The Instigator
FanboyMctroll
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
sayvillees
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

Convicted criminals should all be chipped

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
sayvillees
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/13/2017 Category: People
Updated: 12 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 655 times Debate No: 103190
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (1)

 

FanboyMctroll

Pro

Since the recidivism rate for paroled criminals is 87%, we should implant micro chips in all criminals before being released from jail. This way when they commit a crime again, we can speed up the court process by being able to show through GPS that yes that person was there during the crime, also bail bondsman would not be needed as we could locate the criminal right away with a simple Ipad or laptop. Jails do not rehabilitate criminals, it's just a place for criminals to get together and scheme up new criminal plans and make new contacts for when they get out. We put criminals in jail to get them away from the rest of society but after they serve their time they are back to their same ways again. By micro chipping the criminal we can at least round them up a lot faster, just like how we chip our cats and dogs if they get lost. I think this is a great idea, if you don't agree tell me why
sayvillees

Con

First I will deliver my case and second I will rebut my opponent.

I must negate the resolution: "Convicted criminals should all be chipped."

Definitions

Firstly we must define who convicted criminals are. According to Merriam-Webster Dictionary, "conviction" means "the act or process of finding a person guilty of a crime especially in a court of law" (1). A "criminal," also according to Merriam-Webster, is defined as "guilty of crime" (2). "All" should be simple, it simply means the whole collection of convicted criminals. I will accept my opponent's definition of "chipped," which appears to be the placement of microchips with GPS tracking within a person's body. Thus the resolution as a whole can be interpreted as such: anyone who has been convicted of any crime and has been sent to prison should forcefully have a chip implanted into them which will allow the government to keep track of him or her upon their release. I strongly disagree with the resolution and my opponent in this case. Since my opponent made no claim as to which country they were specifically referring to, I shall assume they mean the US.

Contentions

I. The placement of microchips into anyone without their consent violates their rights and the Constitution. The 14th Amendment states that we cannot “deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law...” Ones property includes their body and its integrity. This concept is known as bodily integrity (3). If we were to force people to have their property rights violated, we would be breaking the law of the 14th Amendment. Thus, such action of placing microchips into convicted criminals upon release is unconstitutional.

II. The government should not violate rights without just cause. The only situation in which the government would be justified in putting these chips in is if there was a 100% guarantee that all released prisoners would fall to recidivism. Currently in the US, the recidivism rate within 5 years is 76.6% (4). This means that almost a quarter of those released would have their rights wrongly violated. We must also consider that if there even was a 100% guarantee of recidivism, there would be no reason to chip either because then we could just keep criminals in jail.

III. Chipping all convicted criminals doesn't just affect hardened criminals, it affects people who have been convicted for minor crimes. This would mean people who have been convicted of nonviolent misdemeanors like violating hunting laws or unknowingly cutting down a tree on government property would result in chipping (5). This is also not to mention those who are wrongfully convicted. Chipping all criminals would result in a large number of people who were guilty of minor crimes or not guilty at all having their Constitutional rights violated.

Rebuttal

Firstly, let us note that my opponent has no sourced evidence to back up any of their claims. On those grounds alone, we should not accept any of Pro's arguments. It is not my burden to disprove my opponent's claims that they decide to push, but their burden to prove them first (6). It is unfair to say that I need to disprove all of my opponent's claims without evidence, because that could potentially make me need to disprove that the sky is red or that the world is round.

However, there is one area which I would like to target. My opponent's argument is partly based on the idea that recidivism is high, which I agree with and have proven. I say that this is not justification for violating convicted criminal's rights, but rather justification for changing the justice system to focus on rehabilitation rather than punishment. The goal of our justice system should not be to have as many people as possible imprisoned as possible, but rather to have as few as possible return. Studies have found that emphasizing rehabilitation can reduce recidivism by as much as 20% (7). Having the system in place which Pro is advocating would only entrench this system of recidivism, as its goal as stated by my opponent is to, "round them up a lot faster." It appears that my opponent also acknowledges that rehabilitation should be the focus of prisons, saying, "We put criminals in jail to get them away from the rest of society but after they serve their time they are back to their same ways again." Obviously, then, my opponent's goal is also to reduce crime. My counterplan of focusing on rehabilitation as opposed to placing microchips in criminals solves my opponent's goal of reducing crime while avoiding the violation of rights.

For these reasons I must urge a con ballot.

Sources:
(1)https://www.merriam-webster.com...
(2)https://www.merriam-webster.com...
(3)https://www.mmfllaw.com...
(4)https://www.nij.gov...
(5)https://www.ussc.gov...
(6)https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com...
(7)http://static.nicic.gov...
Debate Round No. 1
FanboyMctroll

Pro

Here is my rebuttal and further reasoning for chipping convicted criminals.

Once a person is convicted by the courts and found guilty, he/she is sentenced to a prison to serve time. At that point the state becomes responsible for the custody of the individual convicted (criminal) The Correctional Service houses and feeds and provides medical care for the criminal, it is their responsibility, which essentially means the Correctional Services, government institution is the guardian of that criminal until they are released. The rules of the institution are followed by the criminal or otherwise they are punished with possibility of solitary confinement or removal of privileges ie. TV time etc etc. Since the Correctional Service is essentially the guardian of the criminal they can impose the implementation of the micro chip in the criminal as a monitoring device within the prison. Personally I believe the criminal has no rights once they have committed a crime and are now in jail. You have lost all your civil liberties when you decided to commit a crime, the judge and your fellow members of society have found you guilty and you are off to jail. Therefore Correctional Services have the right to implant the chip. As for after the release of the criminal, for the safety of the public the chip stays in the criminal. People who have been convicted of hunting or other summary convictions would not be implanted with a chip. Only people of indictable offences such as murder, rape, robbery, violent offences and serious offences would be chipped. The 14'th amendment should not apply to convicts of the state, that amendment should be forfeited once you are convicted.

You state that 25% of the released criminals that do not reoffend would have their rights violated. I say too bad, you had the choice when you were committing a crime to not do it, you went through with it and now you will be chipped for life. 25% is a viable percentage I can live with. Ask any insurance company if they were getting a 75% correct insurance coverage for their clients would they be happy with that, of course they would, let the other 25% deal with the raw deal. Boo hoo. Like I say a criminal is always a criminal. I can live with the 25% supposedly innocent, served their time poor chipped saps crying about it. Can't please everyone, but I will take the 75% approval vote.

Rehabilitation does not work because people are born this way. Sure environment and people around the person will affect the way they become later in life, whether they commit crimes or become an honest hard working person, but bottom line is everyone has choices in life, you chose to be a criminal, I say we chip you. Not everyone born in the ghetto will join a gang, some get out go to school, others don't care and want the fast money and join a gang or addicts who rob a gas station for crack money. Everyone has a choice. The way I see it, once you have been convicted you have lost all rights and privileges and with the current state of 75% of inmates re offending this is the best solution at tracking and apprehending criminals, and the 25% who never do it again, so what, so you have a little micro chip under your skin, the size of a grain of rice there. If you are upset about that, then go cry a river to NSA you is watching and monitoring everything you do anyways, it doesn't matter if you are a convicted criminal or a hard working honest person. The NSA is reading your e-mails and watching you on CCTV cameras everyday anyways so deal with it
sayvillees

Con

Before I begin I have two major points:

1. My opponent still has not provided any sources for any of their claims except for using my own statistics. This is grounds not to believe all of their unsupported arguments, as mentioned before (1).

2. My opponent, realizing the flaws in their initial argument, has slyly contradicted themselves and in fact agrees that not all criminals should be chipped. To quote them from earlier in the debate, "we should implant micro chips in all criminals before being released from jail." My opponent now says, "People who have been convicted of hunting or other summary convictions would not be implanted with a chip." If we refer back to my definitions of conviction and criminal from before, we see that the term "all" does indeed include these misdemeanors. The resolution is "Convicted criminals should all be chipped." My opponent has essentially conceded that not all convicted criminals should be chipped. Pro has endorsed the Con position, and therefore the Con should be voted for on the ballot.

I will now rebut my opponent point-by-point.

My opponent's first and second points are very similar so I shall group them. Pro's first and second points in their rebuttal are that convicted criminals should forfeit their 14th Amendment rights simply because they have been found guilty of a crime. Pro says that this is okay because of a 75% recidivism rate. I strongly disagree. In 2015, 641,100 people were released from prison (2). The idea that we should violate the rights of those who won't return to prison, which would amount to more than 160 thousand people per year, is silly. That's a very large number of people whose bodily integrity would be violated without just cause. This also assumes that all people convicted of a crime are actually guilty. In 2015, a record number of 149 people were exonerated in the US (3). It is fair to say that these are not the only people who are actually innocent but in prison. Pro's advocacy would make us violate the rights of people who haven't even committed a crime. Pro then goes on and says that he somehow believes that what insurance companies do is related to the prison system in the US. Not only do they not provide a source for this claim, but they don't even explain why it is equivalent to the prison system. My opponent also says that there would be "75% approval" of this action. No, there would be no approval from my side. We don't know who will violate the law again after release, and thus we should not place a chip in anyone because there is a 1 in 4 chance that it will be violating their rights without just cause.

Pro's third main point is "Rehabilitation does not work because people are born this way." They then go on to make it sound like criminals were naturally born to become criminals, albeit with some societal factors influencing them. They don't provide a source for this claim, so we shouldn't even consider it. To further prove my opponent wrong, I have already provided evidence in the previous round which says rehabilitation efforts can reduce recidivism by as much as 20% (4). My opponent then goes on to say that in his opinion, "once you have been convicted you have lost all rights and privileges." This statement is deeply flawed. It essentially says that criminals' lives do not matter, and that they can be abused without just cause. Not only is that unconstitutional (5), but it is also morally atrocious. According to the US Department of Justice, about 5.1% of all people in the US will be incarcerated at some point in their lives (6). By doing some simple math based off of the current population of the US (7), we come to the conclusion that approximately 16,575,000 people will be/have been sent to jail in their lives. Now is when we gain some clarity in what Pro is really arguing. They are arguing for a system in which the government would have data on the location of more than 16 million Americans who have done nothing to justify such a system. This is an absolutely massive violation of rights which would affect more than 1 in 20 people. We shouldn't permit rights to be violated like this. My opponent's last argument boils down to saying something along the lines of 'the NSA is already violating rights, so not chipping doesn't really protect from a violation of rights.' That's arguing that we should allow more violations of rights simply because some already exist, and this is a very slippery slope. From this could potentially stem arguments for repealing the 4th and 5th Amendments in particular and the whole Bill of Rights together. That would be terrible for the rights of all people, and thus we shouldn't do that.

In summary, I have proven that my opponent's lack of evidence and contradictory statements alone should be reason enough to vote Con, Pro's plan is an advocacy for massive violations of rights in both quantity and quality without just cause, and that rehabilitation is a preferable alternative to chipping for reducing crime.

Sources:
(1)https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com...
(2)https://csgjusticecenter.org...
(3)http://www.law.umich.edu...
(4)http://static.nicic.gov...
(5)https://www.constituteproject.org...
(6)https://bjs.gov...
(7)https://www.census.gov...
Debate Round No. 2
FanboyMctroll

Pro

People convicted of a crime by a judge and or their peers in society that are found guilty, are therefore guilty. We can argue that they are innocent. Actually if you visit a prison everyone in there will tell you they are innocent.

The recidivism rate speaks for itself, if you look at the numbers of 75% of convicts that re offend, it's safe to say that majority will re offend. As relating to insurance companies, insurance is based on percentages, if you live at an intersection that has a lot of accidents your insurance is higher then other areas, It doesn't matter that you could be a 5 star driver never in an accident, your rate will still be higher because you fall into the statistics based on that address, intersection. It's the same with the type of vehicle you drive. Insurance companies look at percentages of those cars stolen, if you own that car and even if you have an alarm and keep it in a garage your rate will be higher. It's all percentages. Like inmates who re offend, percentages tell us they are more likely to re offend, therefore chip them all!!. Convicted felons receive a criminal record when they are released from jail, this becomes relevant when applying for a job or traveling to other countries. The chip would just add another layer of awareness to the public about the criminal and help law enforcement apprehend them again.

Here is some evidence from one of the first ever criminologists Lombroso stating that criminals are born criminals.

http://www.historyextra.com...

Criminals have a choice before they commit the crime, the laws are all there, written, if you decide to commit a crime, you forfeit all your rights, especially the heinous crimes like murder and rape, any victim will agree with me. That is why they get incarcerated. A person who has been convicted receives a criminal record and they do not deserve any rights, they lost that privilege when they decided to commit a crime. Also under the Patriot Act, the NSA already spies on everyone anyways, so you are not losing any rights, everyone is being watched anyways, the chipping would just another layer of protection and awareness to the public. It is no different then the sex registry for sex offenders. Sex offenders need to notify the police if they are leaving a state.

I have shown the cost benefits for law enforcement in apprehension of dangerous repeat offenders, as well as a form of security for victims in locating vengeful criminals who might go after the victim once released from jail. Also criminality breeds more criminals, cartels, drug gangs, these could all be traced through the movement of the chip in the former criminals arm. Criminals associate with other criminals, this would be a way of tracking those illegal operations by the ATF, DEA, FBI and any other government branch.

My opponent is trying to argue that for the 25% of criminals that do not re offend we are breaching their civil rights and liberties. I say for the 75% that re offend, this is an excellent proposal. Just like the insurance company who charges you triple for car insurance because you live in the ghetto or a high risk area, it doesn't matter that you could be the 25% of safe drivers, you pay the rate that the 75% pay for that area. The same type logic would apply here. The 25% might not re offend, but they were already convicted once, and as the general public do we want to take that risk. I say no way. And as a final conclusion I would like to include some interesting material for the opponent to realize the severity of what happens to released convicts and why I'm a proponent for chipping them all. No victim of these heinous crimes would ever agree with you and I'm sure I can get a 75% vote on this to win the debate.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk...

I will be filing this motion with the Department of Justice, and hopefully some day Trump will sign this into law, so if you are a convicted criminal, get your arm out because you will be chipped like a dog!!
sayvillees

Con

Before I begin, I'd like to thank my opponent for an interesting debate.

Now, my last rebuttal followed by voting issues.

My opponent's first point is that all people in prison are guilty. I've already proven him wrong with statistics that say 149 people were exonerated in 2015 (1). This means that definitively, no, not all people in prison have actually committed crimes.

My opponent's next point is that criminals are already disenfranchised as citizens in many ways after they leave prison, so that would justify more. Not. At. All. He's essentially saying that something is bad, so let's make it worse. It advocates for further violation of rights to convicts. Let me mention now, my opponent has never refuted in this entire debate that the chipping violates rights. He in fact says that it is okay and even good to violate the rights of living, breathing human beings simply because they have ended up in prison whether it be a wrongful conviction, a minor offense, or even something serious.

He then cites some evidence about born criminals. Here's some facts about his source: Lombroso was incredibly racist, saying that "The projection of the lower face and jaws (prognathism) found in negroes" was part apish. He literally thought black people were part ape. He also believed that animals could be criminals and could be immoral, while others were moral (2). This guy definitely, definitely isn't a source we should trust. There is a reason why, as my opponent said, Lombroso was one of the first criminologists. His theories are essentially race based. You know, the kind that say black people are born to be criminals because of what they are physically. Simply ridiculous.

My opponent goes on to say that criminals shouldn't have rights, and any victim would agree with him. Well, for one, I've been a victim of more than one crime in my life and I don't think all criminals shouldn't have rights. So he's wrong on that one. Now, let's look at the implications of believing criminals don't have rights. If criminals don't have rights, then they must not have a right to a fair trial or freedom of speech or religion or even life. Is that okay? No, of course not! Criminals are human beings too, and in fact most of them haven't murdered or raped or assaulted someone. In fact, in June 2017, 46.2% of arrests were for drug offenses (3). You'd be hard pressed to find an argument for why an 18 year old kid caught with a bag of weed should have to lose all of their rights as a human being, or at least a right to their own body for the rest of their life.

Pro goes on and continues with his NSA spying argument. As I said before, he is saying that because our rights are violated to a degree as is, we should just give away more because why not it doesn't matter. This is flawed reasoning in that, as I've already mentioned and has gone unrefuted by my opponent, it leads to a slippery slope of a loss of rights which is bad.

My opponent's next argument is that there is a cost benefit and time benefit to chipping. Financial cost, sure. Cost to our morals as a society? As I have already discussed, there is absolutely no moral benefit in violating the rights of millions of people simply because it saves some money and time. We ought to be valuing rights over some saved money. If my opponent was truly concerned about saving money in the justice system, they would have accepted my rehabilitation arguments since they reduce recidivism by up to 20% (4). They likely also would advocate for ending the war on drugs, but I won't go into detail on that. Note that my opponent totally ignored my rehabilitation argument in his last post.

The last argument from Pro is that the 75% number is justification for chipping. No, it isn't. As I've already mentioned, we can't know exactly who will re-offend and when when we release them from prison. We are guaranteed to violate the rights of about 1 in 4 people who won't be re-offending by chipping them. My opponent makes it out to be that chipping will prevent crime here, in saying that it would protect the public. He provides no source for that information. Furthermore, the point of the chip, in his argument, would be to find the re-offending criminal after a crime is committed and confirm that they were at the crime scene. That isn't prevention, that's capture after the crime is already done. Finally, my opponent links to an article about criminals sentenced to life in prison who were allowed to leave (what? thought it was LIFE) and then went on to continue causing harm. First, I'm not advocating for letting people out of prison just because. I'm saying that we shouldn't chip them when their sentence is up, which for these 100 people would have never happened. This means that the crimes they committed after being released never would have occurred if they had actually served their life sentences. Thus, my opponent's argument isn't about chipping but rather not letting criminals out of prison early, and therefore is totally irrelevant to this debate.

Now for voting issues.

1. Rights. My opponent has advocated for convicts to lose all of their rights simply because they are convicts. This argument fails because they provide little to no moral justification for doing so, while I have provided evidence to the contrary. This is a reason to vote Con.

2. Lack of evidence from Pro. The Pro in this debate has provided, in total, two sources. That isn't even enough sources to have one per round, and both came in the last. Meanwhile, my first and second rounds had 7 sources each. This one has 4. The burden of proof should always be shared, and considering that my opponent hasn't refuted any of my sources while I have refuted both of his, the Con should win the ballot.

3. Contradictions. My opponent's burden was to prove that all convicted criminals should be chipped, as that's what the resolution says. In round 1, he maintains this position. In round 2, he contradicts it saying that only violent offenders should receive chips. My opponent's contradiction went unaddressed by him in round 3, and thus the argument should extend that this alone would be a reason to vote Con.

4. Solvency. It appears that my opponent wants to decrease costs and reduce crime. I have provided an alternative to chipping which preserves rights, which he did not successfully refute. Rehabilitation based prisons could reduce recidivism by up to 20% (4), which would obviously reduce both number of crimes and prison spending. Thus, I solve my opponent's objective but in a preferable way.

5. Dropped arguments in general. My opponent failed to have true clash with my arguments throughout this debate. If you read back through, you'll see that there are arguments which he targets in on and others which he totally ignores. This isn't for a lack of space to do so on his part, either. If you compare our arguments mine are generally far longer and well developed.

6. No Pro voting issues. My opponent failed to look throughout the debate and give specific reasons why he thought he should have won this debate. Being that that is the case, we must defer to my voting issues which all would lead to a Con decision even by themselves.

For these 6 reasons, I must urge a Con decision.

Sources:
(1)http://www.law.umich.edu...
(2)https://www.wired.com...
(3)https://www.bop.gov...
(4)http://static.nicic.gov...
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by SurvivoAUS_HenryFan 8 months ago
SurvivoAUS_HenryFan
Damn, the notion that criminals give up all their rights as Pro said, they must be retarded or something
Posted by blamonkey 11 months ago
blamonkey
Forgot to mention this, but if there is any question about the RFD, just PM me.
Posted by MrDelaney 1 year ago
MrDelaney
Nevermind - looks like now it's visible again.
Posted by MrDelaney 1 year ago
MrDelaney
Did you just delete the other debate you set up about casting doubt?
I tried to accept it and got an error, and now it looks like it's gone.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by blamonkey 12 months ago
blamonkey
FanboyMctrollsayvilleesTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: https://docs.google.com/document/d/148N6VzW89aQR1GsTj6PRGmXbjE9tQCFReGUIPfygRGY/edit?usp=sharing