British Cops To Create "Naughty Children" Database

An anonymous naughty reader writes: "The Telegraph is running this story about the British police setting up a secret database of children who misbehave or commit 'trivial misdemeanors' so that they can be tracked throughout their childhoods. Officials cited a rise in youth violence as necessitating these measures." You have to admire the forward-thinking of a secret police "database of children as young as three who they fear might grow up to become criminals."

Comments

Overkill?

[Karma 50]

From the beginning of the report

Any child who is thought to be at risk of committing a crime by the police, schools or social services, will be put on the database

Later on

street gangs provided a safer and more caring environment than their homes or classrooms

1) Is it necessary to treat all children as potential criminals because some are in gangs?

2) If these children are safer in gangs than at home or in the classroom then - instead of putting their names into a huge database - wouldn't it be better to take them into care where they will be safe?

Re:Overkill?

[Anonymous DWord]

Or even encourage them to join gangs, where they will be safe.

Re:Overkill?

[cez]

Any child who is thought to be at risk of committing a crime by the police, schools or social services, will be put on the database. So that means the child doesn't even have to do anything wrong??? Just have the possibility to maybe do something wrong? The next thing they will be using as criteria for the database is the geneology of the child..."Shit his dad stole a car when he was 17 and homeless...put his son in the database and watch his ass for the next 16 years!" Please... Also...what if someone gets ahold of these files...or information contained in them become public? How will that effect the child...continually tell someone they are bad, and a criminal when they are young...then guess what, odds are they are going to be one...give someone positive reinforcement and...

Christmas in London

[PD]

He's making a list
he's checking it twice!
Gonna find out who's naughty or nice
SATAN CLAUS is coming to town.

safe and caring environment

[sanity_slipping]

"It is not an exaggeration to note that, for some of these children, street gangs provided a safer and more caring environment than their homes or classrooms."

Scary. What does this say about London schools?

Cheekiness, causing nuisances?--off with 'er head!

[dlek]

From the article:

Children involved in cheekiness, minor vandalism and causing nuisances, will be targeted under the scheme.

Cheekiness?

Causing nuisances?

Let me get this straight. For so much as talking back to your teacher, you could be stuck in this database? For loitering too long in the candy shop, you could be flagged in a national registry?

Society's still arguing about whether it's ethical to put CONVICTED PEDOPHILES in such a registry, for crying out loud!

Man, the world's getting creepy...

This could be very very bad

[Chardish]

If a child is told by the government at a very young age that he is a potential troublemaker, won't he then feel somehow obligated to make trouble?

-Chardish

Re:Cheekiness, causing nuisances?--off with 'er he

[BitterOak]

Society's still arguing about whether it's ethical to put CONVICTED PEDOPHILES in such a registry, for crying out loud!

But the difference is that the pedophile database you're referring to is a publically accessible one, and can be used by potential employers, landlords, and nosy neighbors, usually resulting in a situation where it is virtually impossible for the ex-con after serving their time to live anywhere.

By contrast this is a secret database, used only by the police for surviellance purposes. As far as I can tell, it does not impose any obligations on or restrict the freedom of any individuals on the list. Also, prospective employers and schools will not have access to the list, and so no discrimination could result. The only effect of being on the list is that if you commit a crime, there is more likely to be a cop nearby to catch you.

Re:Cheekiness, causing nuisances?--off with 'er he

[camusflage]

For so much as talking back to your teacher,

Man, and here I come to find out that the infamous "permanent record" that they always threatened you with back in school wan't real until now.

From the article: schools and social services already had information about young children in danger of becoming criminals but at the moment they did not share this with the police.

With good reason. Social Services treats, schools both treat and punish, and police punish. Absent a crime, treatment is what you get, not punishment.

"We are aware of examples from within London where caring professionals have been told in confidence by children that they have been victims of quite serious crimes."

And the operative word is, yes, CONFIDENCE. If the kid wanted to go to the police, they should go to the police, or be directed to do so. Legislatively forcing them to do so is a Bad Thing.

Re:Cheekiness, causing nuisances?--off with 'er he

[camusflage]

By contrast this is a secret database, used only by the police for surviellance purposes.

And that's precisely what's so creepy about this. Of course, all police are incorruptible, and no policeman would EVER abuse law enforcement databases.

Our society

[RupertJ]

Before all the Americans here start harping on about privacy and civil liberties, people should first discuss how our (British) culture is different to that of the United States. Britain already has one of the highest volumes of CCTV systems in Europe (stats were in the Guardian a few weeks ago if you want to check). We have come to accept the Big Brother mentality much more than our US counterparts, even though it does not always benefit us the way we would like it to (the Lawrence murder etc).

I don't know if many of you will be able to relate to this, but when I was a child I had the greatest respect for my elders and for the authorities/law enforcement. It seems that in today's "yob" culture, violence, underage drinking and anarchy are seen as ways of expressing how "hard" you are. This crew-cut sporting, Kappa wearing football hooligan image of thuggery is further idolised by sitting around empty bus stops vandalising public property while drinking Diamond White cider and smoking Mayfair (very cheap) cigarettes - It is seen as a fashion by many young people and actions which will gain them "respect" or credibility among their peers, much like the gang cultures in the USA.

I believe the monitoring of young offenders will be benficial - Anyone who has studied criminology or worked in/with the police should know the old phrase "once a scrote, always a scrote".

Crimes perpetrated by minors are on the rise (this is an undeniable fact). You only have to look at events like the Jamie Bulger killing to realise that our nation is sliding down the same slope as the US when it comes to atrocities commited by young people (Columbine killings to name one).

I don't see this database as a civil rights issue for the children. The database should be managed and controlled like the data in the PNC (Police National Computer) - with the greatest care and confidentiality.

Before anyone flames me with "what about the rights of the children", please first consider the rights of their victims and any others affected by their crimes.

Re:Our society

[RupertJ]

And how did you come to that opinion? Please tell how you were subject to injustice or persecution.

Re:Our society

[hearingaid]

You only have to look at events like the Jamie Bulger killing to realise that our nation is sliding down the same slope as the US when it comes to atrocities commited by young people (Columbine killings to name one).

Great, I'm glad to hear it.

Youth crime is down throughout North America. You don't see it on the news, of course; announcements that "The World is Getting Better" don't sell very many papers.

However, on to the effectiveness of the proposed measures. Speaking as a former victim of bullies, I doubt very much whether a system like this would have helped me very much. I in fact did accumulate a rather large permanent record through my school days; however, it was mostly filled with things teachers wanted to believe rather than the truth (which was often remarkably obvious; there are teachers who apparently really believe that I attacked groups of five or six other children by myself, unarmed, with many of these children being several years older than me, at recess every single day - right).

The reason, IMO, youth crime is down these days is not because of measures such as this British one to track children, but rather because of a rise in simple common sense: when a 10-year-old and four of his friends are fighting with an eight-year-old, it's reasonable to suppose that the eight-year-old did not initiate the battle (which is what they were; I'd been to the emergency ward at the local hospital several times before I turned fifteen, and hospitalized some kids myself as well) but rather take the more appropriate action of punishing the group, even if the teachers don't like the eight-year-old.

It's also inappropriate for teachers to give students time off from class for the express purpose of rounding up other students to beat somebody up. (Okay, that only happened to me once.)

It's basic principles like these that could have stopped Columbine.

Re:Our society

[GigsVT]

I don't know if many of you will be able to relate to this, but when I was a child I had the greatest respect for my elders and for the authorities/law enforcement. It seems that in today's "yob" culture, violence, underage drinking and anarchy are seen as ways of expressing how "hard" you are.

As it has been throughout history. Zoot Suit Riots. for example.

Exerpt:
During the time leading up to the trial and for two weeks into the trial, Henry Leyvas and his co-defendants were not allowed to change their clothes by order of the trial judge, Charles Fricke. The district attorney reasoned, and Judge Fricke agreed, that the jury should see the defendants in the zoot suits, which were obviously only worn by "hoodlums". During the trial, 22 of the 24c o-defendants including Henry Leyvas were tried together.

-------------
The old always will attempt to oppress the youth, the youth will always find a way to rebel, just as the modern symbols you mention, cheap cigarettes, haircuts, etc, signify a certain rebellious attitude today, Zoot Suits, haircuts, and other things did the same 50 years ago.

Don't think that anything has changed, it hasn't. We are no better or worse off today then we used to be, as far as crime goes.

I don't know much UK history, but I seriously doubt that things have changed much there either.

Re:Our society

[rwally]

Well, as an American, I'll pipe in and give my two cents worth. At the seat of this problem, are our cultures so different? We both exist in a society that, for the most part, has both parents working (if the parents are still married), where we depend on nanny's and day care workers to rear our children and after school programs to entertain them until we can get off work. Society demands we work these long hours so we can provide the clothes and things our families need. We also tend to buy our kids way to many things to "entertain" them but not to "engage" them. We give all this authority to society to raise our kids, yet seem to get upset when society tries to correct our children.

As a kid, I was fortunate that even though my mom worked, she always saw us off to school each morning and was home when we got home from school. I romped and stomped outside most afternoons with the neighbor kids, playing cowboy and indians or whatever. Even though we had TV, I rarely watched it. When I got into my teens, I got into my fair share of trouble, but nothing like kids today. Why? I too had a respect for authority instilled in me by my parents and society. Kids are like ships that float on the currents of society. They will be guided by whatever wind and wave is the strongest.

Today's kids often lack that rudder to keep them pointed straight. They know they have influence over their parents and more and more they are able to exert that influence. Its really upsetting to watch a 14 year old tell their parents that if they aren't allowed to go to an all night boy/girl party, they (the kid) will call the police and say the parents are abusing them. The parents are so afraid of a system that automatically assumes the guilt of the accused, that they feel they have no choice but to give in. You say the above can't happen... try again, I witnessed it in a friend's living room one evening.

Should we monitor kids in a national database? No, I think that's just an attempt to cure the symptom, not the illness. When we as parents abdicate our authority to raise our kids to the government, we shouldn't be surprised when they use governmental institutions, like national databases, to try and manage the behavior of our kids.


Wally

Re:Our society

[RupertJ]

"You fucking idiot, yes the culture is different." Thank you for confirming that. "...doesn't mean that you speak for everyone..." And where did I claim to be the voice of all? "The cops are totally unaccountable for that and you can't even look at your own record... Wrong. In the UK we have something called the Data Protection Act where you can demand a complete copy of your details from ANY organisation, company or government agency. The only current exemption are those details pertaining to national security, and even those are now under review.

Re:Our society

[RupertJ]

Although what you have said is perfectly valid, I think that there is always that "reading between the lines" viewpoint on whatever legislation is brought in. Most laws are never really used to their full potential, and there is a certain amount of discretion in their application (well, here in the UK anyway). We don't live in a police state, but Britain does have some odd laws which persecute with one swipe, and protect with another (same as our system of social security).

Apologies for not explaining some British slang -

"Yob" : A loutish, obnoxious and aggresive person. Normally used to describe some males aged between 15 - 35.

"Scrote" : Reference to scrotum. Normally used by British police constables to describe an undesirable or criminal.

Re:Our society

[hearingaid]

Its really upsetting to watch a 14 year old tell their parents that if they aren't allowed to go to an all night boy/girl party, they (the kid) will call the police and say the parents are abusing them.

Let's analyze this. Why is it upsetting?

• The parents don't want their 14-year-old offspring to be possibly having sex.
• The youth in question are willing to blackmail their parents into allowing entry to a potentially sexual situation.

Okay, so now, let's analyze a little further. Why are the youth willing to go so far in pursuit of what they obviously consider to be normal social interaction?

There's the rub. The 14-year-old doesn't think there's anything wrong or even unusual about 14-year-olds spending the night out in the company of friends of both genders.

Now, let's look at a little history.

How long ago, in Western civilization, was it considered normal - by those legally defined as adults - for 14-year-olds to participate in sexual activity?

Why... about 150-200 years, at the most. If you go back that far (particularly if you look at frontier societies), 14-year-olds were getting married. It's worthwhile to note that in Romeo & Juliet, the lovers (who get married and have sex) are roughly 14.

Now, how old is Western civilization?

Conclusion: During the vast majority of Western history, normal 14-year-olds have been having sex, or at least seriously thinking about it.

Of course, it hasn't been premarital sex, by and large (well not that anyone would own up to it anyway), but that's quite a different issue.

No, the real problem is the modern post-Victorian illusions of parents. Human society has changed a lot in a thousand years, but the basic instincts haven't been modified really at all, and there's a conflict.

Re:Our society

[MrFredBloggs]

"You only have to look at events like the Jamie Bulger killing"

Then again, part of the blame for this killing - and one which was overlooked in most of the medias reporting - is that a two year old was left to play around while his mother was shopping. A two year old? What sort of disgusting excuse for a mother lets a child who is little more than a baby, alone in a dodgy shopping centre?

Re:Our society

[rwally]

do you have kids?

In this case, the party was a kegger being held at a house where the police had routinely arrested the owner for allowing underage drinking and twice for assault on a child. Still, all the kids found this guys "Cool".

The point was, my friend as a parent, could see the inherent danger of possible arrest and was trying to protect his underage child from that danger. Its the same reason we don't let toddlers stick paper clips in the wall socket. Yeah, they'll learn a lesson, but it just might injure them for life. Of course maybe if we did, it would help clean out the gene pool.

Re:Our society

[hearingaid]

No, I've managed to dodge the kids bullet so far. However, I don't see how that's relevant: like everybody else who's once been 14, I remember what it's like. (Or at least that's what you would think.)

Toddlers are a different issue. We've restricted what toddlers can do for a very long time, probably since before recorded history.

My argument is that we're drawing the line too high. And yes, you're right in a sense: the police are suffering from the same illusions as the parents are. (At least in some cases. I still remember the 15-year-old boy I once knew who was drunk out of his mind one night and walked past a group of police officers bellowing that he was god. He was in a public park that was closed because it was after hours, and remarkably obviously underage: he looked about 12. Thus, he was guilty of three offenses: trespassing, underage drinking and disturbing the peace. Yet, they didn't arrest him. I'll never know the real reason why, but the best theory I've heard is that they were at a checkpoint checking for people without driver's licenses, and if they'd busted him, they might have missed their quota. It probably helped that he was white and had obviously middle-class clothes on, too.)

Maybe I shouldn't complain too much, though. I used to stick my thumb in wall sockets when I was a preteen because it felt neat. I suspect you'd disapprove of that too :)

Re:Our society

[hearingaid]

I guess the crux of this whole issue for me is that parents have, in many ways, given up their authority to raise their kids to government (or pseudo-government) agencies. How can we expect a governmental agency to respond except with a governmental process like a national database for kids who back talk.

The problem, I think, is the nuclear family. Two people just aren't enough. Most civilizations in history have used some form of extended family to raise children.

We've gone to this nuclear family model, and it's insufficient. Unfortunately, instead of going back to the extended family model, we're trying to artificially prop up the nuclear family and make it work.

On a personal note, I too put foreign objects into wall sockets as a young child. I wonder if that has any reflection on the fact that we both read slashdot?

Perhaps. I didn't start programming until after the first wall-socket experience. (Although not right after... that would just be too funky :)

Re:Our society

[rwally]

We've gone to this nuclear family model, and it's insufficient. Unfortunately, instead of going back to the extended family model, we're trying to artificially prop up the nuclear family and make it work.

Well we agree on this at least. Unfortunately in today's society, we could call many families subatomic since many are single parent.

I guess the real question before those of us that are concerned, is how do we turn this massive ship back around towards an extended family that once was the source of guidance and discipline?

Re:Our society

[hearingaid]

Simple. Quit trying to push nuclear families on to people.

Our whole family law system is based around the idea of the nuclear family. We make it very difficult for children to be passed around between caregivers that they're related to, unless they happen to be direct parents.

For an example, look at the Elian Gonzalez case. This case was hyped up by the American media as a battle between Cuban exiles and Cuban communism, but I think that's a misperception.

Elian was taken away from his father by his mother to be placed in the care of his extended family. Unfortunately, his mother died, and his father turned up to get custody back.

Elian's extended family couldn't even get a hearing to determine if they were more suited to take care of the young boy. The nuclear rights of the sole living parent were so strong as to completely override even the wishes of the dead mother, simply because she was dead.

Perhaps the right thing was done in the end: I don't know. But it does bother me - a lot - that Elian's family in Miami couldn't get a hearing. And the reason is because it's saying that the extended family doesn't exist.

Re:Our society

[overunderunderdone]

Society demands we work these long hours so we can provide the clothes and things our families need

I can heartily agree with everything in your post but this one point. There is much complaining about how both parents "have" to work (because of incresed taxes if you're a Republican or becasue of falling wages if you're a Democrat). I'm sorry in most cases I don't buy it - we have a problem of defining things we want as things we "need". We are significantly wealthier than our parents generation and fabulously more wealthy than our grandparents generation and yet they managed to be there for their kids. We have bigger houses, more and more varied food, more and nicer cars, more and bigger TV's (in color even) plus forms of entertainment (computers, video game consoles etc.) that those generations didn't have and yet our kids are so screwed up they have to be monitored by the cold eye of government because parents are too busy paying for an inflated "standard of living" they believe they "need" more than their kids need them.

Re:Cheekiness, causing nuisances?--off with 'er he

[RupertJ]

Yes, but all the examples you've given are of the US Police and some from Australia. How is this relevant to a discussion on British policing? British laws are different from those of other countries. Corruption exists in every walk of life, but please do not post misleading information like the links above.

Still behind the Yanks

[LittleGuy]

We just get the parents to photograph and fingerprint the tykes voluntarily.

Re:Still behind the Yanks

[rwally]

Well in MOST of the kid fingerprinting programs, the parents keep the fingerprint cards and photographs so they can provide them to the cops should little Susie or Billy get nabbed. Last I checked, the FBI wasn't routinely fingerprinting 5 year olds and keeping them on file.

Not acceptable.

[Anonymous Coward]

In a former life, I worked for the Canadian federal Ministry responsible for policing, corrections and national security.

I am proud to say that I was able to have funding for such an initiative nixed on the grounds that such a DB becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. I think the police force that proposed it went ahead with a binders-in-cars version anyway.

Most delinquent kids grow up to be decent citizens, IF you can keep them out of the criminal justice system until they grow up a bit and stop being such a pain in the a**.

This kind of hyper-surveillance is a BAD IDEA.

We could skip a step and just project the kids lifetime misdeeds and impose a sentence on them in advance. We could call this crime prevention or proactive incapacitation.

Sometimes cops are just too scary.

Maybe if they...

[linzeal]

Have they thought to get the child sex offender list and the naughty children list together for drinks ?

Re:Cheekiness, causing nuisances?--off with 'er he

[buvic2]

>By contrast this is a secret database, used only by the police for surviellance purposes. And how long will it be until an enterprising concerned citizen (netizen?) will prove that it's insufficiently secured and post this data on the internet, for all to see? Next step, sex offender type posters? "Warning, this cute looking 4 year old may become a criminal. Then again, he may not, but lets treat him as such anyway".

re: database

[blibbleblobble]

"No wonder Santa Claus is so jolly...

he knows where all the bad girls live."

Re:Cheekiness, causing nuisances?--off with 'er he

[Jon Chatow]

IANAL, but, AFAIAA, there is no such thing as the phrase 'in confidence' in the U.K. legal system WRT childen; if a child tells someone something, they are legally bound to tell the police if it is of a certain type of severity (abuse, etc.) and they cannot technically offer to withhold information from the police without infringing the law (even if they don't, as it would then be misleading...). I'm not entirely sure, but priests of the (Anglican) Church may be exempt from this.

Re:There's no evidence

[fireboy1919]

There's a huge coorelation between them - people who commit crimes as youngsters are more likely to do so as adults than those who do not commit crimes at a young age.

You don't consider that evidence? SOMETIMES you can argue that evidence is not causal. But the data is separated by TIME. So I'd have to say that your statement is incorrect, at least for the instance of actual crime. Now, mind you, you could be talking strictly about noncriminal behavior, then you're right.

Peter Rabbit - Guilty of Lettuce Theft?

[hughk]

I suppose we can imagine the situation when Peter Rabbit is accused of lettuce theft. Ok, maybe he doesn't end up in rabbit pie (like his father) but is he guilty because he walks past the field and some lettuces happen to be missing?

This idea is bad, bad, bad. What criteria will be used to enter kids in this register? They certainly haven't been through due process. Yes, there are some right little beggars out there, but perhaps someone could take a long-hard look at the parents.

Children are children. I can imagine a local education authority passing on comments that "little Johnnie is a trouble maker" between schools, but that is nothing to do with the police. Some of those trouble-makers grow up to be extremely useful people.

Foreign Objects (almost but not quite OT)

[epepke]

I don't think I ever put foreign objects into wall sockets as a young child, but I did get a poke off of one of those skinny old-fashioned 2-wire extension cords. One of my earliest memories as a toddler was turning on a hand-operated power sander. I misunderstood the effects of muscle and physics.

Fortunately, my parents still let me play with dangerous toys. My father bought me a Ford coil around age 9, and I got my first neon sign transformer shortly thereafter. I cut apart a coat hanger and banged it into a piece of wood to make a Jacob's Ladder.

I do think that kids who are allowed to play with dangerous toys become more technical adults. I think that adults today are too overprotective. As a result, we have a society of consumers who don't even understand that CD players have parts inside them.

WRT sex, I agree that we've set the bar too high (although I live in a state where the age of consent is 14, and about half of all U.S. states and most of Europe have an AOC of 16, and even those with a high AOC like 18 permit marriages under the AOC with parental permission producing automatic emancipation). However, that analysis completely overlooks the fact that maybe there kinda might be some reasons other than sex not to want your kid to spend the night at a drunken brawl run by someone you don't know and trust. Sex is not the only potentially dangerous thing on the planet. I mean, you don't send your child to a summer camp run by Charles Manson.

Gum Chewing

[wls]

So let me get this right... chewing gum in class will go on my permanent record afterall?

mod parent up

[Dr. Mutex]

I was going to suggest this very solution to the "threatening teenager" problem.

Hmmm. My kids are about that age. Maybe I'd better check the specials.
Love their gadgets, hate their ads.