As far as I can tell, the nano tags do not id an individual, that's why I don't know if I really care.
The cause for concern is really the movement in the direction of IDing gun users. In theory it could help, but of course, it is an infringement. This tech is being proposed for use in Britain however, and as we all know their gun laws are lightyears apart from ours (Thankfully).
As for the plea bargaining comment. I can comment on this first hand as I have witnessed what leads up to such agreements and the strategies several state's attorneys have used.
The offering of a plea is a tactical maneuver, not a cop out.
If a prosecutor has strong evidence to back him up, there will be no plea offer or a plea that is effectively the same as the max sentence.
Usually, however, the evidence is not very strong. CSI has done a lot to cloud peoples perspectives of how well evidence can be used to incriminate. The truth is that unfortunately, mistakes can be made easily that cannot be undone. I have seen several examples of mishandling of evidence in the chain of custody that have made good cases go bad.
I'm sure that CSI alone is not to blame as many people have a "Perry Mason" perspective on how cases should run too
.
The reality is that the prosecutor usually only has two choices; offer a plea or try the case knowing there is a high probability of loss. After all, they bear the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt.
Of note, there are requirements that prevent plea offers from falling below a certain level of punishment, depending on the offender's criminal history.
I, as much as anyone, wish criminals would be taken off the streets for good.
However, for me, knowing that bad people go free in our system is part of the price I pay as a citizen of a free democracy.
Sorry to rant
