oppose electronically tracking convicted *****?

[furtivefelon]

hi, i recently heard a debate in my class about the merits of electronically tracking convicted *****.. does anyone here has any arguments that opposes electronically tracking convicted *****?

some arguments i thought of:

1. Human rights - we as human is entitled to some basic rights and freedoms, one such thing is continuous tracking 24/7, if you would do that, isn't it better just throw the person i jail? -> the cost of tracking a person 24/7 is also enmourous -> cheaper to put him/her into jail

2. second chance - it is better to reassemiliate the person back into society than make him/her known to everyone, everyone deserves a second chance, if everyone knows what you have done, then how is him/her ever going to get a second chance to make things right?

anyone got any other thoughts on this topic?

[xsparkledovex]

Electronic tagging was the latest thing, I heard.

I think the best thing would be some kind of rehab and therapy. Then track em somehow for awhile. Then, [although this is possibly breaking laws] tell them they're entirely free, but continue to track them for a little while longer. Or just never tell them when you plan to stop. Obviously I think stopping is the best idea.

[AdCrumeneam]

I think it's a great idea. Right up there with checking up on what library books we're reading. It's like I've been saying for years, the only way to be safe is to not give anyone the benefit of the doubt. I mean, no one's perfect, so why should we trust them to make their own decisions? Isn't it better for everyone if people in higher positions make decisions for them? Isn't that what government is all about? And don't give me any of that hippy "Human Rights" nonsense.

[mettalic muffin man]

mabey

[Starlock]

furtivefelon

1. Human rights - we as human is entitled to some basic rights and freedoms, one such thing is continuous tracking 24/7, if you would do that, isn't it better just throw the person i jail? -> the cost of tracking a person 24/7 is also enmourous -> cheaper to put him/her into jail

I want to see some evidence for this. I'm very skeptical as to whether or not the cost of having a person in jail for a year is cheaper than monitoring them for a year. Putting a person in jail is also very expensive.

furtivefelon

2. second chance - it is better to reassemiliate the person back into society than make him/her known to everyone, everyone deserves a second chance, if everyone knows what you have done, then how is him/her ever going to get a second chance to make things right?

That's easy to say, not easy to do. Not everybody is a nice person, not everybody can be 'rehabilitated' back into normal society. While it might be 'nice' to give everyone a second chance, it sure doesn't make the law mean very much. If you break it once, you're DONE. Imagine if we said to a killer 'oh, you deserve a second chance... so we're going to let you off this time' instead of jailing them. ALL offenses should be punished. There are no second chances in law. If the punishment is unjust, than there should be an appeal, or the law should be revised.

[xsparkledovex]

Constant monitoring would mean that people unjustly accused couldn't be jailed.
Hopefully.

[imp_399]

if that is your game *_* (please dont let it be) then as long as you dont inflict it on me fine. if you like actualy getting into it and (shuder) then just go get locked up and dont track them. that is wrong. why are you interested xp

[furtivefelon]

when i say second chance, that is providing that hte person has already got every punishment he/she deserves under the court of law.. and electronic tagging means that even when the person has got out of jail or received a huge fine, he/she is still been constantly watched, and there is no way for hte person to receive the second chance that he/she rightly entitled to after a number of years spent in jail.

Jail time is always less expensive, you also have the benefit that the person wouldn't escape easily. There is always a way to bypass some kind of security, cracker is there to prove it (note i didn't say hacker, mainstream use of hacker should be changed to cracker, who breaks into system for the benefit of him/herself, hacker is those who break boundaries, and equip him with knowledge, not breaking as media sees it..).. anyways, it takes 7000 dollors just to install the electronic equipments onto the person and the government has to keep track of where abouts of the person, make them public somehow, and has to continuously update the infomation..

[Puerilass The Perverted]

furtivefelon

hi, i recently heard a debate in my class about the merits of electronically tracking convicted *****.. does anyone here has any arguments that opposes electronically tracking convicted *****?

some arguments i thought of:

1. Human rights - we as human is entitled to some basic rights and freedoms, one such thing is continuous tracking 24/7, if you would do that, isn't it better just throw the person i jail? -> the cost of tracking a person 24/7 is also enmourous -> cheaper to put him/her into jail

2. second chance - it is better to reassemiliate the person back into society than make him/her known to everyone, everyone deserves a second chance, if everyone knows what you have done, then how is him/her ever going to get a second chance to make things right?

anyone got any other thoughts on this topic?

If your a ***** you already have to report to everyone near by that you are a convicted Sex offender.

[TPauSilver]

Have you ever heard of a self-forfilling hypothesis? Basically, if something is a self-forfilling hypothesis it's true just because we believe it to be true. Say we take this kid and say they're unusually smart, everyone will treat them as if they're smarter, and push there more, and the kids will believe it, and they'll do better.

This is an example of a self-forfilling prophecy. The person might be completely rehabilitated, but if we still treat them like they're going to molest children at any opertunity, then we may well set up a self-forfilling prophecy. Any person who has only done this once and seems genuinely rehabilitated should be given one chance, anyone else should be in prison.

[Homasubi]

TPauSilver

This is an example of a self-forfilling prophecy. The person might be completely rehabilitated, but if we still treat them like they're going to molest children at any opertunity, then we may well set up a self-forfilling prophecy. Any person who has only done this once and seems genuinely rehabilitated should be given one chance, anyone else should be in prison.

While I agree with you on the idea of a self-fulfilling prophecy, I still don't believe in giving "second chances" in the area of child mollestation. Mollestation is a serious crime that effects victims for the rest of their lives. By giving known ***** a "second chance", you are putting their right to privacy, which they have already abused, ABOVE an innocent child's right to safety and happiness.

They had their chance at freedom and they gave it up because they couldn't control their urges, and as such they have to suffer the consequences. This doesn't mean they can't have a second chance at life.

Example: Say I punched my brother. Maybe I do really feel bad about it and I might never do it again. Does that mean that I shouldn't be given a 'time out' and then watched over more carefully by my Mother from now on? I made the concious choice to punch him, after all. I deserve to lose my mother's trust. It's the same for *****. If they act on their urges, they have proven that they can no longer be trusted. They can still build a life for themselves if they're truly willing to reform, but they should still have to bare the consequences of their actions.

There's no need to put innocent children at risk because a ***** says he made an "oopsie" but he'll "never ever do it again, promise!"

[GhostHobbes]

No... You can't track someone like that. It's an invasion of privacy.