NationStates Jolt Archive

Please read through my proposal and add your comments, I’d like to find any problems with it before proposing it to the entire UN.

---
Criminal Tracking proposal

This proposal will set all UN nations to track known criminals by use of tracking devices. These devices will be paid by the nation the criminal lives in, but the price for the software and satellites needed for pinpoint tracking will be paid collectively by all UN nations, with the amount paid being calculated by percentage of criminals and government spening power.

The devices will be built into a bracelet, which will be used for criminals that are placed on probation, or on being release from a prison after doing their sentence. If they manage to remove the device, they will be charged for the replacement as well as a small fine for disruption of the tracking process.

If passed this proposal will stop known criminals from committing new crimes against the nations population.

The date set for this new method of controlling crime to be moved into use, is January 2005. The Nations with the largest space program will be hired to produce the satellites, but each nation must produce their own tracking bracelets, by using the nations manufacturing businesses or an endorsed nations, though only one design will be selected.

Many criminals convicted of small crimes go on to commit rape, armed robbery or murder. This tracking operation will slowly place everyone that breaks the law under surveillance.

Those that have finished punishment can have the choice of switching to an implanted device that is out of sight. They their self must pay the government for this.

If approved this proposal will cost your nation:
The cost of the bracelet devices
The portion of the cost for software and hardware
The staff and other costs toward your nations tracking headquarters

If approved this proposal will benefit your nation by:
Stopping known criminals committing new crimes
Deterring potential criminals
Keeping the pubic safe
Saving time in locating criminals
---

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

Please read through my proposal and add your comments, I’d like to find any problems with it before proposing it to the entire UN.

---
Criminal Tracking proposal

This proposal will set all UN nations to track known criminals by use of tracking devices. These devices will be paid by the nation the criminal lives in, but the price for the software and satellites needed for pinpoint tracking will be paid collectively by all UN nations, with the amount paid being calculated by percentage of criminals and government spening power.

We'd want to see the formula first.



The devices will be built into a bracelet, which will be used for criminals that are placed on probation, or on being release from a prison after doing their sentence. If they manage to remove the device, they will be charged for the replacement as well as a small fine for disruption of the tracking process.



What do you mean by they ? (shoot I can't believe I'm calling a world leader "they" but whatever.) If you (here we go again) mean the criminal, how would you find him to charge him for it ? and even if you found him, what if he didn't have any money ?



If passed this proposal will stop known criminals from committing new crimes against the nations population.

The date set for this new method of controlling crime to be moved into use, is January 2005. The Nations with the largest space program will be hired to produce the satellites, but each nation must produce their own tracking bracelets, by using the nations manufacturing businesses or an endorsed nations, though only one design will be selected.



Waste of time and materials. Why not just have them submit designs ?



Many criminals convicted of small crimes go on to commit rape, armed robbery or murder.


This is an unsupported allegation. Needs to be supported by facts.


This tracking operation will slowly place everyone that breaks the law under surveillance.


Then you (oh well) will basically have a police state.


Those that have finished punishment can have the choice of switching to an implanted device that is out of sight. They their self must pay the government for this.

If approved this proposal will cost your nation:
The cost of the bracelet devices
The portion of the cost for software and hardware
The staff and other costs toward your nations tracking headquarters

If approved this proposal will benefit your nation by:
Stopping known criminals committing new crimes
Deterring potential criminals
Keeping the pubic safe
Saving time in locating criminals
---


Just because he has a bracelet won't stop him from committing a crime. Again, what if he doesn't have any money ?

Peace cannot be forced. The people must be convinced that a peaceful nation is in their best interests.

Please read through my proposal and add your comments, I’d like to find any problems with it before proposing it to the entire UN.

---
Criminal Tracking proposal

This proposal will set all UN nations to track known criminals by use of tracking devices. These devices will be paid by the nation the criminal lives in, but the price for the software and satellites needed for pinpoint tracking will be paid collectively by all UN nations, with the amount paid being calculated by percentage of criminals and government spening power.

We'd want to see the formula first.



The devices will be built into a bracelet, which will be used for criminals that are placed on probation, or on being release from a prison after doing their sentence. If they manage to remove the device, they will be charged for the replacement as well as a small fine for disruption of the tracking process.



What do you mean by they ? (shoot I can't believe I'm calling a world leader "they" but whatever.) If you (here we go again) mean the criminal, how would you find him to charge him for it ? and even if you found him, what if he didn't have any money ?



If passed this proposal will stop known criminals from committing new crimes against the nations population.

The date set for this new method of controlling crime to be moved into use, is January 2005. The Nations with the largest space program will be hired to produce the satellites, but each nation must produce their own tracking bracelets, by using the nations manufacturing businesses or an endorsed nations, though only one design will be selected.



Waste of time and materials. Why not just have them submit designs ?



Many criminals convicted of small crimes go on to commit rape, armed robbery or murder.


This is an unsupported allegation. Needs to be supported by facts.


This tracking operation will slowly place everyone that breaks the law under surveillance.


Then you (oh well) will basically have a police state.


Those that have finished punishment can have the choice of switching to an implanted device that is out of sight. They their self must pay the government for this.

If approved this proposal will cost your nation:
The cost of the bracelet devices
The portion of the cost for software and hardware
The staff and other costs toward your nations tracking headquarters

If approved this proposal will benefit your nation by:
Stopping known criminals committing new crimes
Deterring potential criminals
Keeping the pubic safe
Saving time in locating criminals
---


Just because he has a bracelet won't stop him from committing a crime. Again, what if he doesn't have any money ?

Peace cannot be forced. The people must be convinced that a peaceful nation is in their best interests.

The devices will be built into a bracelet, which will be used for criminals that are placed on probation, or on being release from a prison after doing their sentence. If they manage to remove the device, they will be charged for the replacement as well as a small fine for disruption of the tracking process.

So if I understand you correctly, this is something they'd wear lifelong? That's going to put a hell of a burden on the system over time, and I think it's unnecessary - with rehabilitation a lot of 'petty' criminals don't re-offend (hence the whole point of rehabilitation - though it is expensive in the short term). It also gives you a police state very quickly - make software piracy a crime and you might as well chip your entire populace as soon as they start school.

Many criminals convicted of small crimes go on to commit rape, armed robbery or murder.

Have you got proof of that? The only thing like it I've seen is that if you don't have sufficient punishment for gun crime, criminals tend to use guns - the thinking seems to be "why not, when it only means an extra year or two on the sentence if I get caught?"


Those that have finished punishment can have the choice of switching to an implanted device that is out of sight. They their self must pay the government for this.

If you're determined to do it, you could place a time limit on it - say, removal if you remain conviction-free for 5 years. That would limit the drain on the system from people who don't re-offend, and actually gives an incentive not to re-offend.


If approved this proposal will benefit your nation by:
Stopping known criminals committing new crimes
Deterring potential criminals
Keeping the pubic safe
Saving time in locating criminals


I can only see it doing the 4th. Just because someone's already got a chip, doesn't stop them re-offending, it just makes them easier to catch afterwards. I can't see it would act as a deterrent - neither current surveilance or the death penalty does that. People will always think, "I'm too smart to get caught". And if it doesn't act as a deterrent, it won't protect the public - you can catch the criminal after they re-offend, but by that time the damage is done.

To be honest, this proposal is so anti-civil rights in its current form I can't see it getting through. If it got through to the resolution vote, I'd vote against it - even if it didn't lead to a police state, I think it'd be economically crippling for small nations, and UN membership tends to knock the economy enough as it is.

SC

Most petty criminals do not go on to perpetrate other more serious crimes; they remain "petty".

With such things as mandatory sentencing for trivial drug offenses (such as possessing paraphernalia, no drugs, just papers or a bong) you will have a huge population of basically harmless people to waste money tracking.

We'd want to see the formula first.


I'll have to work on that, this is only my first idea draft, which I couldn't expand on without knowing what was wrong with it, thanks for all your pointers btw.


What do you mean by they ? (shoot I can't believe I'm calling a world leader "they" but whatever.) If you (here we go again) mean the criminal, how would you find him to charge him for it ? and even if you found him, what if he didn't have any money ?

Waste of time and materials. Why not just have them submit designs ?



‘They’ was referring to the past sentence, it was aimed at the criminal, He'd have to pay it back the same way others without money do, have their possessions taken and sold off, or pay it back by getting a job (if he's going back to prison then he'll have to pay it when he gets out).

Sorry, that must have been a bad way to write it, I meant they will make their own product, but all use the same design selected before hand. :)


This is an unsupported allegation. Needs to be supported by facts.


The police always store crime so that they can search through suspects on past criminal history, they gives them their main suspect. If they think it works it must at least work most of the time, otherwise they wouldn't bother.

Also sex offenders according to a program on crime on Discovery, say that sex offenders and serial murderers never stop till they have been captured, and are usually found where a 5 year stop in victims start and then when they start against, they find they have been imprisoned for something else in that time.


Then you (oh well) will basically have a police state.


Never thought of it like that :lol: , that will be the biggest accusation to over come.

I'm seeing it more as a way to protect your public, if you know some are capable of these things then it should be your responsibility.


Just because he has a bracelet won't stop him from committing a crime. Again, what if he doesn't have any money ?

Peace cannot be forced. The people must be convinced that a peaceful nation is in their best interests.

Even if he can be tracked to that location? In court that evidence alone would be enough to prove him guilty.

If he doesn't have the money to buy the implanted device, he sticks with the bracelet.

This isn't really enforcing peace; it is just something to deter people from committing crime of their own free will, as they would calculate the risk that would be made to wear a tracking bracelet for the rest of their life if they did so.

I do really believe this would help to give a more peaceful nation. If the people with criminal minds couldn't commit crimes, then it would stop most crime taking place. Leaving only the few that don’t have criminal records to move freely (who will have a bracelet on when they are captured and charged for their crime).

Most petty criminals do not go on to perpetrate other more serious crimes; they remain "petty".

With such things as mandatory sentencing for trivial drug offenses (such as possessing paraphernalia, no drugs, just papers or a bong) you will have a huge population of basically harmless people to waste money tracking.

These do however waste police time, time that could be spent on finding major criminals that are evilly killing of your population behind you back. They are like a cancer that appears from nowhere and infects the nation and destroys everything it can till it is found and cut out from the main population.

A small portion of petty criminals, in scale to the rest of them, could also be large portion of those committing major crimes.

The money you are spending is taxpayer money, at the moment a lot of money goes to external defence, but why fight that battle if you know your also being killed from the inside.

Once crime has nearly gone, that is one more fear that the public don't need to hold.

This proposal is interesting, but I have a few questions. First, what about the really poor countries. You never got specific about the price and I don't believe some of the poorer nations could afford the things you listed. And as far as the U.N. members "chipping in," would all the members put the same amount of money in? Or would it be on a graduated basis, in which countries with higher crime rates "chip in" more money? Don't misinterpret this message. I believe that this proposal has its merits, but perhaps is a little ill-defined.

I thought about poorer nations, I tried to think of ways to lower the cost.

I did add that they use their own manufacturing industries; this would help each nations economy. I hope I also gained support from nations with large space programs, that have a chance to make money on the 4 satellites made by the top four space from grams in the UN (sorry I only said one in the proposal).

Yes, Nations with higher crime rates need to chip in more, as it benefits them more, but I think when I make a calculation to spread cost I will need to include the spending power of the government.

The problem with cost wont be the satellites, as that cost will be spread over all UN nations, and there are a lot of nation in the UN. The biggest problem will be paying for tracking bracelets, for these each nation will use the same design and moulds etc to lower the cost a little, but will benefit their own nation by producing the bracelets there.

---

Also, bracelets will have to be built in such a way that unclipping them will stop them working, so it is known by police where it was taken off that moment so they can re-arrest the person, so to fine them, charge them for a new bracelet, so that cost are again slightly lowered.

So if I understand you correctly, this is something they'd wear lifelong? That's going to put a hell of a burden on the system over time, and I think it's unnecessary - with rehabilitation a lot of 'petty' criminals don't re-offend (hence the whole point of rehabilitation - though it is expensive in the short term). It also gives you a police state very quickly - make software piracy a crime and you might as well chip your entire populace as soon as they start school.


Rehabilitation in my book is dealing with the problem not the cause.

If someone has raped or killed someone they will do it again. The only thing I see in common with most is that they usually are only caught by clever police looking for people in the area that has committed smaller offences in the past.

This is about stopping major crimes, be knowing the location of known criminal minds, and freeing time from their distraction on the police force.

I don't like the statement about ‘chipping’ the entire population; these people that will wear a tracking device 'have' broken the law, committed crimes against the public. It's not really my place in here to place their rights at heart. The public, that go about their lives happily, pay their taxes that run your nation is what that is about. They at least deserve the right to go without fear of going out to a nightclub without being raped or murdered.

Is that the reason people hate terrorist, because the take out their problems and twisted perception of the world out on innocent people trying to make a living?
Why shouldn't criminals be taken in the same respect?
How do people that don't abide by the law, placed their for the good of the nation, destroying peoples lives by stealing, destroying, murdering and raping them?


If you're determined to do it, you could place a time limit on it - say, removal if you remain conviction-free for 5 years. That would limit the drain on the system from people who don't re-offend, and actually gives an incentive not to re-offend.


I like that, but if people can wait 5 years in prison to start up killing and raping again, I think they could do it here. Or was that saying they can switch to an implanted device after 5 years? If so, I'll add that. It'll be a pat on the head for being good. :lol:

---

I’ll wait till the end of the week for any more comments and the re-write it for Monday, check here again, and hopefully it will be ready.

Rehabilitation in my book is dealing with the problem not the cause.

To deal with the cause, you need some kind of moral imperative within your society, and that's never going to work 100% - even in the middle ages, with the threat of hell, and the very real chance you'd lose a limb, an eye, or get your nose slit, people still committed crimes. Petty crimes will always exist if you have no social security net, because if someone can't get a job, and can't get money for food, they will steal to keep themselves alive.

You could argue that if you have a serious crime problem, you've already got a sick society. Rehabilitation at least recognises the human rights of the offender and tries to get them to a point where they don't want to re-offend; at that point you've made a real improvement to your society. You get no improvement to your society by locking someone up for a few years then releasing them to commit crime all over again.

If someone has raped or killed someone they will do it again.

This is quite possible; but those are serious crimes, not petty ones. Your proposal is applied across the board, to all crimes.

This is about stopping major crimes, be knowing the location of known criminal minds, and freeing time from their distraction on the police force.

I still don't see how your proposal would achieve that. A tracking system does just that - it shows you where people are. It doesn't show you what they're doing. To stop them re-offending before they do it, you'd have to bug their phone, read all their e-mails, eavesdrop on every conversation - and this system won't do that. The system only lets you pick up a criminal after you know they've committed a crime; if they think they can commit a crime without you catching them, the device won't act as a deterrent and you won't be protecting your populace.

I like that, but if people can wait 5 years in prison to start up killing and raping again, I think they could do it here.

Not the same thing. In prison, they can't re-offend (well, they can, but not against the general public) so it isn't their choice. If they're out of prison it's their choice not to re-offend, and in a lot of cases, that would involve the criminal changing their friends and their whole lifestyle and mindset. I would argue if they can do that for 5 years, they're unlikely to re-offend afterwards, so the implant could be removed.

SC

I think I could agree on removing it after 5 years then, because that would save costs of making new devices as well.


You get no improvement to your society by locking someone up for a few years then releasing them to commit crime all over again.

It doesn't say that not to use rehabilitation, my nation uses rehabilitation. It's just you can't say that people will change from it. The proposal is also to stop them committing the crime after releasing them.


I still don't see how your proposal would achieve that. A tracking system does just that - it shows you where people are. It doesn't show you what they're doing. To stop them re-offending before they do it, you'd have to bug their phone, read all their e-mails, eavesdrop on every conversation - and this system won't do that. The system only lets you pick up a criminal after you know they've committed a crime; if they think they can commit a crime without you catching them, the device won't act as a deterrent and you won't be protecting your populace.

It's not physically stopping them. But they aren't likely to commit a crime, knowing that they can be placed where it took place. The courts would convict them without doubt. So to do so they would have to remove it, but the police will be informed that moment that it has been tampered with and the nearest car can be sent to that location to arrest them.

The tracking process must give everyone some affect on crime rates. Freeing police time so they can patrol streets more or put more effort into individual cases.

Does anyone know the requirements of being a police state?

That way I can make sure this proposal doesn't list to many of them.

...to do so they would have to remove it, but the police will be informed that moment that it has been tampered with and the nearest car can be sent to that location to arrest them.


What if they get the Super-Easy-No-Tag-Special? (Read Noon anyone?) Someone could be able to programme the device to show the ‘criminal’ in a different area. In fact it is very likely this will happen.

This is about stopping major crimes, be knowing the location of known criminal minds, and freeing time from their distraction on the police force.

Just because someone was stood in a bank when a robbery was committed doesn’t mean they did it. Maybe a person in the queue has a ‘tag’ but not the first time offender who committed the crime.

I am also concerned about the idea of a bracelet. Presumably these will all be the same design therefore someone will be able to look at this person and tell that they had been convicted for something leading to this person being discriminated against. This may be seen as a good thing when a rapist is involved but what about someone who shop lifted once when they where 13?

Desdemona,
UN representative for The Black New World.

[quote=Calumnia]
We'd want to see the formula first.


I'll have to work on that, this is only my first idea draft, which I couldn't expand on without knowing what was wrong with it, thanks for all your pointers btw.


What do you mean by they ? (shoot I can't believe I'm calling a world leader "they" but whatever.) If you (here we go again) mean the criminal, how would you find him to charge him for it ? and even if you found him, what if he didn't have any money ?

Waste of time and materials. Why not just have them submit designs ?



‘They’ was referring to the past sentence, it was aimed at the criminal, He'd have to pay it back the same way others without money do, have their possessions taken and sold off, or pay it back by getting a job (if he's going back to prison then he'll have to pay it when he gets out).

Sorry, that must have been a bad way to write it, I meant they will make their own product, but all use the same design selected before hand. :)


This is an unsupported allegation. Needs to be supported by facts.



The police always store crime so that they can search through suspects on past criminal history, they gives them their main suspect. If they think it works it must at least work most of the time, otherwise they wouldn't bother.


This is why I think criminals always return to crime. I mean, if everyone thinks 'once a criminal always a criminal' then they (the criminals) are not going to bother with reforming.. after all, if everyone always assumes they will be criminals (and thus refrain from employing them) they will be forced to turn to a life of crime. So you have a self-fulfilling prophecy there.


Also sex offenders according to a program on crime on Discovery, say that sex offenders and serial murderers never stop till they have been captured, and are usually found where a 5 year stop in victims start and then when they start against, they find they have been imprisoned for something else in that time.


Sex offenders and serial murderers are not petty criminals :)


I'm seeing it more as a way to protect your public, if you know some are capable of these things then it should be your responsibility.


Well I think a distinction should be made between petty crime and serious crime. :)


Just because he has a bracelet won't stop him from committing a crime. Again, what if he doesn't have any money ?

Peace cannot be forced. The people must be convinced that a peaceful nation is in their best interests.


Even if he can be tracked to that location? In court that evidence alone would be enough to prove him guilty.


Okay. But how does a bracelet (for instance) stop him from, say injuring someone ? whether he wears that bracelet or not, it's still gonna happen :)



If he doesn't have the money to buy the implanted device, he sticks with the bracelet.


So rich people are going to be punished less severely than poor people ? :)


This isn't really enforcing peace; it is just something to deter people from committing crime of their own free will, as they would calculate the risk that would be made to wear a tracking bracelet for the rest of their life if they did so.


I think if they want to do it, they will. A criminal isn't going to be deterred by a bracelet :) a bracelet is no risk at all. Oh and btw, you're gonna have hundreds of prisoners at least.. if not thousands. who's gonna be tracking _all_ of them ? :) How do you know whether the tracking system is foolproof ? :)


I do really believe this would help to give a more peaceful nation. If the people with criminal minds couldn't commit crimes, then it would stop most crime taking place. Leaving only the few that don’t have criminal records to move freely (who will have a bracelet on when they are captured and charged for their crime).

Then you will have discrimination. You realize then that a criminal so tagged could not turn over a new leaf even if he wanted to.. because no one will hire him because of the tag. Then he will have go back to his old ways. Besides, it's barbaric. If you want to increase risk, why not say, for instance, that you will chop off the hands of people who steal ? you'd sure have a peaceful nation then, wouldn't you ? :)

What if they get the Super-Easy-No-Tag-Special? (Read Noon anyone?) Someone could be able to programme the device to show the ‘criminal’ in a different area. In fact it is very likely this will happen.

It will have to be designed so it will inform police when it has been unclipped. So all the electronics are only accessible from the clipped ends.

Then it can have a mesh of wires inside the outer skin, that melt is the bracelet is heated by a very high temperature, and that can broken is a peace of the casing is removed or cut through.

Just because someone was stood in a bank when a robbery was committed doesn’t mean they did it. Maybe a person in the queue has a ‘tag’ but not the first time offender who committed the crime.

I am also concerned about the idea of a bracelet. Presumably these will all be the same design therefore someone will be able to look at this person and tell that they had been convicted for something leading to this person being discriminated against. This may be seen as a good thing when a rapist is involved but what about someone who shop lifted once when they where 13?

Well, there will be witnesses, bank video recordings, and the location of them inside the bank that can show he wasn't involved.

If we can include that 5 year time, then they aren't going to live with it for the rest of their lives. That young and they will probably think it's cool. :lol:

Seeing as kids don't know any better, you have to be 18+ to be tracked.

Thanks for your comments btw, I didn't think about age concerns.

This is why I think criminals always return to crime. I mean, if everyone thinks 'once a criminal always a criminal' then they (the criminals) are not going to bother with reforming.. after all, if everyone always assumes they will be criminals (and thus refrain from employing them) they will be forced to turn to a life of crime. So you have a self-fulfilling prophecy there.

As you said this happens already. I think an employer that knows the individual is being tracked doesn’t need to worry. It'll probably safer than having an individual that still could steal things. :lol:

Sex offenders and serial murderers are not petty criminals :)

A lot are found from analysing links between their crimes and when they were in jail for a petty crime.

Well I think a distinction should be made between petty crime and serious crime. :)

It's not really the job of my proposal to list them. They may also be different in other nations.

I my mind, petty crimes are things with small sentences, serious are 10 years to life or the death penalty.


Okay. But how does a bracelet (for instance) stop him from, say injuring someone ? whether he wears that bracelet or not, it's still gonna happen :)

It doesn't, other than being a deterrent.
The courts deal with it, I think the victim having a black eye, and the other having bruised knuckles is enough.
The bracelet is to prevent larger crimes being made, by placing the person at the scene of the crime, and show his movement, (running away) that can help police to obtain a warrant and that can be used in court to convict the person. As well as to allow police to quickly locate and pick him up, and him finding a way to remove the bracelet would just incriminate him even further. This is an efficient option for nearly all areas of law enforcement, freeing up time, helping criminals pay for crimes without getting away with them, letting police officers spend more time cracking cases.

So rich people are going to be punished less severely than poor people ? :)

They can get the implant on loan it they want :roll: , this is just something to help reclaim a little money spend on the project.

Those who are better off probably will loose more money in their business from wearing it anyway. :)

I think if they want to do it, they will. A criminal isn't going to be deterred by a bracelet :) a bracelet is no risk at all. Oh and btw, you're gonna have hundreds of prisoners at least.. if not thousands. who's gonna be tracking _all_ of them ? :) How do you know whether the tracking system is foolproof ? :)

Well, the people who will make it, and design the software will be the ones making it foolproof.

Then you will have discrimination. You realize then that a criminal so tagged could not turn over a new leaf even if he wanted to.. because no one will hire him because of the tag. Then he will have go back to his old ways. Besides, it's barbaric. If you want to increase risk, why not say, for instance, that you will chop off the hands of people who steal ? you'd sure have a peaceful nation then, wouldn't you ? :)

They could be a rapist, you'd need to cut of more than their hands them :lol:

This isn't permanent (at least for petty criminals that are allowed out of prison).

Using the 5 year thing that was suggested, they'd even have incentive to be good, so they could get their freedom back.


If they aren't happy with being treated the way they are, from discrimination etc, well it's for an actual reason, it's not something they were born with and had to live with, they made the choice to commit a crime, and that effects another living person.

Catholic Europe supports this proposal believing it to be a way of effectively reducing crime in our nations.

I think it'd be economically crippling for small nations, and UN membership tends to knock the economy enough as it is.

It would be cheaper to keep a tracking device on suspects or potential criminals, than keeping them in custody. This would actually be economically beneficial.

http://www.hrw.org/advocacy/prisons/images/brz-dei2.jpg

CharlotteMaria is for the proposal as it would mean that we would have less people in our overcrowded prisons.

Thank You

Queen Charlotte III

It will have to be designed so it will inform police when it has been unclipped. So all the electronics are only accessible from the clipped ends.
Then it can have a mesh of wires inside the outer skin, that melt is the bracelet is heated by a very high temperature, and that can broken is a peace of the casing is removed or cut through. Technology is never infallible. Someone will find a way, criminals usually do.

Well, there will be witnesses, bank video recordings, and the location of them inside the bank that can show he wasn't involved. Thank you for clearing that up.

If we can include that 5 year time, then they aren't going to live with it for the rest of their lives. That young and they will probably think it's cool. :lol:

Seeing as kids don't know any better, you have to be 18+ to be tracked.
1) Lets say that my hypothetical shoplifter is 26; people could still assume he is a rapist or murderer.
2) This assumes when you turn a certain age you gain all the knowledge in the world. I have known a 14 year old to be a rapist and 33 year olds that would probably still think it [Edited to add: shoplifting] is cool.

...they made the choice to commit a crime, and that effects another living person. Every thing you do affects another person. What if they had no other options? Criminals are people and dehumanising them won’t help them.

A lot are found from analysing links between their crimes and when they were in jail for a petty crime. Some rapists have committed petty crime but not all people who commit petty crime go on to be rapists. This would lead to us treating petty criminals only as ‘future rapists’

In my country bigamy is legal. What if one of my citizens with more then one partner went over to a country where this is illegal and was tagged, would my government have the right to remove it?

Desdemona,
UN representative for The Black New World.

I think it'd be economically crippling for small nations, and UN membership tends to knock the economy enough as it is.

It would be cheaper to keep a tracking device on suspects or potential criminals, than keeping them in custody. This would actually be economically beneficial.

That's not what's at issue here. The proposal was for criminals to serve jail terms as normal and then be tagged and tracked for the rest of their lives.

That's gonna be expensive...

SC