Should criminals retain their privacy?

CPTM

With many of today's crimes being committed by re-offending criminals, and with the increase in Artificial Intelligence being able to monitor situations, should re-offending criminals be stripped of their privacy after they have served their term? Their every move, conversation, purchase, text, phone call, toilet break be monitored for any wrong doing? How would you feel living in a society where ex criminals are allowed to leave prison after their term but are subjected to years of having zero privacy. Perhaps it is only necessary for more extreme re-offenders, or for crimes of a sexual nature? Is it a step towards a Nanny State, or would you prefer to live in a society where re-offending 'scumbags' aren't given the chance to cause more pain?

I believe everyone should be born with privacy rights and this is important for minorities who still encounter discrimination despite the lack of any wrong doing. Privacy and a space to have confidential conversations is important. However, if everyone knew from a young age that this privacy will be taken away if you break the rules too many times, perhaps it would be a deterrent for would-be criminals. It might also be a cheaper way to crack down on drug smuggling channels and sex crime gangs.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

One-off offenders or re-offending criminals?

One-off criminals, yes. Everyone deserves a second chance and the society is sadly unforgiving of and prejudiced towards of people who made one mistake or one stupid decision. Would also depend on what the crime was, though.

Re-offenders? Probably not. We're talking a trend here or personality trait of untrustworthiness.

Vic_08

No.

Don't want to feel embarrassed when people find out what you have been doing then don't do it.

Tilikum17

Vic_08 wrote: »

No.

Don't want to feel embarrassed when people find out what you have been doing then don't do it.

Exactly.

Also why minors not get named?

_Kaiser_

Depends on the crime and wether it's a first offence not.

Convicted sex offender or serious assault or murder.. Yes.
They represent a significant danger and threat to society and people should be aware of that.

Convicted for speeding on a motorway or not paying the TV license... No

ayux4rj6zql2ph

This post has been deleted.

ayux4rj6zql2ph

This post has been deleted.

Shenshen

CPTM wrote: »

With many of today's crimes being committed by re-offending criminals, and with the increase in Artificial Intelligence being able to monitor situations, should re-offending criminals be stripped of their privacy after they have served their term? Their every move, conversation, purchase, text, phone call, toilet break be monitored for any wrong doing? How would you feel living in a society where ex criminals are allowed to leave prison after their term but are subjected to years of having zero privacy. Perhaps it is only necessary for more extreme re-offenders, or for crimes of a sexual nature? Is it a step towards a Nanny State, or would you prefer to live in a society where re-offending 'scumbags' aren't given the chance to cause more pain?

I believe everyone should be born with privacy rights and this is important for minorities who still encounter discrimination despite the lack of any wrong doing. Privacy and a space to have confidential conversations is important. However, if everyone knew from a young age that this privacy will be taken away if you break the rules too many times, perhaps it would be a deterrent for would-be criminals. It might also be a cheaper way to crack down on drug smuggling channels and sex crime gangs.

How would I feel in a country that has built up the infrastructure to go "total surveillance" on the population at the drop of a hat?
I'll let you guess.

badtoro

Three strikes and you get a publicly accessible electronic ankle tag, like those sites for monitoring air traffic and shipping.

**** them.

badtoro

Shenshen wrote: »

How would I feel in a country that has built up the infrastructure to go "total surveillance" on the population at the drop of a hat?
I'll let you guess.

I read a piece not so long back about the Chinese government tackling air pollution. Great we all think, right? Sure, until it said they did so as smog was rendering cctv useless 😂

Capt'n Midnight

Name and shame.

Do you think a banker or politician would be worried about getting a suspended sentence if it was also kept from the public ??



Remember the old TV licence ad - "could you live with the shame ?"
Well could you ?


The justice system should be preventative too.

badtoro

badtoro wrote: »

I read a piece not so long back about the Chinese government tackling air pollution. Great we all think, right? Sure, until it said they did so as smog was rendering cctv useless ��

It might also have been the major rise in deaths related to pollution, and the riots in some of the cities like Chengdu where people were angry over the governments attitude....