digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Police: Put bad kids on DNA list to target future offenders

guardian.co.uk — School children as young a five years old should be eligible for the DNA database if they exhibit behaviour indicating they may become criminals in later life, said a senior Scotland Yard expert. Civil liberty groups condemned his comments last night by likening them to an excerpt from a 'science fiction novel'.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • dotlizard, on 03/16/2008, -8/+165then assign their DNA sample a permanent ID number tied to an implanted RFID chip. heck maybe they'll get GPS transceivers down to RFID size then we can really keep track of those terrifying future potential criminals!

    (oh here's the /sarcasm tag if anyone needs it)
    • ordig, on 03/16/2008, -1/+47and why not do it to all kids, or at least poor kids? You know, just in case.
      • SC4RP, on 03/17/2008, -0/+1Why not do it to all the DC crowd. That why we can tell what prison they are in.
    • DarkPrincess74, on 03/16/2008, -4/+17They could have a different chip they use for the rich kids that will be responsible for thousands of deaths and people suffering too. Oops but we don't call them criminals.
    • Mootabolife, on 03/16/2008, -3/+12Not far away. They now have fingerprint scanners as soon as you enter any park in Orlando Fl.

      The way you act as a kid has nothing to do with the adult you become. I know from first hand experience.
      • wtfunkymonkey, on 03/16/2008, -3/+10Just to play Devil's Advocate here, that's not always true. Think of all the serial killers who exhibit signs early in life, like torturing animals and the like.
        Still, it's a really bad idea.
      • Tehrooni, on 03/16/2008, -10/+1LOL
        Common, stop spreading lies on Internet.
        http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_columnist_mi ...

        Regardless, I am all for collecting DNA and any other information on potential criminals. What comes first our security or the privacy of some would-be-serial-murder???

        • KielKilla, on 03/16/2008, -3/+4Have you seen Minority Report? The system didn't work. You just lost the game.
          • Mootabolife, on 03/17/2008, -0/+1likewise, his link didn't work
          • Jashobeam5, on 03/17/2008, -0/+1I read the short story. Much more interesting than the movie, but proves the same point.
      • bamafun, on 03/17/2008, -0/+2Profiling kids........ not a good idea.
    • compulsive1, on 03/16/2008, -0/+24While we are at it, why not sterilize them when they commit their first offense?
      Eugenics is a making a comeback in England. [/scsm]
      • Tehrooni, on 03/17/2008, -6/+2I don't know what you mean by sterilize, but if it keeps them from killing and raping, let's do it.
        We now have the technology and the means to tag these bastards and keep a permanent eye on them. We can then put them away for good if they commit a second offense. I don't care how old they are. A bad apple is a bad apple. It is our collective responsibility to root the bad genes out, and throw them in the deep pits of collective garbage cans. We do this for 2-3 generations, and crime/terror will be a thing of the past. We got the technology to do it. We just need the social will.

        • phenix, on 03/17/2008, -0/+2Because human history is so full of people-groups being "handled" for their/our/someone's own good and it has always worked out so well. Right?
          • Tehrooni, on 03/17/2008, -2/+1Well we're still here and thriving, right? So even if some of the past techniques were less successful, overall we have succeeded. Now this is the age of fine tuning, and with the technology as our main tool, we won't be making as many bad mistakes as the past.
            Past does NOT dictate future! Present does. Personally, I am very comfortable with an error rate of 5 to 10%. Nothing good is free. Let's develop the techniques to identify and eliminate the bad weeds of our gene pool. If we lose a few flowers along the way, the garden will be worth it.
        • DharmaTurtle, on 03/17/2008, -0/+2Yes... because we can tell the difference between rapists and murders from normal people while they're in elementary.
          • Tehrooni, on 03/17/2008, -2/+1Yes we can. Not perfectly yet, but what this article talks about is all the techniques and technologies available to correlate certain behaviour types and DNA types to violet personalities of the worst type. Why not use that knowledge??? Like I said before, even if we lose a few good ones by mistake, it is still worth it, right?
        • Jonno549, on 03/17/2008, -0/+2Maybe we should tag and sterilize you. I read a bit of aggression and arrogance in the way you write. I think you could become a danger to society in years to come. I could be wrong, but as long as it's not more that 10% of the time, you're very comfortable with that right? The garden will be worth it.
          • Tehrooni, on 03/18/2008, -0/+1I think you are ALREADY a danger to society by wasting all that valuable oxygen.
        • Dantetheinferno, on 03/17/2008, -0/+1I'd hate to make a mistake once in my life for fear; what better motivator for people to behave than fear?
    • terrix, on 03/16/2008, -7/+1Meh, its no different then keeping fingerprint records.
      • cawpin, on 03/16/2008, -0/+7Really? You had your fingerprints taken when you got in trouble as a kid? I didn't think so.
        • Tehrooni, on 03/17/2008, -3/+1if all the little school bullies were fingerprinted as kids, they would be in jail when they committed their first few major offenses, instead of running loose for years before getting caught. It's all a question of genes. People with violent genes must be put away at the first signs, or they will infect the whole society as they have now.
          The idea in this article is ingenious. Collection of this kind of data might eventually lead to identifying the bad genes. Even if we can't treat them, we can impose abortion on mothers carrying these monsters, or even mandatory elimination if they are spotted in schools.
          We got the technology to clean up this mess. Stop being sissies and let's get to work.
    • xptoast, on 03/17/2008, -2/+3Yay for the upcomming prison state near you.

      Ha ha thats my new tshirt I will make.

      RFID Implant:
      Comming to a prison state near you!
      • nikkesen, on 03/17/2008, -1/+1You might want to proof read before you make it... otherwise people will assume you're a product of the system.
        • xptoast, on 03/17/2008, -1/+1Yea yea... I caught the spelling error after I hit submit and it went through. I have been awake way too long:(
          Also, I am a human. I am prone to mistakes as much as anyone else.
      • TheSabre, on 03/17/2008, -1/+1Well, hopefully before you put it on a t-shirt, you'll learn how to spell "upcoming" and "coming".
        • xptoast, on 03/17/2008, -1/+1Yea yea... I caught the spelling error after I hit submit and it went through. I have been awake way too long:(
          Also, I am a human. I am prone to mistakes as much as anyone else.
  • Nomadelle, on 03/16/2008, -2/+37It'd be interesting to see what they determine as behavior that indicates the child will potentially become a criminal. Will they just add this kid's DNA to their database or will they send this kid to some therapy sessions?
    • vertinox, on 03/16/2008, -1/+15Nah. They'll figure it easier to send the kid to jail when he turns 18 regardless of any criminal behavior or not.
    • Rikkochet, on 03/16/2008, -2/+6Of course not. It's just a ruse to get as big a database as possible to cross-check for DNA during crime investigations. And honestly, I'm not as opposed to the idea as I was when I started reading the article, though it still annoys me.
      I recall when I was about seven years old, my parents took me to the mall and had me fingerprinted at this RCMP station - the pretense was that if I was ever kidnapped, they could use those prints to find (or, worst case, identify) me.
      What really, really ***** me off to this day is that I know those prints just went into a police database to use AGAINST me if I'm involved in a crime.
      • PopcornDave, on 03/17/2008, -0/+3And that's exactly why those fingerprints should remain with the parents, and not the police. I'm sure that your parents had a spot that they kept important documents and anybody interested in kidnapping you isn't going to rummage about your house looking for that fingerprint sheet before they snatch you.
        • youracmee, on 03/17/2008, -0/+2I think that you have a good point; as of yet in L.A. they sample violent offenders D.N.A.for DataBase ....I am of the opinion that justice should not be prorated for future offenses. It is difficult for a person to change and become a legitimate worthy member of society...people have and can changed for the better.../ At worst...you could have all the violent criminals believe there is no restitution or absolution and they can all throw in the towel and say,"why bother , let's commit more trouble".
      • oxdeltaxo, on 03/17/2008, -0/+2Same thing happened to me. One day they sold my mom the same BS, kept a copy for them selves no doubt.
      • PueSi, on 03/17/2008, -2/+1But it's not like you are going to commit any crime, are you?
    • xptoast, on 03/17/2008, -2/+3I hope they realize that you cant judge a persons behavior that young. Like you cannot judge a kid and see if the is adhd or not. You cant really tell if you have adhd till you are an adult or at the very earliest a young adult of maybe 14. After 21 I figure you can pretty well see what a human will do. Not always though. We humans are very changeable if the circumstances are right.
      • khintzma, on 03/17/2008, -1/+2Seriously, you are wrong. There are plenty of published studies in which children are correctly diagnosed with ADHD. Of course, this unfortunately fuels the fires of overzealous doctors and lines the pockets of pharmecutical companies while children (who don't actually have this disorder) are overdiagnosed and overdrugged. Besides ADHD, children who are sexual offenders (and, yes, plenty are truthfully sex offenders, I've worked with many of them) need to receive help for their disorder at a young age, as studies have shown that if counseling and treatment is provided earlier (say, before 18 or 21), they have a much lower risk of recidivism. (sorry, my own personal tangent here). The question I would ask, is whether or not this database would be used for the sole purpose of "tagging" future criminals, in essence making it possible (and fast) to link DNA evidence to a suspect after a future crime is committed, or if it is to put their name in a searchable database which would later keep them from obtaining employment and would serve to facilitate further discrimination. (or both)
        • xptoast, on 03/17/2008, -1/+1I have adhd so I am positive I am correct with what I stated. I know how it works because I have experienced it. It changes with age. You cant figure it out before they are old enough.
  • dtele, on 03/16/2008, -6/+75If only people today learnt about the evil of Orwells' Big Brother (no not the reality TV show).
    • mentallyinhell, on 03/16/2008, -2/+41I honestly think it should be required reading in school.
      • CraigCarlyle, on 03/16/2008, -1/+11No *****, that book changed my life the first time I read it.
        • ElbertF, on 03/16/2008, -1/+7It changed my life after the second time.
      • eir574, on 03/16/2008, -0/+20It was required reading in my high school.
        • qwertylicious, on 03/16/2008, -0/+20Mine too. Still, no-one battered an eyelid when security cameras were installed in most rooms, including the toilets.

          If you haven't already guessed, I live in the UK.
          • Pixelante, on 03/16/2008, -6/+6Well, the UK is totally and irrevocably committed to the Safe Society. I wonder how Brits will ever be able to leave their CCTV-controlled island, for fear of stepping into some lawless country where citizen aren't tightly controlled by a belevolent, all-knowing State.
            Imagine being a Brit outside the Safe Society. The horror, the fear, always watching around nervously, afraid someone could (gasp!) look at them funny.
          • EmperorAwesome, on 03/16/2008, -1/+13@Pixelante
            I get the feeling the British people have little to no say in the matter. Are you suggesting that they also enjoy paying tribute tax to the queen? A government's actions don't necessarily reflect the people's will.
          • gudnbluts, on 03/16/2008, -5/+3"Are you suggesting that they also enjoy paying tribute tax to the queen?"

            Actually, yes. Most people don't mind that she's tax funded.

            "I wonder how Brits will ever be able to leave their CCTV-controlled island"

            You probably live in a country where many regular people are so terrified of crime they have to carry a weapon around.
          • Pixelante, on 03/16/2008, -1/+5@EmperorAwesome: even if they have little to no say, they can always make their voice heard. They did with the war in Iraq, even if the government didn't care. If they aren't protesting now, it means they're OK with it.

            @gudnbluts: it's so funny to see how with no clue whatsoever about where I live, you make ridiculous and totally untrue assumptions. Where I live, we're not terrified of crime and we don't have to carry a weapon around. The laws, however, allows it in some cases. We're perfectly fine, we don't have much crime, we don't need tight gun control laws, and we don't need CCTVs up our rectums.
      • john2kx, on 03/16/2008, -0/+8Same here, but I can't say how many of my classmates actually appreciate its significance today.
      • StevesJobs, on 03/17/2008, -0/+0I just read it for the first time. It was good and I like Orwell's other stuff, but to be honest it didn't really change my life.
      • sarixe, on 03/17/2008, -0/+1req'd here
      • Dantetheinferno, on 03/17/2008, -0/+2It's really sad when people do think that big brother is the T.V. show, and know nothing of the idea.
    • bingobongony, on 03/16/2008, -18/+1You DO realize it is fiction, right?
    • ralphthemagi, on 03/17/2008, -0/+0Well, at the end he learns to accept, and even come to love Big Brother... so maybe people *are* getting it.
    • widgetmaker, on 03/17/2008, -1/+1The problem is people wont react until we have teles which spy on us. Which means all the other wonderful bits of surveillance go unnoticed by most people.
  • Winston84, on 03/16/2008, -10/+109Where is it I've heard talk like that before ? Oh yes, NAZI-Germany, that's where .
    • Vergisst, on 03/16/2008, -15/+4Why was it necessary to prove Godwin right? Why?
    • MooseTaag, on 03/16/2008, -3/+32Nazi Germany kept a DNA database of naughty children?
      Oh...
      • nycmac247, on 03/16/2008, -0/+20in a way -- some of the earliest IBMs were used by Mengele (sp?) and others to track individuals with their traits being some of the data in the profile.
    • DarkPrincess74, on 03/16/2008, -3/+29Oh come on it's not like the Nazis came to power after a big attack on a building by terrorists, they didn't have a department of homeland security, they never invaded countries unilaterally, and they definitely never blindly followed their leader and let him get away with destroying everything about the country, whatever his name was.

      /s :)
      • sarixe, on 03/17/2008, -0/+2and you wonder why people deny it here...
    • maledei, on 03/16/2008, -3/+1nazi Germany could only dream of having a surveillance technology available as thorough as those now, and even they would have had scruples genetically fingerprinting children of their upright citizens.
      • Vindexus, on 03/17/2008, -1/+1--------------------------------------------
        --------------------------------------------
        They're parallel!
        • sarixe, on 03/17/2008, -0/+2| |
          | |
          | |
          | |
          | |
          | |
          | | WHO CARES?!
          | |
          | |
          | |
          | |
          | |
          | |
    • NodOfficer, on 03/17/2008, -0/+3Your papers, please.
  • 3rdDay, on 03/16/2008, -18/+2The article states "it is possible to identify future offending traits in children as young as five" and goes on : "A recent report from the think-tank Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) called for children to be targeted between the ages of five and 12 with cognitive behavioural therapy, parenting programmes and intensive support. Prevention should start young, it said, because prolific offenders typically began offending between the ages of 10 and 13." OK, identifying potential future offenders and doing something about their behaviour is one thing, but what use is adding them to a DNA database at such a young age? Only some will offend and only some of them will be apprehended due to DNA evidence but all will be tarred with the same brush by being on this database. Having said that, sure enough some psycho who likes cutting up women will be caught due to a DNA sample he gave when he was 12 and sampling will have been a good thing in that case. I'm not always sure where I stand on these issues to be honest.
    • Zarokima, on 03/16/2008, -0/+17If it infringes on the rights of a single innocent individual, it is not worth it regardless of how much good it does. Sure, in that specific example it would be nice, but what about all the other people who are in the database and never did (or will do) anything wrong? It is not worth criminalizing innocents to catch real criminals.
      • 3rdDay, on 03/16/2008, -4/+3I think it could stigmatise people rather than criminalize them, but I take your point. The fact that this proposal was made public indicates that they are testing popular opinion on this, and that it most likely will be reality one day. Another thing that makes us uneasy, but that we learn to live with.
      • noahhoward, on 03/16/2008, -10/+2If they are in a database but never do anything wrong there is no infringement to rights! My fingerprints are on file, in case I ever went missing as a kid I never went missing but there was never any infringement on my life either.

        You seem to be forgetting the rights of every other person to live. Identifying problems early helps their rights and does nothing to the rights of others.
        • noahhoward, on 03/16/2008, -7/+2Yeah figured I was wasting my time. Too many people here lack rational thought.
  • mentallyinhell, on 03/16/2008, -6/+148How long before they're just arresting "future criminals?"
    • oreonblade, on 03/16/2008, -1/+52Maybe they'll open up a special department of 'Pre-Crime'. Tom Cruise can lead it.
      • DarkPrincess74, on 03/16/2008, -0/+29Tom Cruise probably thinks he does lead a department of pre-crime.
      • mithrasinvictus, on 03/16/2008, -0/+16he'll arrest all psychiatrists and other OP's
      • mentallyinhell, on 03/16/2008, -0/+5Scientology can lead it.
      • phyx726, on 03/17/2008, -0/+2run..run..RUNN!!!!!
    • greenblob, on 03/16/2008, -1/+15Guilty until proven innocent?
  • scottpigeon, on 03/16/2008, -5/+48Gattaca anyone?
    • john2kx, on 03/16/2008, -1/+7Gazunteit.
    • springhell, on 03/16/2008, -2/+15More like Minority Report.
    • MacSuxWindozSux, on 03/17/2008, -0/+9Definately like Gattaca.
    • Shivalyn, on 03/17/2008, -0/+1Gattaca really doesn't apply in this case. They wanted the perfect person in Gattaca, they didn't really track criminals.

      It's Minority Report. When we start killing off imperfect embryos and relegating people to a lower caste because they're not genetically perfect, then you've got Gattaca.
      • MacSuxWindozSux, on 03/17/2008, -0/+1It's like Gattaca not Minority Report.

        In Gattaca they were pre-screening people based on DNA, for ciminal behaviour, health, talent.
        That's a lot like this behavioral screening for kids.

        In Minority Report all manner of people were being arrested before they committed crimes, because the police could see the future.
        A shallow and weak correlation.

        The real issue behind this article is that screening kids behavior for criminal tendencies leads to society branding people as unfit, unclean, or criminal before they have ever had a chance to makes something of themselves. "Degenerates" That's the message of Gattaca.
  • zombo, on 03/16/2008, -8/+15I would take it a step further and add the rest of the child's family to the database.
  • moletimer, on 03/16/2008, -7/+77This is ***** crazy. 1984 is here.
    • Vergisst, on 03/16/2008, -10/+4Not even close.
    • XXXXXXXXXXXXXX, on 03/16/2008, -15/+6Most whored around statement ever. Seriously, you ***** say that in every other article.
      • byrdgang, on 03/17/2008, -2/+2...and you idiot roam around with a Ron Paul avatar without actually being a Ron Paul supporter.
    • DarkPrincess74, on 03/16/2008, -5/+1Shhh big brother is watching!
    • bxblox, on 03/16/2008, -1/+7It was 24 years ago.
    • dobesov, on 03/16/2008, -4/+2Its almost as if everyone who says that HAS NEVER READ THE BOOK.. since it has nothing to do with this subject whatsoever. The closest thing to 1984 I have seen in modern times is the way in which the republican party banded together for the preservation of the party with disregard to actual policy. Now, that is like 1984.
      • AmusedToDeath, on 03/16/2008, -1/+4Um, I get the feeling you've never read the book either. Although they aren't taking DNA samples in Orwell's book, there are clear thematic correlations, e.g. constant state surveillance.
    • Segphault1, on 03/17/2008, -0/+3Forget 1984, this is class war at it's finest.
  • macwac, on 03/16/2008, -6/+50One teaching union warned that it was a step towards a 'police state'. - excuse me? UK is already a police state you have CCTV on every street corner. Get your thumbs out and do something about it, before other countries look to UK as a role model.
    • unclemeat, on 03/16/2008, -12/+12CCTV doesn't equate to police state. Sure there's a crazy amount of CCTV around, but it really doesn't effect our freedoms. It's not like they're putting CCTV up in our houses. We don't have a secret police dragging people out of their homes because of their political affiliation, or anything of that sort. I'm not even sure we have wiretaps, like the US. Calling the UK a police state is sensationalist.
      • thatcoolrushguy, on 03/16/2008, -5/+12"We don't have a secret police dragging people out of their homes because of their political affiliation, or anything of that sort."

        Not yet you don't.
        • theright, on 03/16/2008, -10/+7Slippery slope logical fallacy
          • Jambi, on 03/16/2008, -2/+10Not in this case, since we have dozens if not hundreds of historical examples to illustrate that if power concentrates in the hands of a few, abuse of that power is in inevitable result.
          • theright, on 03/17/2008, -0/+1Yes, that's great.

            Please explain to me how the issue of "power concentrat[ing] in the hands of a few" is in any way relevant to either this article, or the general state of affairs in the UK. How is the director of forensics at Scotland Yard calling for a debate on proactive approaches to identify potential criminals a matter of consolidating power of leaders here in the UK?
        • unclemeat, on 03/16/2008, -4/+7And remind me why we will? I feel the need to remind people what a police state is. From Wiki:

          The term police state is a term for a state in which the government exercises rigid and repressive controls over the social, economic and political life of the population, especially by means of a secret police force which operates outside the boundaries normally imposed by a constitutional republic.

          This isn't England.
        • frazw, on 03/16/2008, -2/+5Yes but when compared to the US we have laws in place that protect us from such things that you don't.
          Plus, if you wanna talk police state, how's that wire tapping thing going? The US is closer to a police state than here.
          Besides this DNA thing will not go through, it is a privacy violation that is a vote loser.
      • spyd3rweb, on 03/17/2008, -2/+7Having CCTV everywhere sure as hell affects your freedom. People behave very differently when being watched.
        • HonestAbe, on 03/17/2008, -1/+2You're already on camera 90% of the time you're outside, and you don't even notice.
    • Tronus, on 03/17/2008, -0/+1I totally agree with the two other posts but would like to add another way it affects your freedom along side spyd3rwabs.

      CCTV changes the way people behave and there are several studies that show it stops petty crime and aids prosecution. Its real strong point however is the images it takes of crime happening that can then be used by the media. The horrific murder of Jamie Bulger [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamie_Bulger ] in 1993 can be seen as the turning point: The released footage didn't help in any way to stop the crime but managed to stir up fear and hatred on a previously unprecedented scale in the UK. Since then the government and media have used this to routinely illustrate terrorism, pedophiles, gun crime etc

      When we are increasingly shown images of crime happening all around us, we logically begin to fear our environment without basing our fear on personal experience. For example more people have died falling off ladders than through terrorist attacks in the UK over the last 10 years [ see http://students.washington.edu/brandond/terror.htm ... for something similar in the USA] yet we will far more readily accept changes to our law because of the latter. CCTV may not directly affect the way we behave but it helps make us WANT to live in the police state and thats even more scary!
    • TheOneTrueGod, on 03/17/2008, -0/+2I just read today that the Chinese state television is called "CCTV", which I find kind of funny.
  • Ninh, on 03/16/2008, -1/+25Are all the police officers and their kin on record yet? Just want to make sure, nothing is getting swept under the rug here ...
  • syroncoda, on 03/16/2008, -3/+26wow the fearmonger in england has gotten really bad. soon they'll start getting more and more dna samples from political activists and the days of "V for vendetta" become more of a reality. 5 year olds being genetically sampled? ***** that.
  • macwac, on 03/16/2008, -4/+83WAIT WAIT WAIT?? WHAT??? (last paragraph)

    "Last week it emerged that the number of 10 to 18-year-olds placed on the DNA database after being arrested will have reached around 1.5 million this time next year. Since 2004 police have had the power to take DNA samples from anyone over the age of 10 who is arrested, regardless of whether they are later charged, convicted, or found to be innocent."

    - ARE YOU KIDDING ME?? they take DNA samples already?? I'm at a loss of words... if this was to ever happen in my country I think there would be a riot!
    • mooseontheloose, on 03/16/2008, -6/+40What country is that? I know it isn't America because Americans don't really give a ***** about anything other than who's getting voted out on American Idol and what the new Coke flavor is going to be
      • boxybrzown, on 03/16/2008, -1/+21New coke flavor? ***** yeah!
      • logan074, on 03/16/2008, -0/+9Cherry vanilla diet caffeine free coke with lemon!!!
      • macwac, on 03/17/2008, -0/+1Scandinavia the home of TPB and open-source usage, we take our liberties serious.
    • talonstriker, on 03/16/2008, -2/+40"if this was to ever happen in my country I think there would be a riot!"
      No there wouldn't. (I'm assuming you're in the US) As much as you'd like to think otherwise, the reality is that people would make some noise at first, then will just accept it for what it is. That's the sad truth.
      • carpespasm, on 03/16/2008, -1/+7That or some people would make noise and try to fight it, then be forced to try and fight something more despicable after the apathetic masses stop caring. A few of them will continue trying to fight any given injustice, but usually not enough to make much noise. You also lose more and more of this kind of person to other countries as your own tightens up more and more i would imagine.
      • HonestAbe, on 03/17/2008, -1/+1Blame the TV
      • macwac, on 03/17/2008, -0/+1Scandinavia my friend. We take our liberty serious.
    • aukxsona, on 03/16/2008, -13/+5It's against GOD there fore there actually would be riots.
      • HonestAbe, on 03/17/2008, -1/+4English, please.
      • TheOneTrueGod, on 03/17/2008, -0/+1Dude. I hate dogs, so they're technically against me. But I see no riots, just "cute doggy doggy nice" and *****.
    • XXXXXXXXXXXXXX, on 03/16/2008, -14/+3OH MY GOD IT'S ALREADY BAD ENOUGH TTHAT THEY TAKE FINGERPRINTS BUT DNA?!!!?!:"?
    • bethehammer, on 03/17/2008, -0/+7Fourth paragraph a big WTF
      "However, he said the notion of universal sampling - everyone being forced to give their genetic samples to the database - is currently prohibited by cost and logistics."
      cost and logistics? How about privacy and human rights?????
    • Picaroon, on 03/17/2008, -0/+4If by "riot" you mean "court case in which such a move would eventually be found unconstitutional," then I agree.
      • aukxsona, on 03/17/2008, -0/+1Yes, I was being overly dramatic....
    • HonestAbe, on 03/17/2008, -1/+4OMG ThEY TAKE FINGERPRINTS ALReADY?!?!!
    • praha, on 03/17/2008, -0/+2"if this was to ever happen in my country..." You're not in the US then. Since early 1994, all military 'volunteer' blood samples for DNA history.
      I remember it clearly: pooled into a set of three, 2" diameter, foiled dishes obviously made for long-term storage. Saw it again when getting out, still stuck in my perm. file.
    • mgnesium, on 03/17/2008, -3/+1How dare we have something on file about our criminals that's a little more concrete and long-term than a name that can be changed or lied about, physical appearances which can be altered (surgically or not), and fingerprints which are subject to change over time and not applicable in all situations.

      As things stand now, if you move to another state, fake your SSN, lie about your name, dye your hair, and grow a beard, it becomes exceedingly difficult for anyone to catch you for whatever. There is no huge national database of much of anything in America at the moment, so someone arrested in California for a crime similar to one in New York (which he also committed and was a suspect of, but escaped) may not even be flagged in the system or notify case officers in NY, even if he's using the exact same name. National DNA database means BOOP, got you.
  • slayerab, on 03/16/2008, -2/+22Watch out for the quiet ones, they may seem good and all, but thats because they are busy planning something diabolical
    • Endit, on 03/16/2008, -0/+5Exactly! Nobody knows about them anyways until they do something big (rape/murder/etc) but up until that point they're saints. It's a flawed system. You'd have to be caught for this work.
  • Adamande, on 03/16/2008, -1/+23The FISA bill in the US, childhood selection and chipping of prisoners in Britain and banning internet-access in Japan and France. The entire Western world is moving towards fascism. It's like a pandemic. I'm about ready to believe every NWO-conspiracy theory in the book, now.
  • DrShotgun, on 03/16/2008, -3/+58" Alpha children wear grey They work much harder than we do, because they're so frightfully clever. I'm really awfuly glad I'm a Beta, because I don't work so hard. And then we are much better than the Gammas and Deltas. Gammas are stupid. They all wear green, and Delta children wear khaki. Oh no, I don't want to play with Delta children. And Epsilons are still worse. They're too stupid to be able to read or write. Besides they wear black, which is such a beastly colour. I'm so glad I'm a Beta. "
    Aldous Huxley, Brave New World.
    • wetard57, on 03/16/2008, -1/+17"One hundred repetitions three nights a week for four years, thought Bernard Marx, who was a specialist on hypnopædia. Sixty-two thousand four hundred repetitions make one truth. Idiots!"
    • boxybrzown, on 03/16/2008, -10/+4(Insert random quote from a novel set in a dystopian future)
  • silentphoenix, on 03/16/2008, -2/+10people change you know....
  • stutimandal, on 03/16/2008, -1/+12Why not teach science, arts, appreciation, individuality, and freedom to the kids with bad DNA? Why do you have to segregate the bad kid into bad books from childhood? A young plant can be shaped till it becomes a tree.
    • theright, on 03/16/2008, -4/+3You've never met a chav, have you?
      • Jambi, on 03/16/2008, -1/+5I have. Amazing as it sounds, they are actual human beings, albeit steeped in a culture of violence and idiocy.
  • siszam, on 03/16/2008, -7/+36When Alex Jones talks about this he's called a crazy conspiracy theorist. This and a lot worse is going on. Pay attention to the news.
    • bingobongony, on 03/16/2008, -9/+9Alex Jiobnes just doesn't talk about it. He goes off on insane tirades about it and everything even remotely related to it. And Alex Jones os crazy becuae of 9/11, and how RFID is inherently "the mark of the beast" and many other things.

      Then again, he himself admits that about half of what he posts ion his website HE doesn't believe. He says it is not hisjob to weed out the crap from the real stuff. It is his readers job to do that.
      • SquigglyP, on 03/16/2008, -2/+7It's not crazy to want to look deeper into things - especially things that might be frightening to look into. What's crazy is that most people don't give a ***** one way or the other.
        • bingobongony, on 03/16/2008, -4/+4It IS crazy to continuing to spew the same ***** after being thoroughly proven wrong.

          If you consider Alex Jones a stable individual, I don't give ***** what you ahve to say. Because you do not live in the same reality that the rest of us do. You are worthless.
        • SquigglyP, on 03/17/2008, -0/+1I never said I agreed with any of his views. He just happens to be one of those people who will dig into something knowing full well that he'll probably turn up some kind of scary information. To him, that's his job, and he does it for your benefit - regardless of whether or not you agree with him. I like having guys like him around, tho I don't think 9/11 was faked, or that the US had anything to do with it directly. I'm not going to shut off all of the possibilities tho. If he were to come up with the smoking gun video or image that proves beyond a doubt that a missile hit the pentagon, then I'd be interested in that information. As it stands I think he's got a lot of good ideas and a lot of kind of wacky ones.

          So yeah. Learn to read.
    • GhostyBoy, on 03/16/2008, -2/+8Lots of conspiracy theorists are a little paranoid, but the reason we have that blanket term is discourage people from looking into the often criminal behavior of our politicians.
    • HonestAbe, on 03/17/2008, -1/+2Paying attention to the news is exactly what makes everyone so apathetic to their loss of rights. Stop watching TV and learn something for a change.
  • ElBeh, on 03/16/2008, -28/+2It's not really that big of a deal...
    • robbinzo, on 03/16/2008, -1/+12YES IT IS YOU ***** *****!
      • commenter01, on 03/16/2008, -0/+5That's an automatic RFID implant for you, mister.
        • robbinzo, on 03/16/2008, -0/+4Sorry, I keep forgetting that my government loves me.

          “Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them. The Party intellectual knows in which direction his memories must be altered; he therefore knows that he is playing tricks with reality; but by the exercise of doublethink he also satisfies himself that reality is not violated. The process has to be conscious, or it would not be carried out with sufficient precision, but it also has to be unconscious, or it would bring with it a feeling of falsity and hence of guilt.”
  • EffYoo, on 03/16/2008, -2/+15Better yet, put microchips in their brains so that anytime they think about comitting a crime we'll know about it. Then we can make lists of suspects for hypothetical crimes and round 'em all up whenever one of them actually occurs
    • Flummoxer, on 03/16/2008, -4/+1Yeah, like you can just put a microchip in someone's brain and know what they're thinking....
      • masterm1nd, on 03/16/2008, -1/+4Getting close, without the microchip... only talking about simple things though, not a full reading exactly what they're thinking.
        • masterm1nd, on 03/16/2008, -2/+2Wait, never mind. That wouldn't be feasible to monitor everyone.
        • Jashobeam5, on 03/17/2008, -0/+2BIg deal, so the world would learn that all men think about is women and all women think about is chocolate.
    • RevoFM, on 03/16/2008, -0/+0I'd be in big trouble then >.>
    • Endit, on 03/16/2008, -0/+1Everybody with microchips would think of doing something horrible all at once and crash the computers monitoring them.
      • mgnesium, on 03/17/2008, -0/+0Someone would have to organize that, so we'd know about it beforehand.
        • Jashobeam5, on 03/17/2008, -0/+1Nah, eventually the computer storing all that info will become so depressed it will try to comit suicide. I predict it will use a boy named Ben.
    • TheOneTrueGod, on 03/17/2008, -0/+1I wonder if the Tourette effect would produce a highscore and invalidate the whole system.
  • Mikhail101, on 03/16/2008, -7/+4Well i think the idea is good but it is bad application, it should be done to those kids who murder and rape but are too young to stand trial because of their age.
  • SquigglyP, on 03/16/2008, -1/+29Guilty until proven innocent?
    • bingobongony, on 03/16/2008, -11/+1They are not just doing it to random kids who get scolded at school, idiot.
      • SquigglyP, on 03/16/2008, -0/+3Exactly. The assumption they're making is that these kids will grow up to be murderers and rapists. If that were the case then I must be WAY behind on my murdering and raping, cause I was a deviant when i was a kid. But then, most kids are.
        • frazw, on 03/16/2008, -0/+2Nah kids are deviants any more, they just all have ADHD, but that's ok because we can prescribe drugs for that. Then you don't have to worry about children doing childish things.
          Bit like Equilibrium now I think about it.
    • shadow0lf, on 03/16/2008, -0/+0yea thats pretty much it.
  • butterflypiglet, on 03/16/2008, -1/+4In a way I don't think it's fair to label kids as criminals yet not knowing for sure if they really are going to be or not. I believe you would be giving these kids a complex before they grow up but great article.
    • brettmurf, on 03/17/2008, -0/+1My friends and just last week were discussing some of our former 'friends' throughout elementary to high school that always seemed like a bad seed.
      We came to the conclusion that 95% of the kids that seemed bad even as far back as like second grade are still ***** later down the road in life. A good portion of them had been in jail already or were doing something illegal as their main activity.
      I thought it was kind of interesting to see that it really does seem like kids that seem a bit off, even at young ages, tended to continue that roll throughout their life. Definitely don't think this DNA bit is a good idea though, but they kind of do have a point. It might not be the kids' faults, but their parents and upbringing aren't changing anytime soon and a lot of them only get worse with age.
  • nycmac247, on 03/16/2008, -1/+10OK - but cops and politicians get it first and lose their job if there's any potential of trouble
  • xs11ax, on 03/16/2008, -5/+3crimethink
  • eddy23170, on 03/16/2008, -3/+7why stop there?...implant something that will taze you when you do something "wrong" like run a read light or forget your girls b-day....I got tazed by her last year....sucked...
  • theskyisblue, on 03/16/2008, -1/+11wtf? this is like a primitive form of stuff from minority report
    • HonestAbe, on 03/17/2008, -1/+1Such a stupid ending. Obviously you need to use the psychics to predict future murders, stop the murders, and then put everyone through counseling instead of locking them up for something they never did. Oh, sci-fi.
  • butterflypiglet, on 03/16/2008, -2/+0In a way I do not think it is fair labeling these young kids as a criminial before they become one. I do believe that you would be giving them a complex and maybe even cause them to do crime because they were labeled before they even committed. But I love the article.
  • phillykid162, on 03/16/2008, -4/+15*Scratches UK off of visit list*
    Guess I'll never see Muse play live at Wembley....
    • robbinzo, on 03/16/2008, -0/+11This is happening all over the world. We're supposed to think that our governments are incompetent but they somehow manage to put in place this intricate surveillance grid all by accident.
  • xs11ax, on 03/16/2008, -1/+16cant we just unite and have a revolution or something?
    • Acewrap, on 03/16/2008, -0/+7Uh, that uniting thing didn't work out too well a while back. How about you guys play the colonies this time?
  • commenter01, on 03/16/2008, -2/+9the UK has been in this sort of police state for a while now. my question is why? was it 9/11? anyone know?
    • hplasm, on 03/16/2008, -1/+89/11- The Great Enabler.
      • commenter01, on 03/16/2008, -0/+4was it really just 9/11? what was going on in the UK before?
        • 35263526, on 03/17/2008, -1/+2It wasn't 9/11. Blair's Labour government made all the prior temporary anti-terrorism legislation (brought in to deal with Irish terrorism) permanent before 9/11. I'm not sure exactly what it was that started it off, to be honest. It's not as if terrorism is new to the U.K.; the afore-mentioned Irish terrorists have been attacking targets in Britain for the last hundred years, however, it seems to be a Labour thing, given that all this stuff starting happening with them, and both the Conservatives and Lib Dems tend to oppose it.
    • Jashobeam5, on 03/17/2008, -0/+1It started when the gov't removed guns from the hands of lawful citizens.
  • Jmuduke, on 03/16/2008, -1/+11this is nothing more than an effort to create a global surveillance grid to track everyone. Everyone has the right to their own body, this is disgusting.
  • BradMajors, on 03/16/2008, -3/+9This is not as bad as a previous proposal of putting victims of childhood sexual abuse in adult sex offender databases because it is statistically likely that adult sexual offenders were sexually abused while children.
  • aunjar, on 03/16/2008, -1/+9This reeks of that motion picture "The Minority Report". It's almost like playing God. People can change if there is some intervention...
    • bingobongony, on 03/16/2008, -11/+1How does it do this? How is having your DNA on file the same as being incarcerated?
      • satanswetnipple, on 03/16/2008, -0/+6You are obviously for DNA tracking... So what was it like going to the police station to voluntarily give your DNA sample just in case your DNA (or someone with a close enough match) shows up at any crime scene?

        You haven't? ***** coward hypocrite! Go be the first you brave man... then come and be self righteous!
        • logan074, on 03/16/2008, -2/+1Just because he does not go to the police station to submit it does not mean that he would not give it up if they came and asked for it.
        • bingobongony, on 03/16/2008, -4/+1What a weak argument you have there. I guess that goes with the weak mind.

          The fact of the matter is...comapring this to Minority Report and incarcerating people for POTENTIAL crimes is ridiculous.
          If you don;t have a problem with fingerprinting then you shouldn't have a problem with this.

          Oh..and name one one case where DNA evidence found an innocent person GUILTY. I would be more than happy to give a sample because I will never commit any crimes. And having my DNA to compare would make it FAR less likely that I would be falsely convicted of a crime. For all intentns and purposes, there is no such thing as"similar DNA". The courts would not say "Hey, his DNA is sort of like the one found at the crime scene, so he must be guilty."
          • JDove6, on 03/17/2008, -0/+1For the most part, I agree with you, besides your arrogance considering your "strong mind" can't even type/spell correctly.
            I guess you've never heard of blackmail...theres always the possibility someone could find a hair or somehow fetch some sort of sample and plant it on a scene. Its much easier to do this with a DNA sample of some sort than transplanting fingerprints.
  • bromac, on 03/16/2008, -1/+25You Brits need to pull another Magna Carta.
  • slutjammer, on 03/16/2008, -1/+13I'll give those cops a DNA sample right to the face son.
    • bryik, on 03/16/2008, -0/+10Does that mean you will shoot your load over an entire police force?
      • slutjammer, on 03/17/2008, -1/+0yes, I mean a 2... er 4... er 5 million face load blowing is just a warm up. i got enough goo for canada too.
  • InfeImmo, on 03/16/2008, -5/+3Why do we take "think-tanks" seriously.. The last time I remember seeing 'em in the news, they were trying to help justify neo-con doctrines, and now this?
  • TheUserFactor, on 03/16/2008, -3/+9How about we just snip the testicles of violent or otherwise disturbed individuals, and remove them from the gene pool?
    • satanswetnipple, on 03/16/2008, -2/+6Because the Police wouldn't like their balls chopped off.
    • hplasm, on 03/16/2008, -1/+5Because they already have 7 offspring already, each with different girls?
  • springhell, on 03/16/2008, -3/+8Why oh why isn't this a joke?
  • Khast, on 03/16/2008, -1/+12Little Johnny was just acting like a 5 year old child...now he has a permanent record.

    sarcasm
    Why don't they just DNA tag us when we are born, it'll save 'em a lot of time and effort.
    /sarcasm
    • imgstacke, on 03/17/2008, -0/+1Be careful what you ask for, you might just get it. If not you, then your children.
  • smotpoker1, on 03/16/2008, -2/+6put every one of those cops and their families on that damned dna list
    • crhein, on 03/17/2008, -0/+2Instead, how about we put no one at all on these DNA lists?
  • moontime, on 03/16/2008, -1/+8Minority Report...
  • rroberts45, on 03/16/2008, -6/+3Not really new. I was fingerprinted when I went through basic training. I understand that my prints are readily available to police agencies, even though I have no criminal record. Police don't care about your rights, they just want to find criminals. It has ever been thus.
  • lauralyn, on 03/16/2008, -1/+8ever heard of the power of suggestion? it's going to result in a wave of screwed up teens. I would like to know what actions could condemn these kids to this identity.
  • noahhoward, on 03/16/2008, -17/+2It's a very good idea with no impact at all to anyones rights and no potential for abuse but I don't expect anyone here to realise that.
    • jameskong15, on 03/17/2008, -0/+4Have a good look at labeling theory, then come on back.
  • Look4Truth, on 03/16/2008, -1/+14The globalists make me sick, they can take their police state mentality and shove it.
    • dealseeker, on 03/17/2008, -2/+3Lovely sentiment. What are you doing about the issue, exactly?
      • Ricemanstm, on 03/17/2008, -2/+2Bitching on Digg and feeling mentally and morally superior.
  • allenk77, on 03/16/2008, -1/+3This sounds like a civil rights violations. Crossing the law if they were ever needing some evidence like that would never be a good situation though. You just hope the samples wouldn't fall into the wrong hands.
  • GorfTron, on 03/16/2008, -5/+10Quite a few of these violent kids end up on the police force, so this might not be all bad. The genetically violent can't be cops, haha.
    • yingjai, on 03/16/2008, -2/+7A: why did you become a cop?
      B: because i like to tackle people.
      A: isn't it because you want to eliminate crime?
      B: are you kidding? criminals never sleep, but we do.
    • satanswetnipple, on 03/16/2008, -1/+4I saw your comment after a refresh. I agree totally, but I know they will just remove the new officers from the DNA database...
    • jameskong15, on 03/17/2008, -0/+2The problem is that you would also get people who are considered genetically violent, but in reality are not being denied employment paths for no reason.

      Here, let me create some arbitrary tests that can classify you as an idiot at age 5 and from now on you are only allowed to work at a fast-food joint, fun stuff, right?
      • Jashobeam5, on 03/17/2008, -0/+1That was also a short story. The kids all line up on the first and only day of school. They are tested and then their futures are decided. Each child is assigned a career/job and all their education is then implanted into their minds at once. They are discouraged from studying things outside their given area. Those who balk are taken away, oddly enough to become computer programmers who help decide the lives of the ones who don't balk.
  • ElRayQuieres, on 03/16/2008, -20/+2Why are you guys so upset over this? DNA can't be used to incriminate innocent people. And any illegal way to fake DNA evidence wouldn't be effected by this. This isn't intrusive either. The only rights of these children that this would effect is their "right" to attempt to avoid being found guilty of a crime that they committed.
    • satanswetnipple, on 03/16/2008, -1/+5Have you actually looked up the accuracy of DNA testing? I already know the answer, though I doubt you will truthfully answer it.

      First of all, any error rate means that there WILL eventually be innocent people jailed.

      The real secret to DNA testing is that it can be incredibly accurate, or only very accurate. Because of the amount of work, and the cost of the best quality tests, the police only use "very accurate" testing. Depending on the country, and the test, this can be a 99% accuracy to a 99.9% accuracy. That means that there is a 1 in 100 chance to a 1 in 1000 chance that the test is incorrect. The police to not talk about it much, but crime scenes with no suspects are crossed referenced with DNA databases already with varying results. They can and do come up with more than one DNA match. They can and do come up with one match, then later have to drop the suspect because he/she has a rock solid alibi hundreds of miles away.

      When EVERY naughty child is on a database like this, and the police are getting 10 DNA matches, they are bound to find two or three people with no alibi... then they just need to prosecute the suspect they do not like the most.

      This situation is a tragedy, but what makes it even worse is that after an innocent person is jailed because he/she won the "Police Lotto", the guilty person is waking the street... a person who may have never been naughty as a child, so is not on the DNA database.
      • frazw, on 03/17/2008, -0/+4The real problem with DNA testing is the faith a jury has in it. They believe it is 100% accurate and even if they are told it is 99% accurate, that still seems perfect to most people doesn't it. Even if the person had an alibi, the jury is probably more likely to believe the DNA evidence over the alibi.
      • ElRayQuieres, on 03/17/2008, -1/+1http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_fingerprintin ...
        Your numbers are horribly inaccurate. There is no better form of evidence, so do you propose that no one should ever be incriminated because there is a .00000001% chance that they are innocent?
      • inajeep, on 03/17/2008, -1/+1It's still more reliable than eye witnesses.
    • Travelsonic, on 03/16/2008, -1/+5If you truely believe that "the only rights of these children that this would effect is their "right" to attempt to avoid being found guilty of a crime that they committed.", you sir are a fool.

      Last time I checked, children need to be protected against things they didn't do too.
    • hplasm, on 03/16/2008, -1/+1You are so wrong- you must be kidding?
    • frazw, on 03/17/2008, -1/+3Where do you stop? Is it a violation of your privacy rights to take DNA samples from unwilling innocent citizens? Is it a violation of your privacy rights to take your fingerprints? Is it a violation of your rights to scan your brain for dark thoughts uncovering everything you ever said, did or dreamed? It's ok though if it prevents crime right?
      What this really comes down to is how much freedom are you prepared to give up in order to prevent crime?
      Would you give up enough to stop all crime?
      I do not see why any innocent person should have to give up any human right. I don't believe all criminals should be on a DNA register either only those who physically harm others not thieves etc. If you are charged with a crime and later proven innocent your data should be removed. Punish the criminals, protect the innocent. Start making assumptions about guilt and we are on a very dark path indeed.
    • jameskong15, on 03/17/2008, -1/+1Labeling theory, good day, sir.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 108 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.