Slashdot Mirror
Police Database Lists 'Future Criminals'
Rio writes: "A Local6.com article tells us about a database that contains a list of people who police believe are likely to break the law. It features names, addresses and photographs of potential suspects --many of whom have clean slates. Since the system was introduced in Wilmington in June, most of the 200 people included in the file have been minorities from poor, high-crime neighborhoods."
This is part of a disturbing national trend.
In Ohio, they're keeping a DNA database of CLEARED suspects!
John
The drops of water don't know themselves to be a river; and yet the river flows.
They can have databases all they want [provided they can justify the expense to the voting public next time around]. Provided they don't violate your civil rights who gives a fuck?
Tom
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
We recently got in a heap of PR trouble about not caving into federal pressure to harrass persons of arabic descent. Same law.
The cops here are not allowed to keep files on citizens excepting in the course of an active criminal investigation.
There is some sense here in the U.S. It's just hard to find.
Cheers.
It is kind of a throw back to the 19th c. and the belief in a criminal subspecies identifiable through such methods as phrenology. It's stuff we believe on an informal level (never made a snap judgement of someone based on their appearance and context?), but never fails to make people look stupid and arrogant when they try to formally codify into a system -- waaaay too many exceptions, too much variability. If all people in poor high crime areas would just consistently be bad then it could work, but unfortunately for those who would theorize along these lines, there just ain't that kind of consistency. Factors contributing to increased liklihood of crime can be predictive with regard to percentage liklihoods within populations, but say sweet dick all about specific unique individuals.
This already happens in the UK, under the mental health act, a person can be detained for up to 28 days to "protect themselves or others" and longer if during those 28 days psychologists determine that the person requires medical help.
here is a better article about the practice as well as some legal explanations for and against it. It also has quotes from people in the affected neighborhoods.
the good ground has been paved over by suicidal maniacs
Its on the doctors whim, if they do not deem you to be a further threat after 28 days, you get released, usually with urther supervision. And yes, they can hospitalize foreigners as well, since they are under UK durestiction.
Note, you are not charged with anything during this time, and you do not have to have commited a crime. Also, if the doctors deem you to need further treatment, you can be hospitalized indefinatly, so you can spend years in a Secure Institution without actually having commited a crime.
Err, so what's new? Where I live (Finland) there's been such registry for decades. I'm on it, I know 20 of my friends who's names are on it. All you need to do it knew someone that has committed crime. If you did commit crime yourself it'll be cleared from all registries within 5-10 years after convict, but suspects are never removed. I was member of BBS back in late 80's and board was busted for distribution of pirate software. Case dried up as our copyright laws didn't cover computer software back then and no one was convicted. Everyone who'se name were found from that boards userlist, access to pirate area or not, has his name on polices 'potential criminal' list. Having your name on this list also means no high ranks in army and no high security jobs on goverment organizations nor public sector. Oh, and they won't tell you if you got your name on the list or not. Found out that me and my friends are on it thru relative who works for police and she ran check for my name couple years ago.
Sure most of you won't belive post like this from AC, but would you put your name below such facts? Won't exactly help getting new job!
This is utter hogwash. You'd better check your facts. Try looking through some of the statistics and reports at The Bureau of Justice Statistics. The opposite of your statement is demonstrated again and again.
Furthermore, many argue that not only economic minorities but, also racial minorities (so often the same) are unjustly labeled as the largest source of criminals. Again the statistics say otherwise.
The fact is that economic and racial minorities produce a disproportionately high volume of criminals. Additionally, and interestingly to me, the minorities are statistically the largest group of victims of crime. That means that most criminal activity is perpetrated by minorities against other minorities. This has been case throughout history and is still true today.
This same information would be in a policeman's notebook. "Stopped John Smith, 123 Main St, at 9th & Vine for loitering 2002-08-25 23:18"
What's to stop the police officer from making up the data? What if my car spashes some mud onto a police car just as it leaves the car wash, and the officer spots my license plate and wants to exact a small revenge. He files a report that I was seen giving a known drug dealer a small package at 123 Main St., and, by chance, my only alibi is that I was at home alone reading a book.
Next thing I know, I'm being questioned about a drug deal in front of the Live TV News camera crew.
I really have no experience with courts, lawyers, judges, etc. How does an average citizen's testimony really stack up against that of a police officer, who may be lying?
Healthcare article at Kuro5hin
One key thing to bear in mind which is definitely true of the UK Mental Health Act, and is almost certainly true of the Baker Act too, is that psychiatrists have to sign the final order to have someone sectioned in this way. IIRC, Britain requires that two psychiatrists, in addition to the person who recommends the sectioning (usually the patient's psychiatrist), sign off on this, and as I understand it, usually they'll interview the individual before making their recommendation.
So it's not quite as open to abuse as it might at first appear.
KMSMA (WWBD?)
This is similar to what Guliani did in NYC
with his quality of life initiative.
For minor crimes (jumping subway turnstile etc..),
individuals were taken to the police station and finger printed. The rational given was when
individuals move onto bigger crimes, they
are easier to catch.
NYC did not publish this list as a list
of criminals for the future, but they
just increased their database.
In the US, privacy of a individual is NOT a fundamental right and the state will continue
to collect as much information as they can of their citizens.
Your legal rights and practical rights sometimes differ on the street.
I was once detained by a group of six police officers on private property, having committed NO crime, with the basic choice given to me that I could either submit to what amounted to an illegal search, or be taken to jail pending proof of my innocence. (Remember that NO CRIME was ever committed)
The situation was one where I was working on my car stereo inside of an apartment parking garage, fairly late at night. (In a building I had lived in for over five years). I'm not sure what prompted them to barge into the garage. The bozos decided, despite some obvious appearances, that I must be trying to steal (my own) car, and performed pretty much a felony stop on me.
I complied with their requests for my id, keys, etc., but one officer did not like my indignance at being bothered and decided to handcuff me, after which he swung me toward the concrete walls a few times to let me know he could brain me if he wanted.
Despite having my identification that showed I lived in the building adjacent to the garage (same property), the keys to my car, and the temporary registration for my car, the police told me that I had the choice of being frog-marched into my apartment in handcuffs, past my neighbors, to retreive the bloody actual title for the vehicle (how many people actually even own the vehicle they drive?), or to be detained to the district substation until it could be proven I wasn't stealing the car.
All of this when no crime occurred... Don't think they don't know what they can accomplish practically.
I underwent the humiliation to minimize my problems. Seriously considered a lawsuit, but in the area of town where I live, the possibility of real-world paybacks from street-level police cannot be neglected...
Firstly, these places are NOT prisons - they are secure hospitals - while this does mean that you are not free to go, equally if you are deemed medically fit you may be let out even though in a conventional prison you might have barely served any sentence at all.
Secondly, the 'whim' of a doctor is a bit of a pointed term. Remember that these are professionals who have been practising for usually many years before they can commit someone for the longer stays - and this is constantly reviewed by consultants working with the patients every day. There are many different orders ('Sections' of our mental health act) which range from 6 hour detention (can be ordered by a qualified nurse) to 24h ( which I could do on my own, as I am fully registered (i.e. out of med school for over 1 year), to 48h, a week or two, a month or two, six months, a year, and indefinitely (I cannot remember all the exact times). For anything longer than 24h two docs must agree, or e.g. a court official. These people are very answerable for this decision; I would try to avoid sectioning a patient as I am no expert unless I thought I really had to - they would have to be pretty barking for this to happen. Of course, as a hospital doc, I could usually get them assessed by the on-call psychiatrist and pass the buck.
Both docs will have access to medical records, but each has to interview the patient and assess them. Patients can appeal against these decisions in which case a third 'impartial' doc is brought in -any number of times. Obviously they'll be an inpatient at the time though.
All in all it's a pretty good system - not infallible, but the benefit of doubt is always with the patient. No doc I know would risk their career with a blatantly wrong assessment, but not all are competent. The vast majority are though.
In practice you have to be pretty doo-lally to get commited. And you get out soon when better. OTOH, if you are a real head-casem you might be there for a while.
This idea was invented by Shampoo.