8 ms·

“Information about people believed to be “at risk” of becoming criminals or victims of harm is shared between civilian agencies and police and is added to the d

“Information about people believed to be “at risk” of becoming criminals or victims of harm is shared between civilian agencies and police and is added to the database when a person is being evaluated for a rapid intervention intended to lower their risk levels.” Remind anybody else of precrime from minority report?

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
laumars 7y ago
First of all I want to say that I don't agree with the collection of this data. ...however there is an important distinction with Minority Report in that people were convicted of crimes based on premonitions. If this data was instead used to support at risk people - like how disruptive kids at school are often given support to help enable them to grow into better people - then I'd be more sympathetic with the motives. For example "at risk" people might be those from less affluent or educated backgrounds who might be resentful but they might just need a little help to realise they too have opportunities and potential. The problem is, once you have this data, it becomes increasingly small steps from using it to enable those who need help the most to abusing it to persecute those who are already neglected by society.
- tempguy9999 7y ago
  > help enable them to grow into better people Wow, 'better people' - that's loaded and almost completely unspecified here. That's ripe for abuse. "become christian, god will make you a better person" "do as you're told, obey orders, you'll be a better person" "don't disrupt the teacher even if they're wrong, people don't like 'clever' people" I could go on all day. That's the thin end of a dangerous wedge. I don't like conformists.
  - laumars 7y ago
    You're looking for outrage rather than trying to understand point I'm making and in doing so you've gotten the wrong end of the proverbial stick. I'm not saying everyone should conform, I'm just saying some people need more help than others to make a life for themselves. Sometimes it's because of substance abuse, sometimes it's because of mental, physical or sexual abuse as a kid that leads them into a pattern of bad behaviour. Sometimes it's just circumstances or a mental attitude that is less dramatic than the aforementioned. But in each case it's better to work with them to help enable them to lead happy lives rather than ignore them, outcast them and then incarcerate them because they had nowhere else to turn. If people are just disruptive because they're smart then they're just disruptive because they're smart. They're not an "at risk" group. By "at risk" we're talking people who turn to crime because they felt it was their only option in life. What I was talking about is supporting them so they realise they do have options. If they then choose crime, well that's then their choice. But in many instances people actually don't want that when they realise they have options in their life.
    - tempguy9999 7y ago
      I didn't do a very good job here, and my last line really should have been omitted. I agree with your original post, and this one too (will upvote both) but I am really wary of the potential for abuse that trying to help people become 'better' people can become. A really ugly actual example from about 1969: "Because homosexuality has been considered an endemic and deep-rooted condition since times of antiquity, hopes for its alleviation, until very recent times, have been faint. But lately, since other resistant mental aberrations have been overcome by new methods, somewhat drastic treatments are being used and advocated for the homosexual in some quarters." And I emphasis, this is just one example, I could produce others in other fields. All I'm saying is be very careful about the meaning of 'better'. Anyway, I do actually agree with you overall.
      - jammygit 7y ago
        Alberta used to perform forced sterilization upon people with physical and mental disabilities. I don’t want the government going near people for their own good https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/alberta-apologizes-for-forced-sterilization-1.169579 https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/alberta-apologizes-for-forced...
- bitwize 7y ago
  The government can make your life miserable in a myriad of ways without a criminal conviction under the rubric of "public safety" or other measures that technically do not count as punishments, but nevertheless have the effect of punishment. If all that is necessary is for the cops to adjudge you "at risk", that can easily devolve into a Judge Dredd situation wherein responding officers determine guilt (or "risk") and take action without burdensome arrest or trial procedures. For example, the sex offender registry has been ruled by the U.S. Supreme Court to be a public safety measure, not a punishment, and thus exempt from scrutiny under the Eighth Amendment. The new frontier in sex law enforcement will be mandatory registration for those considered to be "at risk" of sex offenses. This is already a thing in the UK: a man acquitted of rape was nevertheless considered at risk of committing rape by the cops, and they petitioned for and got an order from a judge compelling the man to register his name, address, and all online contact information with the police.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
DanBC 7y ago
No. I am reminded of the many coroner's inquest reports I've read where agencies refused to share information with each other because they misunderstood laws about privacy, and then someone dies a self-inflicted death. Very often the families of those who died had been telling agencies, for some time, that they were concerned about their loved-one, but were being ignored by those agencies. This is why national strategy in England includes consensus statements on information sharing. These consensus statements lay out the law (which hasn't changed; there's still a legal duty to maintain confidentiality), and when it is or isn't ok to share information and who can do that. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/271792/Consensus_statement_on_information_sharing.pdf https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

laumars 7y ago

First of all I want to say that I don't agree with the collection of this data. ...however there is an important distinction with Minority Report in that people were convicted of crimes based on premonitions. If this data was instead used to support at risk people - like how disruptive kids at school are often given support to help enable them to grow into better people - then I'd be more sympathetic with the motives. For example "at risk" people might be those from less affluent or educated backgrounds who might be resentful but they might just need a little help to realise they too have opportunities and potential. The problem is, once you have this data, it becomes increasingly small steps from using it to enable those who need help the most to abusing it to persecute those who are already neglected by society.

tempguy9999 7y ago
> help enable them to grow into better people Wow, 'better people' - that's loaded and almost completely unspecified here. That's ripe for abuse. "become christian, god will make you a better person" "do as you're told, obey orders, you'll be a better person" "don't disrupt the teacher even if they're wrong, people don't like 'clever' people" I could go on all day. That's the thin end of a dangerous wedge. I don't like conformists.
- laumars 7y ago
  You're looking for outrage rather than trying to understand point I'm making and in doing so you've gotten the wrong end of the proverbial stick. I'm not saying everyone should conform, I'm just saying some people need more help than others to make a life for themselves. Sometimes it's because of substance abuse, sometimes it's because of mental, physical or sexual abuse as a kid that leads them into a pattern of bad behaviour. Sometimes it's just circumstances or a mental attitude that is less dramatic than the aforementioned. But in each case it's better to work with them to help enable them to lead happy lives rather than ignore them, outcast them and then incarcerate them because they had nowhere else to turn. If people are just disruptive because they're smart then they're just disruptive because they're smart. They're not an "at risk" group. By "at risk" we're talking people who turn to crime because they felt it was their only option in life. What I was talking about is supporting them so they realise they do have options. If they then choose crime, well that's then their choice. But in many instances people actually don't want that when they realise they have options in their life.
  - tempguy9999 7y ago
    I didn't do a very good job here, and my last line really should have been omitted. I agree with your original post, and this one too (will upvote both) but I am really wary of the potential for abuse that trying to help people become 'better' people can become. A really ugly actual example from about 1969: "Because homosexuality has been considered an endemic and deep-rooted condition since times of antiquity, hopes for its alleviation, until very recent times, have been faint. But lately, since other resistant mental aberrations have been overcome by new methods, somewhat drastic treatments are being used and advocated for the homosexual in some quarters." And I emphasis, this is just one example, I could produce others in other fields. All I'm saying is be very careful about the meaning of 'better'. Anyway, I do actually agree with you overall.
    - jammygit 7y ago
      Alberta used to perform forced sterilization upon people with physical and mental disabilities. I don’t want the government going near people for their own good https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/alberta-apologizes-for-forced-sterilization-1.169579 https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/alberta-apologizes-for-forced...
bitwize 7y ago
The government can make your life miserable in a myriad of ways without a criminal conviction under the rubric of "public safety" or other measures that technically do not count as punishments, but nevertheless have the effect of punishment. If all that is necessary is for the cops to adjudge you "at risk", that can easily devolve into a Judge Dredd situation wherein responding officers determine guilt (or "risk") and take action without burdensome arrest or trial procedures. For example, the sex offender registry has been ruled by the U.S. Supreme Court to be a public safety measure, not a punishment, and thus exempt from scrutiny under the Eighth Amendment. The new frontier in sex law enforcement will be mandatory registration for those considered to be "at risk" of sex offenses. This is already a thing in the UK: a man acquitted of rape was nevertheless considered at risk of committing rape by the cops, and they petitioned for and got an order from a judge compelling the man to register his name, address, and all online contact information with the police.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]

DanBC 7y ago

No. I am reminded of the many coroner's inquest reports I've read where agencies refused to share information with each other because they misunderstood laws about privacy, and then someone dies a self-inflicted death. Very often the families of those who died had been telling agencies, for some time, that they were concerned about their loved-one, but were being ignored by those agencies. This is why national strategy in England includes consensus statements on information sharing. These consensus statements lay out the law (which hasn't changed; there's still a legal duty to maintain confidentiality), and when it is or isn't ok to share information and who can do that. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/271792/Consensus_statement_on_information_sharing.pdf https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...