Quoting DrJBHL, reply 27That's a bad thing?
Yes...yes it is, because now not only does that person have a hard place finding somewhere to live, they also have a hard time finding a place to work, and when they can't find a place to live and a place to work, they became desperate, and desperate people make rash decisions that put them in MORE risky situations (living out of cars, or in the woods, and eating out of dumpsters, or stealing things, and taking drugs to get a respite from the fact that they're saddled with this GUILTY verdict on their head for ever and ever).
Maybe you've never known someone who lives with that sort of stigma. It influences everything about them -- they can never wake up in the morning and say, "it's a new day, I'm going to live it with a clean new philosophy" because the world at large sees them as continually committing that same crime over, and over, and over again. There is no "oops, I screwed up when I was 16" and now I'm older and know better.
The chip wouldn't alter that one way or another, would it? No one but the police would be able to "see" it...
As it is, they have to register and report. This would obviate that except for random checks. It would also reveal if they approached fenced off/proscribed areas for them. Maybe just chip the rapists and child molesters... Not writing legislation here, nor does my heart bleed for those crime categories. And really, no one's talking about 15 year olds unless they were involved with a child, Karen. Not talking about two teen aged 'lovers'. That wouldn't require chipping.
And if you're innocent of it the first time, but some malicious person finds out about your conviction and subsequently accuses you of it again, the chances of being convicted a second time are rather high, aren't they?
Not really... unless the person was there at the given time of occurance. If he/she was somewhere else, the chip would be rather exculpatory, wouldn't it?