Convicted criminals should all be chipped

Here is my rebuttal and further reasoning for chipping convicted criminals. Once a person is convicted by the courts and found guilty, he/she is sentenced to a prison to serve time. At that point the state becomes responsible for the custody of the individual convicted (criminal) The Correctional Service houses and feeds and provides medical care for the criminal, it is their responsibility, which essentially means the Correctional Services, government institution is the guardian of that criminal until they are released. The rules of the institution are followed by the criminal or otherwise they are punished with possibility of solitary confinement or removal of privileges ie. TV time etc etc. Since the Correctional Service is essentially the guardian of the criminal they can impose the implementation of the micro chip in the criminal as a monitoring device within the prison. Personally I believe the criminal has no rights once they have committed a crime and are now in jail. You have lost all your civil liberties when you decided to commit a crime, the judge and your fellow members of society have found you guilty and you are off to jail. Therefore Correctional Services have the right to implant the chip. As for after the release of the criminal, for the safety of the public the chip stays in the criminal. People who have been convicted of hunting or other summary convictions would not be implanted with a chip. Only people of indictable offences such as murder, rape, robbery, violent offences and serious offences would be chipped. The 14'th amendment should not apply to convicts of the state, that amendment should be forfeited once you are convicted. You state that 25% of the released criminals that do not reoffend would have their rights violated. I say too bad, you had the choice when you were committing a crime to not do it, you went through with it and now you will be chipped for life. 25% is a viable percentage I can live with. Ask any insurance company if they were getting a 75% correct insurance coverage for their clients would they be happy with that, of course they would, let the other 25% deal with the raw deal. Boo hoo. Like I say a criminal is always a criminal. I can live with the 25% supposedly innocent, served their time poor chipped saps crying about it. Can't please everyone, but I will take the 75% approval vote. Rehabilitation does not work because people are born this way. Sure environment and people around the person will affect the way they become later in life, whether they commit crimes or become an honest hard working person, but bottom line is everyone has choices in life, you chose to be a criminal, I say we chip you. Not everyone born in the ghetto will join a gang, some get out go to school, others don't care and want the fast money and join a gang or addicts who rob a gas station for crack money. Everyone has a choice. The way I see it, once you have been convicted you have lost all rights and privileges and with the current state of 75% of inmates re offending this is the best solution at tracking and apprehending criminals, and the 25% who never do it again, so what, so you have a little micro chip under your skin, the size of a grain of rice there. If you are upset about that, then go cry a river to NSA you is watching and monitoring everything you do anyways, it doesn't matter if you are a convicted criminal or a hard working honest person. The NSA is reading your e-mails and watching you on CCTV cameras everyday anyways so deal with it