothing to worry about.

About medical side effects: there's so much electronic stuff people stick in other people's bodies and those things don't cause cancer. I'm sure they can make a non-toxic chip too ^^ And yes, if a child is caught and punished for stealing and still doesn't hesitate to repeat its crime, it should be microchipped.

I don't see the link between phone tapping and location trackers, but indeed, I'm not scared of authorities tapping into my conversations. It'd be a bit embarrassing if they overheard the silly phone conversations between the Boyfriend and me, but I've got nothing to hide.

They're authority databases for a reason. :XD You'd have to be a pretty damn able team of hackers to find a hole in the security there, and when they find out who's behind the hacking attempt, you're pretty much fucked. Your location can be tracked worldwide, remember?

She makes a good point...

@ Feyona about the chip: it doesn't NEED to be implanted in the brain (I wouldn't want my skull opened just to put in a chip either), you can do it behind the ear or so as well. You don't even need full narcosis for that I think - I used to know a boy who was completely deaf, and who got some sort of chip implanted just behind his ear which enabled him to recognize some sounds.

Too much control = less freedom. They can easily make anything they want illegal. Just means it's closer to complete human manipulation and control. Completely against it.