High Risk Offenders to be Injected with GPS Trackers

[cbrunny]

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/c...jecting-high-risk-offenders-with-gps-trackers

VANCOUVER — A British Columbia community hopes to take the extraordinary measure of injecting high-risk and prolific offenders with GPS tracking devices in order to curb a crime problem.

City council in Williams Lake has voted unanimously in favour of a motion to support tracking criminals’ movements 24 hours a day by implanting microchips into their arms.

Coun. Scott Nelson says the technology can be purchased from a U.S. company and the city will seek federal and provincial approval to use the device on people designated high-risk or prolific offenders by the RCMP.

Nelson says a recent incident involving a man who stole a teen’s bike at gunpoint in a local park highlights the need for strong action to help his community feel safer.

Williams Lake RCMP Insp. Milo MacDonald says he appreciates the city’s efforts to tackle crime but he’s not aware of any law that would allow officers to use the microchips.

Micheal Vonn of the B.C. Civil Liberties Association says the idea is a non-starter that the federal government would never approve it on constitutional grounds.

So it is a non-starter, but holy hell can you imagine if it was actually policy?

 

[PokerGuy]

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/c...jecting-high-risk-offenders-with-gps-trackers

So it is a non-starter, but holy hell can you imagine if it was actually policy?

Is it that much different than forcing criminals to wear ankle bracelets that can be traced? If you give most criminals the option, they'd probably prefer a tiny implanted chip over an ankle bracelet, and the effect is the same, your whereabouts can be tracked 24x7.

 

[shortylickens]

If its people like multiple repeat rapists or child killers, I dont think I'd mind so much.

My concern is the slippery slope. What if they do it kids who were caught with a single joint once in their life?

 

[master_shake_]

If its people like multiple repeat rapists or child killers, I dont think I'd mind so much.

My concern is the slippery slope. What if they do it kids who were caught with a single joint once in their life?

this.

it's like the stingray afaic...

police will use it for petty crimes.

 

[JTsyo]

Well it would be better than 3 strikes, then life. 3 Strikes and then tracked, you could probably get people to sign up for instead of prison. Also it might be easier to do with an ankle bracelet than an implanted chip.

 

[shortylickens]

Is it that much different than forcing criminals to wear ankle bracelets that can be traced? If you give most criminals the option, they'd probably prefer a tiny implanted chip over an ankle bracelet, and the effect is the same, your whereabouts can be tracked 24x7.

The anklet can be cut right off and the dude can just walk away. Though running is probably smarter.
Sure they'll get an alert he cut the thing off, but that just tells them his last known location, which isnt helpful.

 

[IronWing]

If criminals are dangerous enough that a judge would order this, they are dangerous enough to be in jail.

 

[PokerGuy]

If criminals are dangerous enough that a judge would order this, they are dangerous enough to be in jail.

Maybe I'm missing something, but why is this so much different than an ankle bracelet -- especially if the criminals are given a choice?

 

[shortylickens]

If criminals are dangerous enough that a judge would order this, they are dangerous enough to be in jail.

the ONLY reason they let people out on parole, with or without a tracking device, is jail is too damn expensive. Its a sad reality, the correctional system doesnt have the budget to safely keep every criminal behind bars. And we sure as hell dont want the overcrowding situation found in shitty little Asian countries with people packed in like sardines.

 

[PokerGuy]

The anklet can be cut right off and the dude can just walk away. Though running is probably smarter.
Sure they'll get an alert he cut the thing off, but that just tells them his last known location, which isnt helpful.

I understand there are some limitations to the bracelets that don't exist with an implant, but it doesn't fundamentally alter anything does it?

 

[PokerGuy]

My concern is the slippery slope. What if they do it kids who were caught with a single joint once in their life?

If this is used as an alternative to the ankle bracelet and the criminals have the option of getting one or the other, I have zero problem with it.

It doesn't (or shouldn't) affect the discussion of when making someone wear some sort of tracking device is appropriate or not.

 

[shortylickens]

I understand there are some limitations to the bracelets that don't exist with an implant, but it doesn't fundamentally alter anything does it?

They'd have to cut into their own bodies to get out the chip, so I guess they believe slightly fewer criminals would be willing to do that as opposed to simply cutting off the anklet and running.

Honestly I dont see this as an effective solution. More effort for very little gain.
And more cost I assume.

 

[cbrunny]

As I understand it (which is very little, to be sure) ankle bracelets are placed for very specific reasons and under specific conditions. This sounds to me like someone gets labelled "high risk" (whatever that means), and then gets a GPS injection.

The subjectivity of it is the danger.

 

[shortylickens]

As I understand it (which is very little, to be sure) ankle bracelets are placed for very specific reasons and under specific conditions. This sounds to me like someone gets labelled "high risk" (whatever that means), and then gets a GPS injection.

The subjectivity of it is the danger.

Exactly. Like I said my problem is what if they extend the high risk definition to include lesser and lesser crimes and pretty soon anybody with a misdemeanor is tracked by their government?

 

[IronWing]

Maybe I'm missing something, but why is this so much different than an ankle bracelet -- especially if the criminals are given a choice?

An ankle bracelet can be removed w/o surgery. The point is that parole should only be granted to criminals if the judge decides that the criminal isn't going to endanger the community. In ordering the use of GPS trackers, a judge is saying, "I think this person is still a danger, but at least we'll be able to know where to find them after they go mother stabbing and father raping."

the ONLY reason they let people out on parole, with or without a tracking device, is jail is too damn expensive. Its a sad reality, the correctional system doesnt have the budget to safely keep every criminal behind bars. And we sure as hell dont want the overcrowding situation found in shitty little Asian countries with people packed in like sardines.

The prison system is not underfunded, IMHO, it is bloated and corrupted by political cronyism. We lock up too many people for crimes that shouldn't be crimes, lock up people for ridiculously long sentences, and lock up people for crimes where prison is a dumb punishment. Clean up the corruption that is the private prison industry, clean up our laws, reduce sentences, and impose punishments that better fit the crime and we would have more than enough money to keep people in prison who really shouldn't be roaming free.

 

[PokerGuy]

As I understand it (which is very little, to be sure) ankle bracelets are placed for very specific reasons and under specific conditions. This sounds to me like someone gets labelled "high risk" (whatever that means), and then gets a GPS injection.

The subjectivity of it is the danger.

Those are two very different conversations. The question over the use of implanted trackers is more a matter of technology.

The second question, who should be forced to wear a tracking device (whether bracelet, chip, whatever) is a whole other discussion, and I don't agree at all with changing that criteria to include more and more people.

 

[cbrunny]

Those are two very different conversations. The question over the use of implanted trackers is more a matter of technology.

The second question, who should be forced to wear a tracking device (whether bracelet, chip, whatever) is a whole other discussion, and I don't agree at all with changing that criteria to include more and more people.

Right. That's why this is controversial.

 

[PliotronX]

High Risk Offenders to be Injected with .45 ACP

FTFY

 

[cbrunny]

what's acp?

 

[PokerGuy]

An ankle bracelet can be removed w/o surgery.

Ok, so isn't that a reason to support implants over bracelets?

The point is that parole should only be granted to criminals if the judge decides that the criminal isn't going to endanger the community. In ordering the use of GPS trackers, a judge is saying, "I think this person is still a danger, but at least we'll be able to know where to find them after they go mother stabbing and father raping."

That's fine, but now you're having a conversation about who should and should not be let out, and whether it makes sense to let people out and track them instead of keeping them in jail. That really has nothing to do with whether the tracker is a bracelet, an implant or some other form of surveillance does it?

Also, I think the actual use for trackers is "we think this person is at high risk of re-offending, but we can't keep them in jail forever based on the premise that they might in the future re-offend. Instead, we're going to track them as a deterrent for re-offending and hope that prevents them from re-offending."

 

[PokerGuy]

Right. That's why this is controversial.

Ok, gotcha. I thought the controversy was about the use of implanted gps tracker chips.

 

[cbrunny]

Ok, gotcha. I thought the controversy was about the use of implanted gps tracker chips.

No I don't think most people would actually care about this vs. traditional ankle bracelets. It's the potential for expanded use that has this as controversial.

If we're talking strict usage as ankle bracelets are, it's probably more of a tech question re: reliability & cost than anything.

 

[PliotronX]

what's acp?

"Automatic Colt Pistol" :sneaky:

 

[PokerGuy]

No I don't think most people would actually care about this vs. traditional ankle bracelets. It's the potential for expanded use that has this as controversial.

If we're talking strict usage as ankle bracelets are, it's probably more of a tech question re: reliability & cost than anything.

:thumbsup: We're on the same page, I misunderstood the controversy, thanks for clarifying.

 

[Ken g6]

Is this even possible technologically? Active GPS monitoring requires a good deal of power to transmit GPS coordinates. Even receiving and processing them takes some power.