Scotland Yard wants DNA samples from 5-year-olds in case they grow up to be criminals; Oyster card records to become part of "war on terror"
Robbo sez, "As reported in The Guardian: Gary Pugh, director of forensic sciences at Scotland Yard, says primary school children should be eligible for the DNA database if they exhibit behaviour indicating they may become criminals in later life.
Civil liberty groups condemned his comments last night by likening them to an excerpt from a 'science fiction novel'. One teaching union warned that it was a step towards a 'police state'."
Gary Pugh, director of forensic sciences at Scotland Yard and the new DNA spokesman for the Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo), said a debate was needed on how far Britain should go in identifying potential offenders, given that some experts believe it is possible to identify future offending traits in children as young as five.Link (Thanks, Robbo!)'If we have a primary means of identifying people before they offend, then in the long-term the benefits of targeting younger people are extremely large,' said Pugh. 'You could argue the younger the better. Criminologists say some people will grow out of crime; others won't. We have to find who are possibly going to be the biggest threat to society...'
Concern over the issue of civil liberties will be further amplified by news yesterday that commuters using Oyster smart cards could have their movements around cities secretly monitored under new counter-terrorism powers being sought by the security services.
the latest
latest episodes
So, will Scotland Yard's experts be measuring bumps on top of our head, and checking the distance between our eye's and the thickness of our eyebrows too?
Can we get the name of the ACPO's experts and have their certificates withdrawn?
How soon until they get arrested at the age of 5 for having 'potentially problematic' DNA?
Yes, this is all a bit Minority Report, pre-emptive-detection, for my liking.
What the hell?
What a stigma to put on a kid. And you have to wonder what records this 'prediction' would appear on. Wouldn't schools prefer to know if their applicants were prone to develop a violent streak? And employers, too, they have a right to know whether they're hiring a potential criminal. It's only fair, it's only logical, if such information is recorded, it should be put to good use! In fact, the child should be closely monitored as he grows up, so that his future crime can be easily prevented.
Way to put people down before they've even had a chance to live their life. This is insane.
This is only for the Cs.
I'm glad I'm a B. No C problems here!
-and none of the responsibilities the As have to deal with. Boy I'm glad I'm not one of THEM.
I'm GLAD to be a B.
[sar-chasm]
@ #5 : + Why is there any need to test their DNA?
Surely the Director chose it in the first place, long before they were decanted? All the police need to do is to make sure they're learning properly:
"The cat is on the mat.
The tot is in the pot."
DNA samples should also be taken from the parents of the disobedient children, since they are also, by definition, bad people. Also any of their friends who may have learned that behaviour; their teachers and who failed to correct their behaviour, and last but not least, all the police from the local constabulary to Scotland yard, since they are evidently not doing their job properly and must therefore be corrupt.
OK with you, Doctor Pugh???
Such incompetence, it's outrageous! Why should a DNA database be restricted only to a subset of society? Millions of dangerous criminals will slip through our fingers if overworked pedagogues have to identify their psychological traits first. For crying out loud, let's take DNA samples of every baby now, while they're still young. While we still have control over those monsters!
So, this child is dangerous. Now what? The government knows about these kids and expects us to live with potential killers!? If they have the evil eye, send them to Australia, I say.
The next few years will bring huge advances in the field of DNA phrenology anyway, making it possible to test directly for those traits. If you find the "totalitarian nazi arsehole" gene, BANG, death penalty! Already in the womb, if possible.
This guy is absolutely right. The long-term benefits for our society would indeed be enormous if individuals like him got culled at an early stage.
So... if you are black, from single-parent family, Mum is a drug addict, etc etc - you are on the DNA database from the age of 5. And if you are white, middle class, blah blah, you aren't.
So, automatically, the former kid, *no matter what he does in life*, is more likely to be a suspect, hauled in etc etc. Further disadvantage, resentment, social exclusion. F*cking great. A vicious circle.
I note that the idiot that came up with this proposal was pulled with a hour's notice from a planned appearance on Radio 4's Today programme this morning.
This looks like a "Meiers Gambit". Suggest something so outrageous that people will fall in line for any less chilling alternative.
They're not dealing with the problem, they're just trying to pigeon hole the victims of it. I can't claim to know what the problem is, but clearly something is making our society become more and more violent.
Taking DNA is completely unnecessary. If a child is exhibiting behaviours that may eventually lead to criminal activity, just take them out and shoot them.
Isn't Pugh an Irish name? I'll bet he's glad he doesn't live in the 19th century (or the 1970s for that matter).
Don't let Bush know about this.
Quote from original article:
'If we have a primary means of identifying people before they offend, then in the long-term the benefits of targeting younger people are extremely large,' said Pugh. 'You could argue the younger the better. Criminologists say some people will grow out of crime; others won't. We have to find who are possibly going to be the biggest threat to society.'
Dear Mr Pugh, no need to search any further. We just found the biggest threat to society: You.
Incredibly inefficient. Instead of making sure you can catch the future criminal, why not prevent the future crime ... just kill the child. So simple. And certainly cheaper than having to create a cumbersome database, secure it, keep it updated, etc. Furthermore, if parents have more than one child identified for this program, kill the parents too. Clearly they are poor breeders.
*sigh*
At #13 Pugh is actually a Welsh name (ap Hugh) but that doesn't invalidate your point -- after all as my dear old Nana taught me Taffy was a Welshman Taffy was a thief............... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taffy_was_a_Welshman
Yes, telling a kid and his parents "YER A CRIMINAL" is going to be such a great preventative measure. Just like now, where we tell the 'dumb' kids that they're stupid all day and don't pay attention to them. Then, surprise! They're not very bright and don't want to try to be.
#12 and #16... Rope and coat hangers are reusable. Lets not waste money when extinquishing the genetically inferior.
Step towards? No, it's the action of a police state. Period.
This is the country which gives out Anti-Social Behaviour Orders, after all. I wouldn't be surprised to see it go into effect very soon.
Why wait until they're in nursery school? Just take DNA samples from all the cranky babies in the maternity wards. So much simpler.
It's "V for Vendetta", only for real....
Why is this such a bad idea? I can't stand criminals.
You stay classy, Britain.
I'm for it.
Just so long as every politician, judge, general, cop et al is subjected to screening for the same genetic markers and is summarily removed and locked up.
So are you moving away from Britain before Poesy turns 5? After all, her father is a citizen of a foreign country who spends an unusual amount of time travelling to other foreign countries on short trips. Sounds like terrorist activity. And children of terrorists are definitely at risk of becoming future criminals.
I would have my child implanted as soon as possible. In as much as it might be like a Lojack for kids. I'm sorry if the secret police use that technology for evil, but I see it doing a lot of good also. Why is it when we adopt technology on our own, it's good. But when our government does it, it's always bad? You can only site history to support so much, and after a point you have to build something better. We're going to have MORE government on this planet, not less.
any update on the RFID implant/cancer link yet?
Christ I love Britain - it's getting madder by the day. It must be great to live in other countries (America excepted, of course) where you can watch us implode with paranoia and greed.
Well, now. Branding will lead to self-fulfilling prophecy, tending to turn the 5-year-olds into future (non-political leader) terrorists; thus helping to insure a generous supply of terrorists for the future.
'Cuz when you're spending a half-trillion a year on defense, you need a constant supply of enemies to keep the ball rolling.
"Yes, Prime Minister!"
@#31, Bingo! If you can't find any more enemies outside your doors or the enemies aren't worth fighting anymore, then bring the battle home.
But they have universal health care! And great gun control laws!
Reminds me a bit of a scene in Transmetropolitan where a high school kid walks through an on-campus thought scanner and gets arrested for thinking of something bad. Whee. It must be a "Meiers Gambit" thingie. Please let it be.
1984 here we come -or are we already there?