Microchipping: Ankle Monitoring's Interfering Future?

The use of ankle monitors as a form of surveillance has raised concerns about the effectiveness of such technology in ensuring public safety and reducing recidivism. Ankle monitors, often used to track people on parole, house arrest, or awaiting trial, employ GPS or RF technology to transmit location data to monitoring agencies. While they are touted as a less restrictive alternative to incarceration, ankle monitors have been criticised for causing financial strain, physical discomfort, and social stigma. The COVID-19 pandemic led to an increase in the use of ankle monitors as a means to decongest prisons, raising questions about the normalisation of this technology and its potential to infringe on human and civil rights. In this context, the suggestion of microchipping as a less intrusive alternative to ankle monitoring has emerged, sparking further ethical debates.

Microchipping is cheaper than ankle monitoring

Microchipping is a cheaper alternative to ankle monitoring. Ankle monitors can cost the wearer anywhere from $3 to $35 per day, which can add up to hundreds of dollars per month. This has led some to refer to ankle monitors as a modern-day debtor's prison.

In contrast, microchips are small, electronic chips enclosed in a glass cylinder, about the size of a grain of rice. They are injected under the skin using a hypodermic needle and do not require surgery or anesthesia. The cost of microchipping is typically a one-time fee that is significantly less than the cumulative cost of wearing an ankle monitor.

Microchips are often used for identification purposes and are commonly used in pets to increase the chances of being reunited with their owners if they become lost or stolen. While microchips do not have GPS capabilities, they can be scanned by veterinary clinics or shelters to identify the owner's information.

Ankle monitors, on the other hand, are used for continuous surveillance and tracking of individuals, particularly those on parole, probation, or house arrest. They utilize GPS or RF technology to transmit real-time location data to a monitoring center, ensuring compliance with court-ordered movement restrictions. While ankle monitors can provide more detailed location information, the high cost associated with their use can be a significant financial burden for the wearer.

Therefore, microchipping is a more cost-effective solution for identification and tracking purposes, while ankle monitoring incurs ongoing expenses that can be prohibitive for many individuals.

Microchipping is less invasive than ankle monitors

Microchipping is a less invasive method of monitoring compared to ankle monitors. Microchips are small, electronic chips about the size of a grain of rice, which are injected under the skin using a hypodermic needle. The procedure is non-invasive and is no more painful than a typical injection. On the other hand, ankle monitors are locked securely around the wearer's ankle, making them more obtrusive and noticeable.

One of the main advantages of microchipping is that it does not require surgery or anesthesia. It can be implanted during a routine veterinary office visit or while the animal is already under anesthesia for another procedure. In contrast, ankle monitors are bulky and must be locked into place to ensure accurate monitoring. They are also more likely to be associated with the criminal justice system, carrying a social stigma that can be detrimental to the wearer's reputation.

Microchipping is a more discreet method of monitoring, as the microchip is hidden under the skin and not visible to others. This can help to reduce the social stigma associated with ankle monitors, which are often seen as a digital scarlet letter. Additionally, microchips do not require ongoing maintenance or charging, unlike ankle monitors, which need to be regularly plugged in to maintain a constant charge.

Furthermore, microchips are less likely to cause physical discomfort or pain compared to ankle monitors. While some individuals may experience skin irritation or discomfort from wearing an ankle monitor, microchips are designed to be as unobtrusive as possible, with minimal impact on the wearer's daily activities. Microchips are also less prone to technical glitches, such as signal loss and drift, which can further complicate the lives of those wearing ankle monitors.

In conclusion, microchipping is a less invasive method of monitoring compared to ankle monitors. It is a more discreet, convenient, and comfortable option that does not carry the same social stigma as ankle monitors. While both methods have their advantages and disadvantages, microchipping offers a more subtle approach to monitoring that may be better suited for certain individuals or situations.

Microchips don't have the same signal issues as ankle monitors

Microchips do not have the same signal issues as ankle monitors. Unlike ankle bracelets, microchips are not GPS devices and are not used for tracking. Instead, microchips are small, electronic chips enclosed in a glass cylinder, about the size of a grain of rice, that are implanted under the skin. They do not have a battery and are activated by a scanner that reads the identification number on the chip. This means that microchips are not susceptible to the same signal issues as ankle monitors, which rely on GPS and cellular reception to function.

Ankle monitors, on the other hand, have been known to suffer from signal issues that can lead to false alerts and even send people back to jail. For example, in Wisconsin, Cody McCormick was required to wear a GPS ankle bracelet for life due to a sex-related conviction. However, he experienced issues with poor cellular reception at his home, which resulted in him being jailed multiple times even though he had not violated the terms of his monitoring. Similar issues with ankle monitor signals have been reported in other states, such as California and Massachusetts, where inaccurate alerts have led to wrongful arrests.

The signal issues with ankle monitors can be attributed to a variety of factors, including equipment malfunction, loss of signal or power, battery failure, and inadequate broadband capacity. These issues can have significant consequences, disrupting the lives of those wearing the monitors and affecting their ability to reintegrate into their communities. Additionally, the constant charging required for ankle monitors can be inconvenient and challenging, especially for those who live in areas with poor cell service.

In contrast, microchips do not rely on GPS or cellular signals, eliminating the possibility of similar signal issues. The lack of a battery also removes the concern of battery malfunctions or the need for constant charging. While microchips can fail and become undetectable, these instances are rare and are typically due to improper implantation or other factors unrelated to signal strength.

Overall, microchips offer a more reliable and consistent form of identification compared to ankle monitors, avoiding the signal issues that can lead to false alerts and disruptions in the lives of those being monitored.

Microchips don't carry the same stigma as ankle monitors

Ankle monitors are bulky and difficult to conceal, displaying their wearer's potential involvement with the justice system for all to see. Their design has not changed significantly in 30 years, suggesting that the stigma of wearing them and the difficulty of hiding them could be intended as part of the punishment.

The monitors are associated with criminal offenders, but they have also been used for people involved with the immigration system, and have been proposed or ordered for people exposed to COVID-19 in certain states. Their wearers are often presumed to be dangerous criminals, and the monitors make this information freely available to anyone who notices them.

Wearing an ankle monitor is like being required to wear a criminal record on your body. This can jeopardize opportunities to form strong social bonds within communities or to obtain or maintain employment. For example, one wearer said:

> "When I go to school, I worry my friends will spot it and leave me. I push it up into my jeans, hoping they won't see. But the higher up I push it, the more it starts to hurt: most days, my feet go numb. I try wearing bell-bottoms."

Ankle monitors have also been linked to a long history of shaming people, from the metal masks medieval women convicted of being "nags" or "scolds" were forced to wear to the yellow armbands employed by the Nazis.

Microchips, on the other hand, are small and injected under the skin using a hypodermic needle. They are about the same size as a grain of rice and do not require surgery or anesthesia for implantation. While they are commonly used to identify lost pets, they could potentially be used for humans as well, without carrying the same stigma as ankle monitors.

Microchips are more effective at tracking than ankle monitors

Microchips are a more effective method of tracking individuals than ankle monitors. Microchips are small, electronic chips enclosed in a glass cylinder and injected under the skin using a hypodermic needle. While they are not currently used for human tracking, they have several advantages over ankle monitors.

Firstly, microchips are more difficult to remove than ankle monitors. Ankle monitors can be unlocked and removed, whereas microchips are injected under the skin, making them a more permanent solution. This permanence can be a deterrent in itself, as it ensures that the individual being tracked cannot easily escape surveillance.

Secondly, microchips are less obtrusive than ankle monitors. Ankle monitors are bulky and can cause skin irritation, whereas microchips are small and discreet. This makes it easier for individuals to go about their daily lives without drawing attention to themselves.

Thirdly, microchips are more cost-effective than ankle monitors. Ankle monitors can cost the wearer between $5 and $25 per day, whereas microchips have a one-time cost of injection and registration. This makes microchips a more affordable option, especially for long-term tracking.

Additionally, microchips can provide more accurate and reliable tracking than ankle monitors. Ankle monitors use either GPS or RF technology, which can be interfered with by physical barriers or technical malfunctions. Microchips, on the other hand, are activated by a scanner that reads the identification information stored in the chip. This means that tracking can be more precise and reliable, as it does not depend on constant satellite or radio signal transmission.

Finally, microchips can be used in conjunction with other forms of identification, such as collars with tags for pets, to provide an extra layer of security and ensure that the tracked individual can be identified and located quickly.

In conclusion, while ankle monitors have been a popular method of tracking individuals, microchips offer several advantages that make them a more effective solution. They are more difficult to remove, less obtrusive, more cost-effective, and can provide more accurate and reliable tracking.

Frequently asked questions