Microchip prohibited persons

Did you read the last quote? The law forces them to start and they must continue until a court determines they can stop. Nothing states that it automatically stops when parole is up.

Furthermore this is far from the only instance of a released convicted criminal (or suspects) being denied constitutional rights. Virtually every felon is denied the right to vote for life. Virtually every felon (and some misdemeanor offenders) are denied their second amendment rights for life. Suspects can be forced to give blood samples (via warrant) even without a conviction. Some offenders are forced to register for life on public lists that include their name, the general category of their offense and address giving up privacy rights in the process.

If you have some sort of evidence or ruling that demonstrates that micro-chipping would obviously fall into some special category of constitutional right that felons must retain according to the constitution, please provide it.
 
I've reconsidered my posts.

JohnKSa has pointed out something that I missed somehow. The topic gives me tunnel vision.

For citizens who keep their freedom by remaining civil.I stand by rejecting implants.

If you violate the freedoms of others by being a violent felon,there is a price to pay,and you no longer are entitled to the full rights and protections from the Government.

The Citizens are entitled to be protected from the violent felon.

An implant or injections might be creative alternatives to life in prison or capital punishment.
 
Hal, you beat me to it. In Maine and several other states, Felons can vote. Doesn't seem quite right, but it's how it is. Much akin to Gerrymandering in my opinion. :rolleyes:
 
Place the palm, on the screen !!!

You really don't need to micro-ship folks for whatever reason. Just use a palm-reader as it's less intrusive. "As required", you simply place the palm of you hand and they can get whatever information is required. All depends on what data is loaded in the program. I feel that name, address and picture, is all that is needed. However, it might also show that your great-great Grandfather was Poncho Villa. …… :eek::eek::eek::eek:

Be Safe !!!
 
JohnKSa said:
Did you read the last quote? The law forces them to start and they must continue until a court determines they can stop. Nothing states that it automatically stops when parole is up.

Furthermore this is far from the only instance of a released convicted criminal (or suspects) being denied constitutional rights. Virtually every felon is denied the right to vote for life. Virtually every felon (and some misdemeanor offenders) are denied their second amendment rights for life. Suspects can be forced to give blood samples (via warrant) even without a conviction. Some offenders are forced to register for life on public lists that include their name, the general category of their offense and address giving up privacy rights in the process.

If you have some sort of evidence or ruling that demonstrates that micro-chipping would obviously fall into some special category of constitutional right that felons must retain according to the constitution, please provide it.
Click to expand...
You are reading what you want to hear. Mandatory for parole release is not "mandatory". It is a choice. "Until the courts" is also dependent on the person still being on parole. When sentence is completed, its no longer under the jurisdiction of the court.
 
No longer true.
Only 9 states have lifetime denial.
Click to expand...
Fair enough. However the point remains that it is constitutional to deny convicted/released felons the right to vote for life even if it’s no longer done everywhere.
You really don't need to micro-ship folks for whatever reason.
Click to expand...
I agree. I’m not in favor of it for a number of reasons having nothing to do with constitutionality.
You are reading what you want to hear.
Click to expand...
The source says they must continue until the court allows them to stop. It doesn’t say that they must continue until the court allows them to stop OR until their parole is up. But I think we’re wandering away from the topic and deeper into the weeds of the regulation surrounding chemical castration which is not really productive because the real question is about microchipping, not chemical castration.

Although I am not in favor of it, I think microchipping would likely be constitutional given that its clear that felons can be denied essential constitutional rights for life.

Here’s a source which suggests that lifetime microchipping would likely be constitutional for sex offenders.

http://ncjolt.org/tracking-predator...ternative-to-gps-tracking-for-north-carolina/

Use of a microchip implant to restrict a convicted sex offender from access to certain public places would alleviate both factors significant to the court’s analysis: the implant has little to no discernable effect on a person and a sex offender’s movements would not be tracked continually. This avoids the unconstitutional aspects of SBM and achieves a policy goal of protecting the public from recidivism in convicted sex offenders.​

Here's a more thorough analysis of the topic.

http://ncjolt.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/RutgersFinal.pdf

Applying the two-part analysis from Grady demonstrates that a microchip implant would not raise the same constitutional issues that a GPS ankle monitor does, and would not affect an unreasonable search...​

To the extent that it might not pass constitutional muster (and, to be fair, there are some sources out there that suggest it might not), the concerns appear to center around the Fourth Amendment (protection against searches), not around issues having to do with the invasive nature of the medical procedure.
 
not deliberately trying to drift the thread, but lets say we change "sex offender" to "prohibited person"

I have a couple questions about this..
Use of a microchip implant to restrict a convicted PROHIBITED PERSON from access to certain public places would alleviate both factors significant to the court’s analysis: the implant has little to no discernable effect on a person and a PROHIBITED PERSON’s movements would not be tracked continually. This avoids the unconstitutional aspects of SBM and achieves a policy goal of protecting the public from recidivism in convicted PROHIBITED PERSON.
Click to expand...

Specifically I don't understand how a chip could restrict access to certain areas, particularly if the offender's movements would not be tracked continually, and HOW does any chip protect the public from recidivism (renewed breaking of the law)???

The best I can see is how a chip could send an alarm AFTER THE FACT. We' are talking about some sci-fi mini bomb that would blow their head off if they crossed "the barrier" only something that could, at most sound an alarm or alert AFTER the law has been broken. This PROTECTS NO ONE.

Or at least only protects others AFTER someone has again, become a victim.

Legal issues aside (for the moment) what is the chip supposed to do? What could it do that is not already capable of being done with existing ID or the coming "smart ID"??
 
If you read the entire document, it explains.

It would require infrastructure changes (the source mentions that this would be expensive) to keep microchipped persons from going where they shouldn't be. Presumably some kind of detectors would be placed on prohibited locations and would go off and/or summon the authorities if a microchipped person approached a prohibited area.

The idea is that by not tracking the person everywhere and only coming into play when the person is attempting to violate the law, it eliminates much of the concern raised by Fourth Amendment rights.

In the case of prohibited persons, perhaps gun stores could have some sort of detector that would notify the authorities if a prohibited person entered the shop, or entered the firearm area or actually attempted to purchase a firearm depending on where the detector is placed and how it works. Detectors could also be placed at the entry of gun shows, etc. So again, the prohibited person isn't being tracked all the time, they are only detected in situations that they should, by law, avoid in the first place. And that's the idea--prevention by alerting the authorities.

Implementation is peripheral to the question of constitutionality. I don't think that implementation is feasible for a number of reasons, but that doesn't make it unconstitutional, it just makes it a bad idea.
 
JohnKSa said:
Fair enough. However the point remains that it is constitutional to deny convicted/released felons the right to vote for life even if it’s no longer done everywhere.I agree. I’m not in favor of it for a number of reasons having nothing to do with constitutionality.The source says they must continue until the court allows them to stop. It doesn’t say that they must continue until the court allows them to stop OR until their parole is up. But I think we’re wandering away from the topic and deeper into the weeds of the regulation surrounding chemical castration which is not really productive because the real question is about microchipping, not chemical castration.

Although I am not in favor of it, I think microchipping would likely be constitutional given that its clear that felons can be denied essential constitutional rights for life.

Here’s a source which suggests that lifetime microchipping would likely be constitutional for sex offenders.

http://ncjolt.org/tracking-predator...ternative-to-gps-tracking-for-north-carolina/

Use of a microchip implant to restrict a convicted sex offender from access to certain public places would alleviate both factors significant to the court’s analysis: the implant has little to no discernable effect on a person and a sex offender’s movements would not be tracked continually. This avoids the unconstitutional aspects of SBM and achieves a policy goal of protecting the public from recidivism in convicted sex offenders.​

Here's a more thorough analysis of the topic.

http://ncjolt.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/RutgersFinal.pdf

Applying the two-part analysis from Grady demonstrates that a microchip implant would not raise the same constitutional issues that a GPS ankle monitor does, and would not affect an unreasonable search...​

To the extent that it might not pass constitutional muster (and, to be fair, there are some sources out there that suggest it might not), the concerns appear to center around the Fourth Amendment (protection against searches), not around issues having to do with the invasive nature of the medical procedure.
Click to expand...
We are not in the weeds. The article over simplified and offered incomplete information. Imagine the media doing such a thing!
 
JohnKSa said:
If you read the entire document, it explains.

It would require infrastructure changes (the source mentions that this would be expensive) to keep microchipped persons from going where they shouldn't be. Presumably some kind of detectors would be placed on prohibited locations and would go off and/or summon the authorities if a microchipped person approached a prohibited area.

The idea is that by not tracking the person everywhere and only coming into play when the person is attempting to violate the law, it eliminates much of the concern raised by Fourth Amendment rights.

In the case of prohibited persons, perhaps gun stores could have some sort of detector that would notify the authorities if a prohibited person entered the shop, or entered the firearm area or actually attempted to purchase a firearm depending on where the detector is placed and how it works. Detectors could also be placed at the entry of gun shows, etc. So again, the prohibited person isn't being tracked all the time, they are only detected in situations that they should, by law, avoid in the first place. And that's the idea--prevention by alerting the authorities.

Implementation is peripheral to the question of constitutionality. I don't think that implementation is feasible for a number of reasons, but that doesn't make it unconstitutional, it just makes it a bad idea.
Click to expand...
How about this? We enforce the laws we now have. We have too many laws now. We dont need more.
 
shurshot said:
"In the case of prohibited persons, perhaps gun stores could have some sort of detector that would notify the authorities if a prohibited person entered the shop, or entered the firearm area or actually attempted to purchase a firearm depending on where the detector is placed and how it works. Detectors could also be placed at the entry of gun shows, etc. So again, the prohibited person isn't being tracked all the time, they are only detected in situations that they should, by law, avoid in the first place. And that's the idea--prevention by alerting the authorities."

What if the prohibited person wants to shop at Dick's Sporting Goods, or a Walmart (that sells shotguns), Academy Sports or LL Beans? Are the Police still called when the alarm goes off, only if they went in for Dock shoes or a fishing pole and meandered too close to an alarm scanning device? Or do store Detectives follow them around and take photos? :D How do you prove INTENT, unless they are actually trying to PURCHASE a firearm? Isn't that what Background checks are already for?
The sheer volume of false alarm trips would quickly overwhelm Police and Security, given how many prohibited persons are in the USA and engage in shopping.
Perhaps in the era of Amazon I'm overthinking it.
Click to expand...
Agree. We need no further govt meddling. I retired from Law enforcement. Spent most my years working drugs and vice. News Flash!!! Criminals dont buy their weapons from legal dealers!!! They buy them on the streets or steal them or trade dope for them.
 
We have too many laws now. We dont need more.
Click to expand...
I agree.
Just as a refresher...
JohnKSa said:
To be clear, I'm not arguing for microchipping felons...
Click to expand...
JohnKSa said:
Again, I'm not arguing in favor of microchipping...
Click to expand...
JohnKSa said:
I’m not in favor of it for a number of reasons having nothing to do with constitutionality.
Click to expand...
JohnKSa said:
I don't think that implementation is feasible for a number of reasons...
Click to expand...
What if the prohibited person wants to shop at Dick's Sporting Goods, or a Walmart (that sells shotguns), Academy Sports or LL Beans? Are the Police still called when the alarm goes off, only if they went in for Dock shoes or a fishing pole and meandered too close to an alarm scanning device? Or do store Detectives follow them around and take photos? How do you prove INTENT, unless they are actually trying to PURCHASE a firearm? Isn't that what Background checks are already for?
The sheer volume of false alarm trips would quickly overwhelm Police and Security, given how many prohibited persons are in the USA and engage in shopping.
Click to expand...
I was answering a question about a source I provided, not arguing for it or trying to come up with a way to make it feasible. In fact, if you had quoted one more sentence out of the post to which you responded, it would actually contain my statement saying that: "I don't think that implementation is feasible for a number of reasons..."
 
Your facial scan is already in data bases somewhere. With the proliferation of security cameras we are all in a system somewhere. It would just be a matter of centralizing the data.
Click to expand...
100% true - Clearview Ai has been building an impressive database for some time now.

The sheer volume of false alarm trips would quickly overwhelm Police and Security, given how many prohibited persons are in the USA and engage in shopping.
Click to expand...
Nope - not really. The day will come ( and probably a lot quicker than many think) that the chipped person's activity would simply trigger an event that was recorded and indexed as the basis for a search warrant to be issued & also serve as evidence that the chipped person acted in violation of the terms of parole.

If John Doe - chip # 111100011100 (or whatever) entered a prohibited zone, the GPS tracker would just fire a trigger and the database would have an entry for that event.

Say he goes to Dicks to buy swim fins. The trigger would fire & his location in Dicks could be tracked by security camera. If he entered into the gun area, that would fire another trigger that would record his actions in that area.
If he approaches the ammunition counter and buys a box of shells - bingo!
He's done.

Bear in mind, I come from an IT background & I was an Enterprise Database Administrator.
This is all possible and not some daydream. This can be done & it can be done now & all the parts are already in place to do it.

The same technology that allows me to track where I go on my bicycle (via cell phone app), can also track John Doe's implant chip.

As far as the complexity of recording activity in the form of video in a database.....
Since the introduction of 64 bit databases, it's been possible to store an hour of video - - in one table of a 64 bit database.
One table - one table....let that sink in for a second....
 
Last edited:
"One table - one table....let that sink in for a second...."

I would prefer to watch Jerimiah Johnson again. I hate computers! .:D
 
I hate computers!
Click to expand...
LOL! You only hate them because you don't fully understand them.

I hate them because I do understand them ;) ...

(The late Stephen Hawking - issued several warnings against artificial intelligence. While not a computer person per se, he did understand the way they worked)
 
> Small point of history, Germany WAS a democracy, and the Nazi were voted into power. After they were ELECTED
---
Not exactly: The Weimar Republic was a "Parliamentary Democracy." The NSDAP suborned the due process of the not-all-that-functional system and took over the government at the top level; they only had a low-thirty-percentage of the parliamentary seats, but there were some dirty deals struck with President Hindenburg and his cronies that gave the NSDAP power far beyond its representation. Then they used their power to shut down the Republic government and ruled in its stead.

cf Shirer, "Rise and Fall of the Third Reich"


On to microchips, even assuming the Fed manages to come up with some kind of un-hackable, un-copyable chip (and I have a nice bridge for sale...), anything a surgeon can put in, another surgeon can remove. Since by definition the chip would be your identity, swapping chips would make you someone else. There was a movie called "Gattaca" that addressed a similar concept... what's a clean identity worth?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top