Oh dear... I seriously hope that this doesn't start another one of those revolutions like the legalization of marijuana in the United States (Before you flame me, I don't have a problem with marijuana, just keep that smelly shit away from me and we'll get along fine. What I meant was I hope that this doesn't become widespread. I live in the U.S. and I sure as hell don't want any sex offenders near my younger siblings.)... People can't be serious about this right? Right? I know what the Fourth Amendment is and what's in it. But this guy is a repeat sex offender. "REPEAT" SEX OFFENDER! Are you really going to just look the other way and let him loose without knowing where he is? They should make some changes to the device so that it becomes constitutional, but don't take it off this guy or any other sex offender... *sighs*

http://www.bustle.com/articles/73008-gps-monitoring-of-sex-offenders-sees-new-challenge-after-scotus-decision

Shit.... I have no idea.

I don't know... Because... I feel like you lose your rights as soon as you've been convicted of a crime. And being wrongly convicted as a sex offender doesn't happen often.

Sure as fuck doesn't happen TWICE.

>>3 If someone was wrongly convicted, then that's a different story... and I do feel sorry for those guys who are wrongly convicted and they sure as hell deserve a public apology if that was the case, because that person's life would have been ruined forever. No one would want to be around them and everyone would always be suspicious of them. And don't even get me started on the living hell they would experience in prison.

But to those sick bastards that commit the crimes intentionally with no intention of stopping, they definitely deserve to be kept under constant watch.

It is true that it might not be a grand idea to have sex offenders walking around as they please but people can change. I'm not saying that this is a horrible idea that violates rights (which it does) but maybe it would be a good idea to have them monitored for a certain period of time. For example, if their is a repeated sex offender that is has done something then, they would be tracked for a certain number of years depending on their crime. It could make sure that if they are accused of doing something you can check the tracker with additional evidence to put them back behind bars.

This might be a good thing to have for more then just sex offenders but it could on become a reality if someone found a cheap way to track and make these chips.

>>3 It's actually pretty easy to be put on the list. Regulations leave a lot of freedom for what to convict a person. I once read that a guy who posted a couple of naked pictures of her girlfriend on facebook (out of revenge for getting cheated on or getting dumped or sg) got put on the list. I mean, it's good to keep people safe, but posting some embarrassing photos of a person you had a relationship with isn't the same as rape. It's bad, but it isn't capital sin for fuck's sake. So imo that's pretty harsh, you loose a lot of freedom because of that. Can't get a decent job, can't go to collage etc. etc. If the regulations were better on this I'd be on the same opinion as >>1, but knowing the above mentioned, this one's pretty gray for me, I'd say...

>>6 It may be easy, but he was still guilty of the crime.
What I was talking about was the probability of being convicted of a sex crime you never committed.
I'm not even going to bother talking about whether something was "pretty harsh" or not. It's a bit of a sensitive subject ever since the Stuebenville Rape case. Apparently, being hauled around unconscious, digitally penetrated on camera by multiple boys, insulted and demeaned on Twitter and Facebook (including "bragging" about the rape), bullied and harassed by rapist supporters from the town, and being forced to leave your life behind, amounts to jack shit. But the convictions of the boys and their new sex offender status was "too harsh"! Some people even said that it wasn't that big of a deal.

If you're guilty of the crime, and convicted of a sex offense, I think this is fine.

Mainly because it's difficult for victims of sexual assault to get justice anyway... I'm counting on the justice system being more reliable than a rape list in a college bathroom.

>>8

The problem is isn't not. People get put in a fuckbarrel in the U.S. all the time for crimes that are arbitrary, like fines, and failure to appear.

This is completely wrong, as it opens the doors to allowing the government extra control. Every right that is taken away is usually never given back, and the less we have the harder it is to fight for them. Rapists are scumbags, but a 19 year old kid that has sex with a consenting 17 year old is not rape by a long shot, and THAT is something that happens EVERY day. Posting revenge porn is NOT rape. It makes you a shitty person, but doesn't make you a goddamn predator. What should happen is WE are suppose to keep the judicial system more accountable, and as such we need to account for these nuance. We should list people differently according to their crime. Adding levels to Sex offenders is enough even. Sure it doesn't look good for the people that posted nudes of their ex, but that's the point. Sex offenders of level 1 or what have you get a nice bracelet, and get jailed for going near kiddy parks. I'm fine with this, but with how our system is. Hell no. Death penalty for 100% evident rapists. statutory Rape should be removed from the sex offenders list unless there is something like eight years, or more difference. No 19 - 24 year old should have their life ruined cuz some parents can't handle the fact their kid has sexuality by fifteen, and probably acts on it by seventeen.

>>6

Totally with you on this one.

Why not just bug all former criminals then?
Better yet, repeat offenders, of any crime, should just be killed if rehabilitation is ineffective.
I think this is the cheapest and most effective way to deal with crime.

>>11 "the cheapest and most effective way to deal with crime."
The death penalty is more expensive, and unfortunately statistics do not support the idea that it deters crime.

>>12 the death penalty is a joke dude. Of course it doesn't work.
Now, bring back some brutal killings, might be different. You'd be surprised what changes in a person when they see someone else eaten by a pack of dogs.

>>13 Wrong again.

Public executions never deterred crime either.
But if you like the idea of brutal public killings and blowing up government buildings, then ISIS is looking for you.

>>15 Public executions are a joke as well.
I would completely reform the penal system.
lolididntevensayanythingaboutpublicexecutionsyoufuckingknob

Anyways, lots of other people support brutal public killings and blowing up government buildings.
Fuck ISIS and fuck Islam, as a whole religion.
It's shitty and I want nothing to do with it.
But you know, it's cool that you're trying to be cute about my opinion on criminals.
It's totally cool to throw around joining up with ISIS like it's a fucking joke.
Seriously, out of all the stupid shit you've done here, that is the one that has actually made me mad.
If they can't be reformed, kill them. They hold no value to the rest of their species.

A chain is only as long as it's strongest long chain, after all.

>>16 Now you've officially made no sense.
So...what? You were saying that we should rip criminals to shreds...secretly?
Weren't you talking about a cheap and effective way to deal with crime? Killing criminals public ally doesn't deter crime... Sooo, how would killing them secretly do the trick? No matter how brutal?

You're the one who said that the co-pilot should have at least died with dignity, and how you would like to take a police station or government building with you. I don't really care if you're angry with me or not. It kind of shows that you're a hypocrite, doesn't it? "Don't joke about joining ISIS! That pisses me off! Ignore that I want to be the next Timothy McVeigh though!"

>>18 Whoa, you don't understand something?
Shock.

My exact idea was that they should be killed if rehabilitation is ineffective.
Also, no it's not going to be a secret killing thing either.
I don't have to tell you every detail of my ideal penal system.

Quit being such a demanding bitch.
All you need to know about my idea is that it's more of about reform than death. But death is the ultimate end if one cannot be reformed.
You met me with hostility, and I tried to be civil.
You can take a monkey out the jungle, right?

You are really good at paying attention.
I never said I wanted to be the next McVeigh.
There are other people that blow shit up.
There are government building that would be better blown up.
There are cop shops that would be better if the entire force was dead.
This is just the way it is.
Sorry, but I'm really not at all.

At first glance it seems to me that the issue isn't so much whether or not we should do it, but when it should be done. Obviously this is a violation of privacy, but for those criminals who've committed really serious crimes like rape or molestation I think this is a pretty decent idea. The problem of course is that if this technology became more widespread I could easily see it going out of control. . . as in you could end up with a bunch of petty guys running around sticking these on people- and I'm sure they'd be a stalker's dream. I would not want someone sticking one of these in my car or something.

>>8 I agree that it makes sense if they've been convicted.
>>6 Yeah, this is true. It'd be harder to justify technology like this for someone who just posted a few bad pictures. On the other hand though, those people should probably still get some kind of punishment seeing as how even photos can occasionally lead to major harassment online and in communities.

In the end I guess I'm kind of in the gray with this too. On the one hand it seems like a smart way to deal with pedophiles, etc. On the other I feel like it could easily get out of hand. I wonder how easily this could be implemented?

>>19 So the best you've got is basically cursing and insulting when you can't defend you're argument because you can't explain what your argument even is. Okay. Call me a demanding bitch, and I'll call your idea pretty worthless. That is, unless it's run in a state of tyranny.
But seriously though? Asking questions isn't all that bad. It just makes you think; it makes you express your opinion coherently.

So far, I can only agree that there are corrupt branches of the government, and judging from the revealed emails of the Ferguson Police, yeah, that entire station needs to be replaced. Not Killed. Just Replaced.

>>20 "I wonder how easily this could be implemented?"
And more importantly, if you try to take it off, will it detonate, like in Battle Royale?

>>21 I shouldn't have laughed when I read that. I never even thought about something like that though, you have a point. It would be useless if they could just take them off, but I feel like detonating it would cause problems (and probably scar any innocent bystanders who happen to witness it). I bet you could design it so that people who try to take it off get stunned though, or the device could release a kind of smoke or set off an alarm alerting authorities that they've tried to remove it. Again though, once you start improving it I feel like you just get further into the ethics of the issue. There will still be people who don't want it, even if it just has a harmless alarm.

I'm honestly against any violation of privacy, and this upsets me a little. Like Shikonbel said, what if this technology becomes widespread? I'm not entirely sure how I feel about this. It feels ethical but at the same time I'm not sure.

I'm comfortable with it as being punishment for REPEATED offenders, but for the rest of their life? And if it escalates to instant invasion of privacy with no questions asked, well I'm just not okay with that. As for taking the device off, I highly doubt it would go to such extremes as detonation. Everybody would go on a riot about it.

>>11 Are you serious here? If so, I think we should be a little more compassionate to people in general. It's a slippery slope because there are many reasons rehabilitation could not be effective, like the rehabilitation itself being shit, and then who's really to blame there? The doctor or the criminal? I don't see a fair way to do this.

>>13 I don't really follow.