Convicted criminals should all be chipped

First I will deliver my case and second I will rebut my opponent.I must negate the resolution: "Convicted criminals should all be chipped."DefinitionsFirstly we must define who convicted criminals are. According to Merriam-Webster Dictionary, "conviction" means "the act or process of finding a person guilty of a crime especially in a court of law" (1). A "criminal," also according to Merriam-Webster, is defined as "guilty of crime" (2). "All" should be simple, it simply means the whole collection of convicted criminals. I will accept my opponent's definition of "chipped," which appears to be the placement of microchips with GPS tracking within a person's body. Thus the resolution as a whole can be interpreted as such: anyone who has been convicted of any crime and has been sent to prison should forcefully have a chip implanted into them which will allow the government to keep track of him or her upon their release. I strongly disagree with the resolution and my opponent in this case. Since my opponent made no claim as to which country they were specifically referring to, I shall assume they mean the US.ContentionsI. The placement of microchips into anyone without their consent violates their rights and the Constitution. The 14th Amendment states that we cannot “deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law...” Ones property includes their body and its integrity. This concept is known as bodily integrity (3). If we were to force people to have their property rights violated, we would be breaking the law of the 14th Amendment. Thus, such action of placing microchips into convicted criminals upon release is unconstitutional.II. The government should not violate rights without just cause. The only situation in which the government would be justified in putting these chips in is if there was a 100% guarantee that all released prisoners would fall to recidivism. Currently in the US, the recidivism rate within 5 years is 76.6% (4). This means that almost a quarter of those released would have their rights wrongly violated. We must also consider that if there even was a 100% guarantee of recidivism, there would be no reason to chip either because then we could just keep criminals in jail.III. Chipping all convicted criminals doesn't just affect hardened criminals, it affects people who have been convicted for minor crimes. This would mean people who have been convicted of nonviolent misdemeanors like violating hunting laws or unknowingly cutting down a tree on government property would result in chipping (5). This is also not to mention those who are wrongfully convicted. Chipping all criminals would result in a large number of people who were guilty of minor crimes or not guilty at all having their Constitutional rights violated.RebuttalFirstly, let us note that my opponent has no sourced evidence to back up any of their claims. On those grounds alone, we should not accept any of Pro's arguments. It is not my burden to disprove my opponent's claims that they decide to push, but their burden to prove them first (6). It is unfair to say that I need to disprove all of my opponent's claims without evidence, because that could potentially make me need to disprove that the sky is red or that the world is round.However, there is one area which I would like to target. My opponent's argument is partly based on the idea that recidivism is high, which I agree with and have proven. I say that this is not justification for violating convicted criminal's rights, but rather justification for changing the justice system to focus on rehabilitation rather than punishment. The goal of our justice system should not be to have as many people as possible imprisoned as possible, but rather to have as few as possible return. Studies have found that emphasizing rehabilitation can reduce recidivism by as much as 20% (7). Having the system in place which Pro is advocating would only entrench this system of recidivism, as its goal as stated by my opponent is to, "round them up a lot faster." It appears that my opponent also acknowledges that rehabilitation should be the focus of prisons, saying, "We put criminals in jail to get them away from the rest of society but after they serve their time they are back to their same ways again." Obviously, then, my opponent's goal is also to reduce crime. My counterplan of focusing on rehabilitation as opposed to placing microchips in criminals solves my opponent's goal of reducing crime while avoiding the violation of rights.For these reasons I must urge a con ballot. Sources:(1)https://www.merriam-webster.com...(2)https://www.merriam-webster.com...(3)https://www.mmfllaw.com...(4)https://www.nij.gov...(5)https://www.ussc.gov...(6)https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com...(7)http://static.nicic.gov...