Will the chip prevent somebody from ordering a violent crime be committed? A lot of criminal leaders rarely commit acts of violence personally. They just tell their subordinates to go kill somebody.
How do you implant the chip? does it require surgery? if so, are there going to be groups who will be allowed to raise religious objections, like JWs, who would refuse blood transfusions if they started to hemorrhage during the surgery, or Christian Scientists who would refuse post-surgical prophylactic antibiotics? Do you give such people religious exemptions, or do you deny them, and thus make them more vulnerable to complications from the implantation?
If you give them exemptions, I think there will be a lot of ad hoc conversions for 2nd offenders. If you don’t, then are you unfairly subjecting them to additional risks?
Or will you just say that offenders in the category of qualifying for the mandatory chip have lost some fundamental rights, and are going to be subject to all doctor-prescribed pre- and post-op care, it isn’t a choice?
Perhaps–but there are already such communities. Do the Amish, or Jainists, face especially high levels of crime? I dunno. One worry might be reprisals from victims’ families.
It sounds like the other name for this gadget would be the “slave chip”. Implant it in someone and you can work them to exhaustion, beat them, rape them, torture them or do the same to their families and they can’t raise a hand to stop you. They may not even be able to kill themselves to escape, depending on if the chip considers suicide “violence”.
They are not incapable of self-defense.
Yes, I would definitely want minors excepted. They’re not old enough to make good decisions and a kid with a violent criminal record probably doesn’t have parents who make good decisions either. They should be excepted even if charged as adult otherwise. I might even suggest a higher age than 18. For example, 25 is often stated as an age when brain functions settle down and a person becomes more responsible.
As for unintended consequences, federal hate crime laws would be one example. You could take a violent crime that might normally be a misdemeanor and then escalate it into a felony because of a hate crime element. Plus, the feds can prosecute it separately from the original crime, creating a sort of double-jeopardy. I think something similar applies to crimes against the US Postal Service - what might otherwise be a lesser crime is escalated because a postal carrier or the mail is involved. A third example is that I understand some crimes are sometimes prosecuted at a higher level if combined.
Since the chip only prevents violence and not racism, I’m not sure it makes sense to chip someone who committed a felony only because it was escalated by some other factor.
Why even wait until someone is convicted
think of all the future crimes that could be prevented if the govenment mandated everyone be implanted
Interesting setup, Skald. Did you ever read In the Country of the Kind by Damon Knight?
(Sorry, I can’t do links on my phone; wikipedia has a decent plot summary, though.)
I think society is justified in providing incentives for the felon to choose the chip, but not to impose the chip on anyone. A cut in sentence, fewer/no restrictions after release, money, whatever incentives the government deems appropriate. Including no chip no release if the person is a violent repeat offender.
It doesn’t address any of the long-standing causes of violent crime in society.
It takes attention and resources away from trying to address the causes of violent crime in society.
It doesn’t address non-violent crime.
There’s no point.
I think that the guy who invented the Nuclear bomb had never hurt a fly, in his life.
(you, wrongly, assume that aggression or violence is a crime)
Voting isn’t a crime, but we take that right away from convicted felons.
Taking away the ability to use any aggression from someone who was convicted of criminal aggression – and with his own permission as a sentencing alternative – makes perfectly good sense.
(I see a slippery slope problem; society might eventually want to put the non-aggression chip in all teenagers…)
I would be more interested in the therapuetic value of something like that.
It could backfire, like in The Terminal Man
It addresses the hell out of recidivism and being a career violent criminal.
I forgot about that book; read it a long time ago. But I think it correlates to what I came in here to say. Technomagic or no, I strongly suspect that some of the key impetus to violence is inextricably linked to other drives/actions. In other words, I think that there is a good chance that the device would have punitive effects on the patient-convict if they, for instance, tried to work out at the gym, hammer in a nail, give a kick-ass speech, run away from a coyote, or even have sex.
In that case, I think the device would be great for neuroscientific research; chip away!
(P.S. Not trying to fight the hypothetical, or the OP here…I’m really fascinated by the implications this might have for psychiatry.)
I think the chip could be an effective way to curb violent recidivists, but I absolutely do NOT believe its use would be as limited as Skald postulates. Exhibit A: the sex offender registry. Look how it went from being a tool to protect people from violent repeat rapists and serial child molesters to something that is used against people who urinate in public or even children who go streaking. A more civilized and sane country might be able to implement the chip properly … not the rich idiot hooligans who run America.
So long as it is a voluntary sentencing option I would be for it. I have one other curiosity. How does it detect that violence is afoot, can it differentiate rape from rough roleplay? If the person implanted does not honestly believe they are doing harm (like some types of pedophiles) does the chip trigger?
I would go yes with consent (for the possible benefits) but with the option of imeadiate unquestioned removal upon request (and with that reevaluation of that person’s fate).
The reason is that is ‘thought control’ and can be more imprisoning then physical prison, and that can only be know thru experience.