• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Outlawing microchipping humans not so far-fetched, Nevada senator says

MaggieD said:
We already violate the civil rights of pedophiles by making them register for life sometimes. Stretching it even further just pats the camel's nose. It's a matter of time until GPS's are tiny enough...
Click to expand...

And there is no evidence that it is even effective at doing much of anything good.
 
MaggieD said:
We already violate the civil rights of pedophiles by making them register for life sometimes. Stretching it even further just pats the camel's nose. It's a matter of time until GPS's are tiny enough...
Click to expand...
So, we just strip away all rights and protections against government abuse and overreach since we've already violated them a little bit already?
 
radcen said:
So, we just strip away all rights and protections against government abuse and overreach since we've already violated them a little bit already?
Click to expand...

A country that refuses to use all technology to protect its children is in a sad state of affairs. Pedophiles re-offend. A GPS chip would allow us to lock up these predators for the rest of their lives if they do so. No mercy.
 
MaggieD said:
A country that refuses to use all technology to protect its children is in a sad state of affairs. Pedophiles re-offend. A GPS chip would allow us to lock up these predators for the rest of their lives if they do so. No mercy.
Click to expand...
Short answer: Yes.

Slightly longer answer: The end justifies the means.

I believe you believe it would be as effective as you say. I do not share your belief. I believe it would be yet another "feel good" measure that would allow us to feel good about ourselves, but wouldn't actually work as intended.
 
JumpinJack said:
I read a while back that some parents are microchipping their kids, or want to. So they can be found if kidnapped or lost.

I wonder if kids will be exempt from that law. They're people, too.
Click to expand...

I am seriously considering this for my son. A gps chip or something like that.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Tagging your children in case of kidnapping isn't actually a horrid idea imo. How many children would be kidnapped if people knew that people micro-chipped their children?
Click to expand...

Not knowing is the key.

if it is known the child has the chip, it can be removed.

If even the child does not know what it is, then it can be useful.
 
MaggieD said:
A country that refuses to use all technology to protect its children is in a sad state of affairs.
Click to expand...
Protecting the child is the parent's business. Punishing for a crime committed is the Government's.


MaggieD said:
Pedophiles re-offend.
Click to expand...
In general, they are in a group (sexual offenses), with the second lowest recidivism rate, murder being first with the lowest.

Please keep this in mind when you read the following.
There is a difference between a re-arrest and a new conviction.​


Excon said:
If 1% was the re-offense rate, you do not punish 99%, for what the other 1% would do. That isn't just.
Even at the reflected percentiles, it wouldn't be just.


Here is a link from the Bureau of Justice Statistics, specifically dealing with all sexual offenses.

Recidivism of Sex Offenders Released from Prison in 1994
November 2003
Recidivism of Sex Offenders Released from Prison in 1994
November 2003​


(The information below is not necessarily provided in order that it appears in the report.)


Child molester
Many of the 9,691 sex offenders were released prisoners whose imprisonment offense was the rape or sexual assault of a child.
Throughout the report, released sex offenders whose forcible or nonforcible sex crime was against a child are referred to as “child molesters.” The sex crime did not have to involve intercourse to fit the definition of child molestation.

[...]

In short, the 4,295 released child molesters in this report were men who —
a. had forcible intercourse with a child or
b. committed “statutory rape” (meaning nonforcible intercourse with a child) or
c. with or without force, engaged in any other type of sexual contact with a child.​
Of the 4,295, at least 338 (about 8%) had forcible intercourse, and at least 443 (10%) committed statutory rape.


Within the first 3 years following their release from prison in 1994, 5.3% (517 of the 9,691) of released sex offenders rearrested for a sex crime.

Of the 9,691 released sex offenders, 3.5% (339 of the 9,691) were reconvicted for a sex crime within the 3-year followup period.


Within the first 3 years following release from prison in 1994, 3.3% (141 of 4,295) of released child molesters were rearrested for another sex crime against a child.​


Please note; the last statistic is for rearrest only. I can not find in the report a stat for reconviction which is clearly an indicator of an actual offense.
But that doesn't seem strange when one considers the overwhelming bias the report portrays.


These stats being as low as they are seems to indicate to me that there is room for us to be able to make better judgements of who will most likely re-offend, and then place our concentrations on weeding them out and not on the other 96%.
Click to expand...

For sex crimes in general you can see 5.5% were rearrested, while only 3.5 of them obtained a new conviction. That is a tad over a 36% difference.

While the rearrest rate is 3.5% for child molesters, if the new conviction rates holds a similar difference as the overall category does, that would put the rate right around 2.2%.


While I understand your zeal in wanting to protect children, punishing 97% to prevent the 3% from committing another child molestation, is not just.
 
Excon said:
That is the parent's business, not the Government's.


In general, they are in a group (sexual offenses), with the second lowest recidivism rate, murder being first with the lowest.

Please keep this in mind when you read the following.
There is a difference between a re-arrest and a new conviction.​


​

For sex crimes in general you can see 5.5% were rearrested, while only 3.5 of them obtained a new conviction. That is a tad over a 36% difference.

While the rearrest rate is 3.5% for child molesters, if the new conviction rates holds a similar difference as the overall category does, that would put the rate right around 2.2%.


While I understand your zeal in wanting to protect children, punishing 97% to prevent the 3% from committing another child molestation, is not just.
Click to expand...

Don't misunderstand. I think I'm talking apples and you're talking oranges. Pedophiles are a COMPLETELY different kettle of fish than sex offenders. It is an orientation just as certainly as is heterosexuality. My heart goes out to people forced to sign up on the sex registry for years and years. Pedophiles' recitivism is very high. Much higher and many times more harmful than sex offenders. I suspect you know all of this, but for others, here's a link...

Pessimism about pedophilia - Harvard Health
 
MaggieD said:
Don't misunderstand. I think I'm talking apples and you're talking oranges. Pedophiles are a COMPLETELY different kettle of fish than sex offenders. It is an orientation just as certainly as is heterosexuality. My heart goes out to people forced to sign up on the sex registry for years and years. Pedophiles' recitivism is very high. Much higher and many times more harmful than sex offenders. I suspect you know all of this, but for others, here's a link...

Pessimism about pedophilia - Harvard Health
Click to expand...
I know what a pedophile is. I know a person can molest a child and not be a pedophile. Even if you were not using pedophile in-general to refer to child molesters, actual pedophiles make up a sub category of those in the child molestation category which has a very low recidivism rate. So again, you do not punish the 97% just to prevent the 3% from committing another act of child molestation. It is not just. The letter you provided doesn't change that. :shrug:
 
Excon said:
I know what a pedophile is. I know a person can molest a child and not be a pedophile. Even if you were not using pedophile in-general to refer to child molesters, actual pedophiles make up a sub category of those in the child molestation category which has a very low recidivism rate. So again, you do not punish the 97% just to prevent the 3% from committing another act of child molestation. It is not just. The letter you provided doesn't change that. :shrug:
Click to expand...

I sure could be wrong.
 
MaggieD said:
I sure could be wrong.
Click to expand...
It is not a matter of correctness.

I spoke to what is just. Punishing 97% for the actions of 3% is not just.

As I stated in the quote of myself.

These stats being as low as they are seems to indicate to me that there is room for us to be able to make better judgements of who will most likely re-offend, and then place our concentrations on weeding them out and not on the other 96%.​

If we could weed those few out of the whole there would be no need for forcibly turning anyone into a location broadcast tower.
 
Excon said:
It is not a matter of correctness.

I spoke to what is just. Punishing 97% for the actions of 3% is not just.

As I stated in the quote of myself.

These stats being as low as they are seems to indicate to me that there is room for us to be able to make better judgements of who will most likely re-offend, and then place our concentrations on weeding them out and not on the other 96%.​

If we could weed those few out of the whole there would be no need for forcibly turning anyone into a location broadcast tower.
Click to expand...

I can't argue that. Good point.
 
Excon said:
Ok MaggieD, I see you are not interested in further discourse. That is fine.
Click to expand...

Yeah, thought it was time for dinner, actually. Excellent read. ;)

The oven's broken. Dayum!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom