Brain Scans Predict Which Criminals Are More Likely To Re-offend

Good technology by rmdashrf · 2013-03-26 06:13 · Score: 5, Funny

Now let's first use it on our politicians.

--
Nihil in publicum sputa.

Re:Good technology by geekmux · 2013-03-26 06:24 · Score: 1

Now let's first use it on our politicians.
That would imply that they were not above the law to begin with.
It would also imply that We the People still have control to do anything about it, regardless of the test results.
(hint: We don't.)
Re:Good technology by hedwards · 2013-03-26 06:31 · Score: 4, Insightful

We have the power, it's just that when half of Americans vote for people promising to bring the government to the knees, you don't wind up with the best or the brightest being elected.
Which is strange, I would have thought voting for people looking to screw up the government would be just the ticket for effective and useful governance. Who'dathunk.
Re:Good technology by LeadSongDog · 2013-03-26 06:47 · Score: 1

Who says they're talking about "[You] the People"'s politicians? They might have meant "Us the rest of Humanity"'s politicians... Anyhow, it seems from http://slashdot.org/submission/2567075/new-brain-implant-transmits-wirelessly-to-computer that they'll soon be reporting directly to the Googleplex, with no scans required.

--
Oh, I'm sorry sir, I thought you were referring to me, Mr. Wensleydale.
Re:Good technology by rwise2112 · 2013-03-26 06:51 · Score: 2

Now let's first use it on our politicians.
Why? We already know.

--

"For every expert, there is an equal and opposite expert"
Re:Good technology by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-26 06:55 · Score: 1

Take your defeatist attitude to Digg or Reddit. It wasn't amusing 10 years ago, and it's not amusing now. (Oh, look how cool and hip I am; I'm totally cynical and hate everything) BOOOOOORRRRRIIIIIINNNNNGGGGGG
Re:Good technology by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-26 07:01 · Score: 1

They tried, but the scanner commited suicide after scanning the third politician...
Re:Good technology by ColdWetDog · 2013-03-26 07:04 · Score: 1

I feel Happy!

--
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Re:Good technology by Sulphur · 2013-03-26 07:08 · Score: 5, Insightful

Now let's first use it on our politicians.
Why? We already know.
To calibrate the tests.
Re:Good technology by spasm · 2013-03-26 07:18 · Score: 0

And members of parole boards.
Re:Good technology by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-26 07:20 · Score: 0

Double-U was a test candidate, but the machine keept saying, "please insert brain"...
Re:Good technology by gnasher719 · 2013-03-26 07:26 · Score: 4, Informative

Now let's first use it on our politicians.
Totally misunderstanding what this is about.

There's a bit in your brain that tells you "don't do this, this is a bad idea" when you want to do something that is a bad idea. That bit usually stops you from getting into trouble. It will stop you from smacking your boss in the face if he upsets you, which tends to be a bad idea. It will stop you from smashing a car window and grabbing things on the seat. It will stop you from doing things that hurt you (in the end), including any badly planned crime. People where this bit of the brain is underdeveloped tend to do stupid things, including re-offending after getting out of jail and getting caught.

On the other hand, criminals of any kind who carefully plan what they are doing are not affected by this. They also tend to get caught less often.
Re:Good technology by Ch_Omega · 2013-03-26 08:13 · Score: 2

Now let's first use it on our politicians.
Thats actually not a bad idea, considering that previous research has found support for a link between degree of activity in amugdala and the anterior cingulate cortex, and wether or not people will keep their promises.
Re:Good technology by detritus. · 2013-03-26 08:13 · Score: 1

> We have the power, it's just that when half of Americans vote for people promising to bring the government to the knees, you don't wind up with the best or the brightest being elected.
Or half the people hopelessly defending a corrupted system of horizontal of checks and balances government has the capabilities to heal themselves. The only solution to that is the vertical check: nullifying government when necessary.
Re:Good technology by Ch_Omega · 2013-03-26 08:14 · Score: 1

*amygdala.
Re:Good technology by im_thatoneguy · 2013-03-26 08:28 · Score: 1

Except that a lot of people who keep or don't keep their promises as politicians have to contend with 400 other politicians who also want to keep their promises. And when one politician says "I will cut taxes!" and another promises "I will fund social security!" You can't have both keep their promises.
Re:Good technology by idontgno · 2013-03-26 08:28 · Score: 1

We're talking about a "criminality detector" and politicians, right?
Sending the measurement "off-scale high" isn't really a good calibration.

--
Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
Re:Good technology by Sulphur · 2013-03-26 08:42 · Score: 1

We're talking about a "criminality detector" and politicians, right?
Sending the measurement "off-scale high" isn't really a good calibration.
Maybe a log scale is needed, but experiment is necessary to tell.
Re:Good technology by Ch_Omega · 2013-03-26 08:42 · Score: 1

Except that a lot of people who keep or don't keep their promises as politicians have to contend with 400 other politicians who also want to keep their promises. And when one politician says "I will cut taxes!" and another promises "I will fund social security!" You can't have both keep their promises.
And this is also something that politicians (hopefully) know. I contend that making promises that you know there is a big chance you won't be able to keep, even though it's because external reasons, is just as bad as making promises you don't intend to keep in the first place.
Re:Good technology by lightknight · 2013-03-26 08:54 · Score: 1

Yeah...that might break the machine. Good try though.

--
I am John Hurt.
Re:Good technology by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-26 08:57 · Score: 0

Touché
Re:Good technology by FooAtWFU · 2013-03-26 09:50 · Score: 2

We have the power, it's just that when half of Americans vote for people promising to bring the government to the knees, you don't wind up with the best or the brightest being elected.

Could be worse. These "best and brightest" could have been elected and run amok. Oh, wait, that was 2008. ;)
No seriously though, one man's "bring the government to its knees" is another's "bring spending back in line with sane levels more similar to (population-adjusted) 2007 levels instead of keeping it at 50% above that forever with all the implications that will have on our debt and/or tax levels and economic growth". I suppose it must be nice to be able dismiss all your political opponents with caricatures of their views, though I'm idly wondering whether making that decision instead of going for intellectual honesty is itself consistent with the brain scan differences reported in this article :)

--
The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
Re:Good technology by isorox · 2013-03-26 09:52 · Score: 4, Insightful

> We have the power, it's just that when half of Americans vote for people promising to bring the government to the knees, you don't wind up with the best or the brightest being elected.
Or half the people hopelessly defending a corrupted system of horizontal of checks and balances government has the capabilities to heal themselves. The only solution to that is the vertical check: nullifying government when necessary.
When you have 95% of the country always voting for their team, based on the assertion that the other team is wrong, nothing changes.
Re:Good technology by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-26 10:14 · Score: 0

Not "found", they "reported". Also while I'm here, more nature fail: the link to the study doesn't work and they fail to tell us the title. Eventually you will have to just email the author for the actual report.
Aharoni, E. et al. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1219302110 (2013).
Re:Good technology by detritus. · 2013-03-26 10:26 · Score: 1

> When you have 95% of the country always voting for their team, based on the assertion that the other team is wrong, nothing changes.
The keyword here is country. These groups need to be cut down to size. We called them states, counties and towns once. More diversity via localized government means a lot more living options with different standards.
Re:Good technology by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-26 10:29 · Score: 0

Congratulations, you have now made it fully aware to everyone on Slashdot that you are Part Of The Problem (tm).
Your post implies that approximately half the population is voting incorrectly, which would also imply that the remaining half is voting correctly in your eyes. You would be incorrect entirely. NEITHER part is the correct party to vote for.
News flash: Both of the primary parties in the USA are for all intents and purposes identical. They will differ on the wedge-issues of the day, which exist purely to separate the voting public, such that they will vote against eachother "to keep the other side from winning". These wedge issues are absolutely inconsequential in the bigger picture. Abortion? Religion? Gay marriage? All of these are absolutely meaningless in the bigger scheme of things.
And those wedge issues that you think actually DO matter? They don't. The politicians will lie and tell you whatever "your side" wants to hear, to make sure that you indeed believe that your side is the "correct" vote. In reality however, once elected they will do exactly whatever they want, which will be to continue the separation of the 1% and the 99%, scratch the backs of those who will scratch back, and continue to push the corporatocracy that is the USA.
If you refute this even slightly, then clearly you are to brainwashed by "your side" that it is irrelevant to bother trying to teach you. You will continue to vote blindly for your side, no matter how terrible the country becomes. Because always... always, always, always... you and "your side" will blame "the other side" for all of the ills of the country. Oh, everything would be FAR better if "your side" were able to do everything that they promised they would do unchecked and unblocked by "the other side", who is clearly working against you.
Your type make me sick hedwards. Enjoy the country you currently live in, because it is created by people exactly like yourself.
Re:Good technology by hedwards · 2013-03-26 11:42 · Score: 3, Insightful

Considering that the GOP has promised specifically to burn the country down to make President Obama a 1 term President and that those politicians have all been reelected, I'd suggest that there is indeed a substantial number of voters that are in fact voting wrong.
If you really think the parties are identical, then you haven't been paying attention. Yes, on a few issues there is way too much agreement, but if you seriously can't see a difference on issues of taxation and social issues, you're one of those "low information voters" that I keep hearing about.
It's not a case where there's some debate, the GOP has been promising specifically to destroy the government.
Re:Good technology by hedwards · 2013-03-26 11:45 · Score: 3

Not really, you bring spending back in line by a combination of spending cuts and tax increases. The party that's knows that is coincidentally not the party that's promising to bring the government to its knees.
As for 2007 levels, are you fucking serious? We had massive spending during the 2001-2007 period and no tax increases to pay for it. Cutting spending to that level would be ridiculous as there was a ton of waste at that point. To get things to sane levels, we need to have a combination of tax cuts and tax increases.
Just because you have a lot of welfare states that don't want to accept cuts to their things, doesn't make it any more true. These politicians aren't promising cuts to bring things back under control, they're trying to get cuts to kill programs they don't like, even though their districts aren't actually contributint their fair shares and the spending that they are OK with is of no use to most people.
Re:Good technology by Gr8Apes · 2013-03-26 13:59 · Score: 1

Could be worse. These "best and brightest" could have been elected and run amok. Oh, wait, that was 2008. ;)
No seriously though, one man's "bring the government to its knees" is another's "bring spending back in line with sane levels more similar to (population-adjusted) 2007 levels instead of keeping it at 50% above that forever with all the implications that will have on our debt and/or tax levels and economic growth". I suppose it must be nice to be able dismiss all your political opponents with caricatures of their views, though I'm idly wondering whether making that decision instead of going for intellectual honesty is itself consistent with the brain scan differences reported in this article :)
Interestring then that the numbers are far higher than you state, and are directly enacted by those voted out in 2008 (They took office in 2009, and inherited the mess those leaving in 2008 and before left behind)
Now, is it fair to say that the new crop hasn't done enough to rein in spending? Yes, probably. What's one of the major "debt" causes though? That whole prescription medicare law, passed in 2003 by the GOP listed as bigger debt (deficit) driver than even ObamaCare?.
So, let's start lowering our deficit, start with the unfunded Medicare plan. Once you remove that, we can start on other problem areas. Oh, you'll have to increase taxes too, to at least 2000 levels (pre-bubble) just to even the playing field. I just would like to be there when you tell your elders.

--
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
Re:Good technology by epyT-R · 2013-03-26 17:00 · Score: 2

Yeah, because, historically, our government officials, like the ones using our taxes to fund these badly correlated behavior 'studies', are bastions of rationality, justice, objectivity, and truth. Naturally these selfless, caring, freedom loving people want only the best for us when they say they absolutely 'have' to grow the budget deficit every damn year, punch legal holes in documents designed to protect our rights, and then tell us the reasons and details are a matter of 'national security.'
I really do wonder when the majority will get fed up with this and quit drinking the koolaid so liberally distributed on TV growing up and then on campus during their college years. While it's true that corporates do not give a shit about you, the government bureaucracy doesn't either...not when you're just a collection of bits across 2500+ databases processed into a list socially negative probabilities.
So what's next? Preemptive reincarceration for those flagged, or maybe just monitor/tail/watch them incessantly til they lose it and shoot one of the undercover officers, thereby 'proving' the validity of the 'study'? Those are two probable next steps, right?
Re:Good technology by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-26 22:35 · Score: 0

When you have "the team" and "the other team", nothing changes. Two-party politics is just one-party politics but with better actors..
Re:Good technology by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-27 06:39 · Score: 0

Yeah, good point. Let's just sulk in perceived powerlessness for the rest of our lives.
Re:Good technology by Hognoxious · 2013-03-28 09:52 · Score: 0

The keyword here is country. We called them states, counties and towns once. More diversity via localized government means a lot more living options with different standards.
Belgium. It has fewer people than Ohio, I think. Certainly fewer who know how to drive.
There are cities in China that have almost as many people as Spain. There's probably streets there that have a bigger population than Ireland. It wouldn't surprise me if there's tenement blocks that have more people than Luxembourg.
I think your small=good mantra needs a little more analysis, and a reduction in the herp and/or derp.

--
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."

Targeted Rehab or Targeted Parole by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-26 06:15 · Score: 2, Interesting

So do you focus all your Rehab efforts on activities that stimulate this region of the brain, or only parole prisoners that show high activitiy in the area?

Re:Targeted Rehab or Targeted Parole by characterZer0 · 2013-03-26 06:17 · Score: 4, Insightful

You use this test as an excuse to keep certain people in jail for political reasons.

--
Go green: turn off your refrigerator.
Re:Targeted Rehab or Targeted Parole by geekmux · 2013-03-26 06:28 · Score: 5, Insightful

You use this test as an excuse to keep certain people in jail for political reasons.
So, let me get this straight...you're going to continue to incarcerate me, for something I might do in the future?
Believe me, I'm not questioning whether this would actually happen or not. We've proven corruption knows no bounds.
I'm merely pointing out the "minor" issues with this concept, regardless of where our Rights have dissolved away.
Re:Targeted Rehab or Targeted Parole by hedwards · 2013-03-26 06:33 · Score: 0

We're talking about potential parolees. This isn't corruption, this is how the system is supposed to work. Variable sentences are variable dependent upon the parole board's view of whether or not a particular inmate is likely to re-offend. Makes sense, you don't really need to keep somebody behind bars for the rest of their life, if they don't re-offend and have paid their debt to society.
Parole boards prefer to to grant parole to somebody that's likely to go out and commit more crimes.
Re:Targeted Rehab or Targeted Parole by kjs3 · 2013-03-26 06:35 · Score: 1

Look at the big brain on characterZer0. I couldn't mod up...sorry
Re:Targeted Rehab or Targeted Parole by Jane+Q.+Public · 2013-03-26 06:40 · Score: 2

"I'm merely pointing out the "minor" issues with this concept, regardless of where our Rights have dissolved away."
Not only would legislating nearly anything based on this border on Thought Crime, it would reflect ignorance of the basic principle that statistics do not reveal anything about individual cases.
Re:Targeted Rehab or Targeted Parole by SolemnDwarf · 2013-03-26 06:47 · Score: 2

Both, to be honest. There still needs to be a continuity of treatment throughout the CJ system, from incarceration through re-entry.
These scans, if accurate, will simply be another tool in the toolbox. Various assessments (old-school interview style) regarding decision-making skills are already being used. This would add another measurement tool to the mix.
Decision-making skills play a significant role, but there are plenty of other factors that help to reduce recidivism rates, such as anti-social belief systems, mental health, criminal companions, etc.
It's important people realize this only measures likelihood of re-offending. It's not a yes/no. No "pre-crime" scenarios could be used. Even if someone measured out at 99% likelihood to re-offend, it doesn't guarantee they will.
Re:Targeted Rehab or Targeted Parole by dragon-file · 2013-03-26 06:49 · Score: 1

You use this test as an excuse to keep certain people in jail for political reasons.
Wrong. You use the results of this test to get funding which you then spend doing everything you missed out on in 4 years while you were tailing this people around town waiting for them to get arrested again.

--
Whenever a player quits EVE to go play WoW, the Average IQ of both games increase.
Re:Targeted Rehab or Targeted Parole by bhartman34 · 2013-03-26 06:50 · Score: 2

Regardless of whether this is a bad idea or not, how is keeping someone who fails this test incarcerated "political"? It seems to me that if the test is the basis for parole or release, that's the opposite of political. That's based on science. Whether it's based on good science is another question, but it's certainly not based on, "Keeping you locked up will look good to my voters", or "Giving you early release will look good to my [other] voters".
Re:Targeted Rehab or Targeted Parole by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-26 07:05 · Score: 0

The GP is saying that you could use this test as justification for continued incarceration after you have decided you want to continue incarceration for some other, non-scientific reason.
Re:Targeted Rehab or Targeted Parole by RatPh!nk · 2013-03-26 07:05 · Score: 2

Decision-making skills play a significant role, but there are plenty of other factors that help to reduce recidivism rates, such as anti-social belief systems, mental health, criminal companions, etc
which according to the article were controlled for.......Doesn't mean it is perfect, but it is less of a confounding variable then you may think.

--
Argh. The laws of science be a harsh mistress.
Re:Targeted Rehab or Targeted Parole by ColdWetDog · 2013-03-26 07:09 · Score: 0

Although this fear is certainly reasonable, one could argue that stratifying recidivism risk (in a valid fashion) would allow the system to concentrate treatment and surveillance efforts on higher risk persons. If you can focus on those criminals who would benefit from intensive therapy (and you could indeed find such a therapy), you might be more effective and less costly.
Of course, this requires a rather pollyanish view of the world, but anyone who has a financial position in functional MRIs ought to feel good about this.

--
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Re:Targeted Rehab or Targeted Parole by GrumpySteen · 2013-03-26 07:09 · Score: 1

Oh don't be silly. This isn't thought crime. It's pre-thought crime. The criminal hasn't even thought about committing the crime and he's already guilty!
Re:Targeted Rehab or Targeted Parole by characterZer0 · 2013-03-26 07:11 · Score: 1

New York State already has laws to keep some sex offenders incarcerated after they serve their sentences.

--
Go green: turn off your refrigerator.
Re:Targeted Rehab or Targeted Parole by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-26 07:23 · Score: 0

You use the results of this test to get funding which you then spend doing everything you missed out on in 4 years while you were tailing this people around town waiting for the perfect opportunity to frame them thus validating your results.
Fixed that for you.
Re:Targeted Rehab or Targeted Parole by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-26 07:33 · Score: 1

Since parole is prospective judgement of the risk of releasing one person, the decision is always going to be one of applying general knowledge to individual cases. Now we have parole officers making subjective decisions, which IMHO is just a way of mixing inaccurate statistics with personal biases. Moving away from that model to one that's based on real statistics and objectively measurable data seems like an improvement.
Re:Targeted Rehab or Targeted Parole by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · 2013-03-26 07:53 · Score: 2

Well it basically happens here in Minnesota with sex offenders. After they have finished their jail or prison term they get them committed to a mental institution because they might offend again. This has been held up the courts as this is a civil commitment and not a criminal one even though the individual does not wish to be held. Thus no ex post facto or double jeopardy things preventing this. As they are convicted sex offenders no one really wants to remedy the problem and no politician will touch the issue with a 10 foot pole.

--
Time to offend someone
Re:Targeted Rehab or Targeted Parole by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · 2013-03-26 07:55 · Score: 1

So does Minnesota, although we prefer to have them civilly committed to a mental institution instead thus avoiding some legal issues.

--
Time to offend someone
Re:Targeted Rehab or Targeted Parole by lightknight · 2013-03-26 08:58 · Score: 2

Hehe. Got it one. A little manual 'calibration' of the machine, or perhaps some careful slips of the results...and voila, your average political protester is now a career criminal, with no chance for an appeal!
One of the simpler tricks, of course, will be to simply take a brain scan from a known mass murderer before 'taking a scan' of the person of political interest...old tricks are the best tricks, right?

--
I am John Hurt.
Re:Targeted Rehab or Targeted Parole by lightknight · 2013-03-26 09:02 · Score: 0

Actually, the current criteria, in some sectors, for a criminal or potential criminal is anyone who insists that they have 'rights.'
See, a perfectly sane individual knows that life is about rule of law. The police show up at your house, guns drawn, and demand to rape your wife...they're probably going to have her. An insane individual will, in the light of weaponry, and obvious harm to themselves, continue to assert that a piece of paper over two hundred years old that has been increasingly reinterpreted to mean whatever-the-fuck the people with guns want it to mean is somehow some protection against Sir-Thug-U-Lox. That's what the shrink calls a 'thought disorder' and 'magical thinking.'

--
I am John Hurt.
Re:Targeted Rehab or Targeted Parole by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-26 09:03 · Score: 0

Oh don't be silly. This isn't thought crime. It's pre-thought crime. The criminal hasn't even thought about committing the crime and he's already guilty!
You see, the moral and intellectual faculties are innate; their exercise or manifestation depends on organisation of the brain, which is the organ of all the propensities, sentiments and faculties. The brain is composed of many particular organs, as there are propensities, sentiments and faculties which differ essentially from each other, and as the form of the head or cranium represents the form of the brain, thus it accurately reflects the relative development of the brain organs.
Detecting the formation of Moral Sensibilities through the Palpitation of the head and Digital Exploration of the cranium is the work of Experts, who can confidently inform the Powers that Be which persons must be imprisoned - or, in extreme cases, executed - for the Good of All.
It would be Wrong to allow these Degenerate Criminals the opportunity to commit their Crimes. Think of the Children, and the Ladies on their fainting couches!
Signed, Franz Joseph Gall
Re:Targeted Rehab or Targeted Parole by lightknight · 2013-03-26 09:04 · Score: 2

Or you could, I don't know, banish them from the society to which they are ill-suited? The Ancient Greeks did that, I believe.
What purpose can be found in holding someone to standards they cannot meet, except to exact revenge upon them for being born in the wrong place, and not having the resources to emancipate themselves?

--
I am John Hurt.
Re:Targeted Rehab or Targeted Parole by lightknight · 2013-03-26 09:12 · Score: 1

I believe you are assuming, falsely, that increased surveillance and tracking does not increase occurrences as well. Who, at this current time, would like to argue that our police departments are the model of social justice and restraint when dealing with the formerly criminal element? That these 'supermen,' who fail so often and tragically to meet whatever passes for the standards of normal in any local, will not instigate, or attempt bribery, extortion, etc. of these types? "Pay me $300 by Tuesday, or I'm sending you back to prison" -> much like the disappearing money / cocaine from the evidence locker, I would not take this bet.
Make a choice -> create a permanent slave-caste, the felon, to be spat upon for all time, and treated as a second class individual, or rehab them / banish them, and be done with it. It should be a boon to the taxpayer if we were to move to banishment, as the cost savings from closing several prisons would be enough to fuel any number of local schools, etc. But then, you'd lose the stick that keeps the rest of society in line...they won't have anyone to hear stories from, to look down upon...the evening news would be duller.

--
I am John Hurt.
Re:Targeted Rehab or Targeted Parole by lightknight · 2013-03-26 09:16 · Score: 1

Flavoring the jury...and it works! A century ago, we'd have heard about how the bumps on a person's head determined their personality / criminal disposition...and here it is again, in a new form! What wonders humanity dreams up! One side always working to erase labels and tear down walls, the other side working to build them up again and invent new labels! Who's on the right side, who's on the wrong side...it changes daily, and I never know who's going to be pushed out of the group next!
Oh Humanity, you are the Silastic Armor Fiends! Keep you on a planet long enough, and you will go to war with yourself!

--
I am John Hurt.
Re: Targeted Rehab or Targeted Parole by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-26 09:28 · Score: 0

If you think a felons punishment is over after they have served their time, you are mistaken. The onus of a felony conviction follows a person for the rest of their life with a few exceptions where large quantities of money are involved. Despite what most people think, a person with a felony conviction will always face prejudice even though they 'served their time.'
Re:Targeted Rehab or Targeted Parole by fyngyrz · 2013-03-26 09:35 · Score: 1

Parole boards prefer to to grant parole to somebody that's likely to go out and commit more crimes.
"Sir, come with us. Based upon your documented anti-parole-board statements, we have a warrant for your arrest. You have fallen into a statistical bin that includes many types of criminals, and society has decided it would be better off with people like you incarcerated. Turn around, place your hands upon the wall."

--
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Re:Targeted Rehab or Targeted Parole by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-26 11:38 · Score: 0

And that has precisely what to do with the GP post?
Just because you're an idiot, doesn't make the GP post any less reasonable.
Re:Targeted Rehab or Targeted Parole by demonlapin · 2013-03-26 13:54 · Score: 1

That is indeed the excellent case for Child Molester Island. Child Molester Island has provisions for tracking its residents, to make sure they don't try to escape to the mainland (and they are summarily executed if ever found off the Island). Otherwise it resembles any other first-world country, with the additional proviso that they get all the child porn they want to look at. Moving to Child Molester Island is not mandatory but does get you out of jail as soon as you are eligible for parole. If you voluntarily choose to move to Child Molester Island, you cannot ever leave, but your doing so will trigger a new one-year statute of limitations on reporting abuse: anyone whom you have abused is able to come forward at that time, so you can't use it to get out of impending charges. However, if you are a pedophile who has never acted out his desires, you will be able to watch all the child porn you want, and if you're a professional you will be permitted to keep your license in order to provide services for the residents of Child Molester Island - doctors, dentists, accountants, lawyers (even judges), etc.
Re:Targeted Rehab or Targeted Parole by dryeo · 2013-03-26 14:16 · Score: 1

Where do you banish people to now a days? Banishment worked fine when there was a wildness to banish them to. Now not so much.

--
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
Re:Targeted Rehab or Targeted Parole by fyngyrz · 2013-03-26 18:57 · Score: 1

LOL! Read the quote. Read it carefully. Don't read it for what you expect it to say, read it for what it says. Read the words that were used. When you understand what he wrote, you will then have the key required to understand the following humor. Assuming you're following the arguments about pre-crime, too.
I don't know if you actually have the wits, your post seems to signal otherwise, but I'm willing to extend the benefit of the doubt your way this one time, cuz I'm a nice guy. :)

--
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Re:Targeted Rehab or Targeted Parole by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-28 21:20 · Score: 0

A parole board lets people out (or doesn't), but it doesn't lock them up. Hence your 'come with us' is retarded.
Re:Targeted Rehab or Targeted Parole by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-29 08:30 · Score: 0

Don't be dumb. Experts don't think of that stuff, it's why random internet gobshites exist.
Re:Targeted Rehab or Targeted Parole by fyngyrz · 2013-03-30 05:31 · Score: 1

Your reading comprehension is now rated at below 25%. Congratulations.

--
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.

Beware of sampling bias by SirGarlon · 2013-03-26 06:15 · Score: 5, Insightful

Does the more impulsive decision-making mean they're more likely to commit new crimes, or simply more likely to get caught?

--
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.

Re:Beware of sampling bias by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-26 06:17 · Score: 0

Good point.
Re:Beware of sampling bias by ackthpt · 2013-03-26 06:30 · Score: 1

Does the more impulsive decision-making mean they're more likely to commit new crimes, or simply more likely to get caught?
And how is this impulsive decision-making different between committing crimes or other impuslive behavior (like going shopping for bananas and coming how with four bags of groceries?)

--

A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Re:Beware of sampling bias by interkin3tic · 2013-03-26 06:37 · Score: 1

That wouldn't mean it was useless though. Identifying dumb recidivists would still have some advantages over not identifying either, even if it was biased that way.

However, that in combination with another bias mentioned in TFA does make me think this technique is bad news

Men who were in the lower half of the ACC activity ranking had a 2.6-fold higher rate of rearrest for all crimes and a 4.3-fold higher rate for nonviolent crimes.
Emphasis added. So it's more effective at identifying dumb drug dealers who are going to re-offend. But we lock way too many of those up already. I think law enforcement needs to be focused a lot more on violent criminals, and less focus on non-violent criminals.

So, I'm leaning toward "lets not waste taxpayer money on screening criminals with this." I think this will only pad police department budgets and will not make us actually safer. Come back when you have a way of identifying people who are going to re-commit violent crimes, then we'll start discussing whether it's worth it.
Re:Beware of sampling bias by ClioCJS · 2013-03-26 06:51 · Score: 1

I'd say a precursor to getting caught is committing a crime.

--
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
Re:Beware of sampling bias by plover · 2013-03-26 06:52 · Score: 2

Does that particular bias matter? Are you thinking they're detecting "stupidity" or "carelessness" instead of "criminal tendencies"? The end result doesn't have to explain the path, although it's nice when it does.
What I think might be more interesting in is the nature of the crime vs. the mapping of activity. Are they violent criminals? Drug offenders? Insider traders? Political dissidents? I should think that each would have a different type of response: drug offenders might be react due to addiction; violent offenders might have poor impulse control which could show up in a different area of the brain; political dissidents would have the internal smug certainty of being "right" regarding their "just" cause; while insider traders could just be scheming bastards. The selection process might only work on one category of offender; or perhaps would need to be tailored to fit either the crime or the individual.

--
John
Re:Beware of sampling bias by i+kan+reed · 2013-03-26 07:09 · Score: 2

Please never be a juror for me.
Re:Beware of sampling bias by bhartman34 · 2013-03-26 07:11 · Score: 1

Men who were in the lower half of the ACC activity ranking had a 2.6-fold higher rate of rearrest for all crimes and a 4.3-fold higher rate for nonviolent crimes.
My math may be off, but I don't think it is higher for violent offenders, if I'm reading this sentence right.

Rate * normal for non-violent offenders = 4.3
Rate * normal for all offenders = 2.6
Rate * normal for violent offenders = X

(4.3 + X )/2 = 2.6
4.3 + X = 5.2
X = 5.2 - 4.3

X = 0.9
Re:Beware of sampling bias by ClioCJS · 2013-03-26 07:11 · Score: 1

Your loss. I'd probably nullify it.

--
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
Re:Beware of sampling bias by dgatwood · 2013-03-26 07:21 · Score: 2
Non-violent crime isn't just drug dealers. In fact, that is probably the least likely to be affected by differences in impulse suppression. One of the major functions of the ACC is to suppress impulses, particularly in situations where you have previously learned that acting on those impulses is harmful. But you don't become a drug dealer just because you stumble upon a drug dealer and suddenly getting the urge to do that. It is a conscious decision that involves planning, networking, etc.
The non-violent recidivism that this predicts are unplanned crimes—shoplifting, buying drugs, public drunkenness, etc.—the sorts of crimes that are caused by someone acting on impulse.
What this tells us is that certain people are unlikely to ever develop the ability to resist temptation, and that the only way to prevent them from going back to a life of crime is to ensure that those temptations are not part of their lives. There are many ways to accomplish this, with varying degrees of success. For example, if someone fails this test, it would be best for them to not try to go back to their lives prior to being in prison. They should try to make a clean start, and should be very, very selective about who they allow back into their new lives, to reduce the chances of falling into the same pattern of behavior that got them in trouble in the first place. That makes this a great diagnostic test for determining how closely to monitor someone on probation/parole, to what extent they will need additional support, what sort of terms the judge should set for probation/parole, etc.
The reason this is a stronger indicator for nonviolent crimes is that the sorts of people who commit violent crimes fall into three categories: the sociopaths, the people who commit crimes of passion, and people who commit violent crimes as an unplanned side effect of committing other crimes (e.g. people who initially planned to steal something from a store, but ended up shooting the store manager after he pointed a gun at them). Of these:
- The sociopaths are likely to commit another violent crime, but we already have ways to test for that.
- The people who commit a crime of passion are unlikely to be in a similarly extreme situation, so they are unlikely to commit another violent crime.
- The people who commit a violent crime because they acted on impulse might commit another one, but that would be predicted by this same test.
Two things make this test a weaker indicator for violent recidivism: the relatively large size of that middle group and the law preventing someone from legally owning a handgun after committing a violent crime (which significantly reduces the violent recidivism of the third group, though not necessarily the nonviolent recidivism).
This is not to say that the people in the third group could not obtain a firearm if they wanted to do so, but assuming these people are generally trying to stay out of jail, they aren't likely to go out looking for illegal firearms, so they probably won't be armed the next time they decide to commit a crime on the spur of the moment, and if they are, then they're probably in the first bucket, not the third.
--
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Re:Beware of sampling bias by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-26 07:26 · Score: 1

I'd say a precursor to getting caught is committing a crime.
... said the gaoler at Guantanamo.
Re:Beware of sampling bias by i+kan+reed · 2013-03-26 07:27 · Score: 1

I was just being pithy. The problem being that you can be caught for a crime that never happened.
Re:Beware of sampling bias by dgatwood · 2013-03-26 07:47 · Score: 2

Your math is off. You're subtracting non-like percentages. It is not possible to know the rate for violent offenders without knowing what percentage of "all offenders" are violent.
Unless, of course, that detail is covered in the actual article.

--
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Re:Beware of sampling bias by bhartman34 · 2013-03-26 07:50 · Score: 1

Damn.

Okay. Thanks.
Re:Beware of sampling bias by fyngyrz · 2013-03-26 09:49 · Score: 1

You are assuming the purpose of the criminal justice system is to catch criminals. It isn't. It is to keep the jails full.
That's why they tune release in such a way as to maximize the likelihood of going back as soon as possible. The criminal becomes unemployable in any upwardly mobile capacity, everything from insurance rates to participation in social programs are altered by this "status." So if you still want nice things... and who doesn't, especially after months or years of privation... it's pretty obvious how you'll have to get them.
This is why recidivism is so high: Not because everyone wants to be a career criminal, but because the system is tuned to keep released individuals at that status. Only the most self-reliant, innovative and clever can escape the trap. Most people don't qualify, and so the prisons remain full, the money keeps flowing, the taxpayers remain cowed and pro-maximum-penalty... and round and round we go.

--
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Re:Beware of sampling bias by fyngyrz · 2013-03-26 09:51 · Score: 1

the internal smug certainty of being "right" regarding their "just" cause;
Hmmm. Like a... slashdot moderator!

--
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Re:Beware of sampling bias by TheSeatOfMyPants · 2013-03-26 21:06 · Score: 1

I agree, though obtaining, being on, or publicly over-using a substance without harming someone shouldn't be lumped in with the other types because of the high percentage of self-destructive behavior being spurred by an attempt to self-treat undiagnosed intolerably strong symptoms of psychiatric illness, not poor impulse control. The ones that get caught often aren't educated enough to realize they have a mental illness; all they know is that they spend much of their time full of pain & fear and/or involuntarily flash back to horrible things that happened, and that the substance alleviates part or all of it when they can't take any more.
Unfortunately, it's extremely hard to make someone understand how powerful the drive to make intense mental pain/fear go away can be, and as a result most (if not all) countries have used approaches to curb illegal substance abuse that were ineffective at best. I've never used drugs or deliberately gotten drunk, but it's because I've had adequate mental health care -- from past experience, I can tell you that depression, PTSD, and anxiety can be so powerful that it makes hiking off-trail through the mountains on a freshly-broken knee without help look like a cakewalk in comparison.

--
Now mostly at Usenet:comp.misc & SoylentNews.org (it's made of people!)

predict...more likely by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-26 06:15 · Score: 0, Insightful

is not a prediction...like saying jumping off tall builidings is survivable for those that survive.... it's journalistic craptasticnous

Brain discrimination by i+kan+reed · 2013-03-26 06:17 · Score: 5, Interesting

It's not illegal to discriminate against people on the basis of their brain activity. Should it be? Can you judge someone on the basis of their biology? Is it really that person's fault anymore if a part of their body predelects them to wrongdoing? Where does liability start? Can you fix people? Should you?

Too many questions about really understanding the brain that our primitive moral system could begin to address.

Re:Brain discrimination by interkin3tic · 2013-03-26 06:39 · Score: 2

Odds are this would be used on people who have already committed a crime, like determining if parole is granted. I'd argue it's still discrimination if you're saying "Past history AND biology," but the issue is murkier than you're presenting it. I think it's unlikely anyone would say "lets start locking up or watching people who haven't committed any crimes based solely on brain scans."
Re:Brain discrimination by h4rr4r · 2013-03-26 06:41 · Score: 1

Everything is based on your brain activity. You own actions that come from brain activity can also alter it. Meaning doing more and more impulsive things can make you more impulsive. Since you conditioned your brain to be this way why not hold it against you?
Re:Brain discrimination by TheRealMindChild · 2013-03-26 06:54 · Score: 1, Insightful

If you talk to a psychiatrist specializing in Psychosomatic medicine they will tell you being a better person is a simple matter of will. If you want to be a good person you will be. The brain will fix itself. Mind over matter.

As a patient to one of these in a system full of them, I approve this message

--

"When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
Re:Brain discrimination by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-26 07:00 · Score: 0

Can you judge someone on the basis of their biology? Is it really that person's fault anymore if a part of their body predelects them to wrongdoing? Where does liability start? Can you fix people? Should you?
Too many questions about really understanding the brain that our primitive moral system could begin to address.
You are mixing up concepts. The criminal system has little to do with "liability," "fault" or "judging." It's a matter of the functioning of society and the safety of the individual. If your actions are destructive to the society or threatening the safety of an individual, we as a society place you aside.
We shouldn't have to consider how much your actions are written into your genes or stem from your childhood experiences. Free will doesn't play a role. If you are trouble, we take away your freedom.
On the other hand, the society should never take revenge or punish you because you "deserve" to suffer. We simply should place you under guardianship where you are reasonably comfortable but have less of a chance to hurt others.
Similarly, punishment shouldn't "fit" the crime. What should be considered is the likelihood of your future misbehavior. You should not release somebody just because they have done their time.
Re:Brain discrimination by Sparticus789 · 2013-03-26 07:02 · Score: 1

One step away from Gattaca.

--
sudo make me a sandwich
Re:Brain discrimination by i+kan+reed · 2013-03-26 07:11 · Score: 1

Closer, really. Brain measurements incorporate nurture in some ways.
Re:Brain discrimination by Sparticus789 · 2013-03-26 07:19 · Score: 1

Fair point. Gattaca was just about genetics. In neurological theory, nurture can shape the function of the brain. It is a larger picture of a person's thought process and capabilities.
But what really matters, is having a fMRI ordered by a court a violation of your 5th amendment rights?

--
sudo make me a sandwich
Re:Brain discrimination by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-26 07:20 · Score: 0

Given the number of such articles in recent years, I would simply state that there is ground work being done in order to push for some legislation aimed at removing more obstacles in arbitrary prosecutions, aka, more legalized witch hunts.
Re:Brain discrimination by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-26 07:27 · Score: 0

This seems vaguely similar to one of the points Charlie Stross was trying to make in his novel Rule 34 . See his blog post Spoilers (which, unsurprisingly, contains spoilers for Rule 34), particularly point 3:

... It is a kind of science-fictional look at the police procedural, but what's really going on here is a look at the future of criminology in the context of a world where non-anthropomorphic AI (in other words, stuff that is functionally intelligent but doesn't resemble a "brain in a box", a la HAL 9000) is out there, and theories of consciousness have terminally undermined our traditional concepts of free will and mens rea.
...
... What does it mean when research in cognitive psychology strongly implies that we don't actually have "free will" in any meaningful context?
Re:Brain discrimination by i+kan+reed · 2013-03-26 07:30 · Score: 1

I can't imagine it being treated differently by the law than lie detectors.
Re:Brain discrimination by i+kan+reed · 2013-03-26 07:32 · Score: 1

Given the number of such articles in recent years, I would simply state that there is ground work being done in order to push for some legislation aimed at removing more obstacles in arbitrary prosecutions, aka, more legalized witch hunts.
The premise here doesn't even remotely imply the conclusion. Studying the behavior of the brain by MRI has only recently been possible, in sufficient detail to start drawing hypotheses about brain mechanisms.
The leap from that to witch hunts implies a bit of undue paranoia.
Re:Brain discrimination by He+Who+Has+No+Name · 2013-03-26 07:33 · Score: 1

You are discounting the fact that one of the core concepts of western criminal justice systems is... revenge.
We've formalized it, and tried to build in safeguards, and taken some of the emotion out of it to try and keep it from being a mob exercise with torches and pitchforks, but at its core, sentences for those convicted of crimes is about revenge for victims. It's a rarely acknowledged aspect that dates back to the very origins of formal justice systems.
It's also rooted in the fact that, while equally rarely talked about, one of the most effective forms of rehab for those traumatized by others through violence is revenge.
You'll rarely hear anybody who works in a western criminal justice system admit this, because it's extremely politically incorrect, but it is the truth, and criminal codes back to Hammurabi, the Torah, the Roman Republic and almost every other record of formalized criminal justice in human society reflects it.
Re:Brain discrimination by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-26 07:33 · Score: 1

But you have to be good enough to want to be good.
And so your whole theory vanishes in a puff of meaninglessness.
Re:Brain discrimination by MozeeToby · 2013-03-26 08:16 · Score: 1

I bet if the brain scan identified people with pedophilia people would. We've already established that we're (as a society) ok with locking up people who think about children that way, even if they've never touched a child in their lives.
Re:Brain discrimination by ProzacPatient · 2013-03-26 08:33 · Score: 1

Phrenology returns with a vengeance for the public to swallow along with a variety of cancer curing pseudoscience!
Re:Brain discrimination by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-26 08:38 · Score: 0

You are discounting the fact that one of the core concepts of western criminal justice systems is... revenge.
I'm not discounting anything. I'm telling you my view of the subject.
Speaking from outside the United States, I can tell you revenge is not equally ingrained in people's minds everywhere. It stands out in the American psyche.
Re:Brain discrimination by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-26 09:12 · Score: 0

Sadly, you're probably right. When the prosecution can give you a test that judges you somewhere between "inconclusive" and "guilty," adding another tool with the same range of output will probably be seen as perfectly acceptable.
Longer rant: Seriously, what are called "lie detectors" aren't. They detect markers of stress that are often associated with the fear of being caught in a lie. Because the trigger is so vague as to be almost meaningless, polygraph analysts have learned that a low perturbation doesn't actually mean anything, but they've convinced too many people that a high perturbation means guilt. The fact that a high perturbation can be caused purely by the fear of being prosecuted for a crime that you had no involvement in means that the whole ordeal is an insult to any concept of justice.
Re:Brain discrimination by lightknight · 2013-03-26 09:19 · Score: 1

Gotta do something to cut down on the population, right? Who knew electing politicians who could get claustrophobic in the Palace of Versaille would be a bad move?

--
I am John Hurt.
Re:Brain discrimination by HeckRuler · 2013-03-26 09:55 · Score: 2

It's not illegal to discriminate against people on the basis of their brain activity. Should it be?
I think that's too big of a blanket statement. Leaves out too many details. It's not as simple as that. See below.

Can you judge someone on the basis of their biology?
Well, yes, I can personally judge people based on whatever I damn well feel like. Yay liberty. But if I were to, say, hire someone based on their biology, specifically whether or not they have blond hair, or an Y chromosome, or hadn't hit menopause, or had grey hair, or you know, other biological stuff, sometimes that could land you with a big fat law-suit for discrimination. And rightly so. Other times you need to hire young blonds because it's an acting role, and that's ok.
So the answer is yes and no because it's a bad question that's overly broad.

Is it really that person's fault anymore if a part of their body preselects them to wrongdoing?
Yes. If someone has the gene which makes them ludicrously susceptible to alcohol addiction, it's up to them not to get addicted, break their addiction, know their weaknesses, be a functioning addict and/or otherwise be a functional member of society.
If you have anger-management issues you need to deal with that. We all have strengths and weaknesses, to say that you are not the owner of said traits detracts from what it is that makes you, you. If we separate people from owning their own traits, there's really no incentive to fix them. If being a drunkard is somehow socially acceptable or otherwise excused, we will have more drunkards because more people will stop fighting to fix their issues.
All that said, we generally react poorly to the concept of fault. Rather than punishing those at fault, we should work on fixing them. Rather than trials and judgements being about what punishment people deserve, it should be more like "yep, you're fucked up, time to fix you". And just so you don't think I'm some bleeding-heart hippy, some cases aren't worth fixing, and it's time to take them out back and shoot them or lock them away forever so they don't hurt others.

Where does liability start?
Your actions. I reject the idea that the "pre-disposed-to-violence" types are not liable for the violence they cause. We all have our collection of quirks, oddities, and problems. If you cannot contain your problems and be a functional member of society, you're liable for that. Sociopaths don't get a free-ride for murder, drunkards don't get excused for public intoxication.

Can you fix people?
To an extent, for most problems. The easily-addicted sort need to clean up and stay away from the sauce. The violent types need to channel that in constructive way or punch a bag of potatoes rather than building a doomsday device. Counseling, planning, therapy, medication, and such can help, but they can't inject 20cc's of wisdom yet, and there are a LOT of issues we don't understand yet. And despite the best counselors, a willing reformee, a known problem, and all the right steps... sometimes the flaw is just too deep. We shouldn't spend 50 years of resources so Manson-types can go be janitors for 5 years before they kick the bucket.

Should you?
It depends. For convicted felons? Yes, I think they've lost the right to be fuckups and the fix, if any, should be forced upon them. They cannot be trusted to contain/deal with/or fix themselves. For friends and family, yes, because you love them. You should do what you can to try and fix them, and they have the option to accept or refuse. For others? eeeeh, as long as it's no skin off my teeth I'd say live and let live.
There's this whole idea of society and by helping others I help myself. The whole "rising tides lift all boats" thing. But by and far the attempts I've see to try and pro-actively fix aspects of society have caused more problems
Re:Brain discrimination by HeckRuler · 2013-03-26 09:59 · Score: 1

And if there was a brain scan that identified homosexuals there would be churches that pushed parents to "have their children tested".
But I like to have faith in democracy and that the majority would abstain from such behavior.
Re:Brain discrimination by rmdingler · 2013-03-26 10:30 · Score: 1

Rape of grown (or otherwise) victims is a deplorable act, but punishing people who possess the willpower to resist their basest antisocial urges is the first step to a society of thought criminals. It's an easy sell because everyone hates a pedophile. Rights are traditionally stripped from all of us for patriotism, freedom, safety, the children, etc.....insert your own buzzword here. Malice in the heart often stays there.

--
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
Re:Brain discrimination by rmdingler · 2013-03-26 10:33 · Score: 1

Hear hear... this is one of those nuggets that I read Slashdot for.

--
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
Re:Brain discrimination by kermidge · 2013-03-26 18:45 · Score: 1

"I think it's unlikely anyone would say "lets start locking up or watching people who haven't committed any crimes based solely on brain scans.""
Not yet.
Re:Brain discrimination by r00t · 2013-03-26 19:43 · Score: 1

I agree about the revenge, and it is enjoyable, but I prefer to be a bit colder.
Ask a simple question: is this person, when all aspects of their life are considered, a net positive for society? We count expected violence, taxes paid, welfare consumed... EVERYTHING. If the person is not a net positive, they need to die.
The method of death should be that which is most beneficial to society. If the person is healthy, we take out their organs and give them to people in need of transplants. (removing them while living) If the person is unhealthy, we use them to train medical students until beginner mistakes get the job done. The remains can become diesel fuel and compost.
That said, there is something to be said for letting the victim dish out justice. I'd probably kill the criminal with a staple gun or a belt sander. It's not the most beneficial for society, so I'd try to resist.
Re:Brain discrimination by i+kan+reed · 2013-03-27 02:17 · Score: 1

FYI, general precedent is that lie detectors aren't allowed in court rooms.
Re:Brain discrimination by Lesrahpem · 2013-03-27 03:23 · Score: 1

It's not illegal to discriminate against people on the basis of their brain activity. Should it be? Can you judge someone on the basis of their biology? Is it really that person's fault anymore if a part of their body predelects them to wrongdoing? Where does liability start? Can you fix people? Should you?
Too many questions about really understanding the brain that our primitive moral system could begin to address.
Does it really matter whose "fault" something is? Discrimination based on assumptions, regardless of the basis, should certainly be illegal. However, discrimination based on objective, observable things shouldn't be. For example, it should be illegal to discriminate against potential employees based on ethnicity. It should not be illegal to discriminate against people with a measurably low IQ when the job can be shown to require a higher IQ. It doesn't, or shouldn't, matter that a person's intelligence quotient isn't exactly their fault.

More interesting: by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-26 06:19 · Score: 0

"more likely to be arrested again after getting out of prison, even after the researchers accounted for other risk factors such as age, drug and alcohol abuse and psychopathic traits"

More interesting would be an article on how the scientists figured out how to account for the risk factors.

Re:More interesting: by Mikkeles · 2013-03-26 06:29 · Score: 1

More likely than what?
How much more likely?
To how many more recidivists does this equate?

--
Great minds think alike; fools seldom differ.
Re:More interesting: by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-26 06:33 · Score: 1

That article would be a rehash of the first couple of weeks of junior high science class. This subject is known as Scientific control. In a study such as this, to the extent possible, you compare an individual only against others whose values for those variables are the same, so as to ensure you're measuring the effect you want to measure. It's basic science.

They were all caught and imprisoned initially by kawabago · 2013-03-26 06:27 · Score: 2

So that should even selection bias

Re:They were all caught and imprisoned initially by SirGarlon · 2013-03-26 07:28 · Score: 3, Insightful
They're measuring re-arrest, not recidivism (committing new crimes). There is a difference: not all who commit crimes get arrested, and not all who get arrested have committed a crime. One of the key principles in _How to Lie with Statistics_ (excellent book) was the following:
1. Discover that you don't have data to support a desire finding (in this case, that we can predict who will re-commit crimes)
2. Provide data that supports some other finding instead (in this case, re-arrest rate)
3. Pretend there is no difference between your desired finding and your actual finding
4. ...
5. Profit!
--
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
Re:They were all caught and imprisoned initially by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-26 13:47 · Score: 0

Recidivism

Recidivism (pron.: /rsdvzm/; from recidive + ism, from Latin recidvus "recurring", from re- "back" + cad "I fall") is the act of a person repeating an undesirable behavior after they have either experienced negative consequences of that behavior, or have been treated or trained to extinguish that behavior. It is also used to refer to the percentage of former prisoners who are rearrested
Re:They were all caught and imprisoned initially by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-26 14:15 · Score: 0

You sounded clever there for a minute, but then I realised you were actually dumb. People only get sent to prison for crimes they are arrested for, so measuring their re-arrest rate is a perfectly reasonable way of measuring their recidivism. They'll still get away with crimes they aren't arrested for, but they did in the past too.
Re:They were all caught and imprisoned initially by sjames · 2013-03-26 19:13 · Score: 1

Not really. Are the ones judged unlikely to re-offend ACTUALLY unlikely to re-offend or are they just unlikely to get caught again? (perhaps their better brain function allows them to learn all the wrong lessons from their mistakes). Are the ones with the lower function ACTUALLY less likely to re-offend or are they just more likely to be caught again if they do re-offend.
Sociopaths come in two broad categories. The first tends to commit a lot of smallish crimes and ends up in prison a lot. The second smarter category tends to commit crimes on a huge scale and become Wall Street heroes.

Could be a good thing by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-26 06:28 · Score: 1

The knee-jerk reaction will probably be to keep these people locked up for their precrimes...

But if we can get over our medieval fascination with justice and punishment and start focusing on rehabilitation, this could be an invaluable tool both to decide where to spend most effort, and to choose between different guidance approaches.

I imagine that as we learn more about physical differences in our brains, we could use similar techniques for a rough "sorting" of other personality factors. Imagine a "sorting hat" that recommended which class a child should be in based on what teaching methods it thought would be most effective. Hopefully following its advice would be voluntary!

Re:Could be a good thing by Ichijo · 2013-03-26 07:13 · Score: 1

If we were to focus less on revenge and more on rehabilitation, as you suggest, then the sentence would be the same for all crimes. You could have shoplifters "locked up" for longer than mass murderers. And I'm not entirely sure that would be a bad thing.

--
Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
Re:Could be a good thing by i+kan+reed · 2013-03-26 07:18 · Score: 2

My slashdot discussions have revealed to me that we will never get past that. Between the authoritarians republicans, execute-all-criminals-for-evolution libertarians, and all flavors of just-world believing nutballs, we will never manage to treat crime in an optimal way.

precrime brain scan says you stay in for 5 more ye by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-26 06:31 · Score: 0

precrime brain scan says you stay in for 5 more years.

Welcome to Parole Hearings in 2027 by Scot+Seese · 2013-03-26 06:32 · Score: 1

Operation Mindcrime is in effect.

--
THIS SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.

Consequences by kjs3 · 2013-03-26 06:33 · Score: 1

Generally unaccountable agencies, able to predict with unknown precision that an individual might, at some point in the future, commit another crime? How could this possibly not end well?

Correction by Githaron · 2013-03-26 06:33 · Score: 1

Brain Scans Predict Which Criminals Are More Likely To Be Caught Re-offending

Re:Correction by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-26 06:49 · Score: 0

Has a lovely ring of self-fulfilling prophecy to it. It would be outrageous to refuse parole to people based on brain scan... "But putting them under closer supervision couldn't hurt."
It's like loss-prevention following people with baggy jeans. The baggy jeans that get caught stealing confirm their bias.

Statistically speaking, a lot by Lucas123 · 2013-03-26 06:34 · Score: 4, Insightful

According to a 2011 Pew study, more than 40 percent of ex-cons commit crimes within three years of their release and wind up back behind bars. As reported on BBC Radio in 2005, the recidivism rates for released prisoners in the U.S. is 60% compared with 50% in the United Kingdom. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics of nearly 300,000 prisoners released in 15 states in 1994, 67.5% were rearrested within 3 years. A study of prisoners released in 1983 estimated 62.5%. In general, U.S. prisons offer very little to inmates that would keep them from repeating crimes once they're released. Perhaps we should rethink this strategy?

Re:Statistically speaking, a lot by h4rr4r · 2013-03-26 06:42 · Score: 4, Informative

We also make it near impossible for those recently incarcerated to find work. Just try to get a non-shit job with a felony record. No wonder they go back to crime, you have to pay the bills somehow.
Re:Statistically speaking, a lot by plover · 2013-03-26 07:07 · Score: 1

OK, there are two paths to reconsider. First, we could lock them up for a shorter period of time, saving the ongoing costs of longer incarceration, but incurring the costs of additional recidivism, (harm to the public, capture, trials, and future incarceration) which we know will be at least 62.5% of them. Or we could lock them up for longer periods of time, reducing their ability to re-offend, and saving the costs of extra offenses, which would include public harm, capture, and trials.
Of the two strategies, the second seems better backed by numbers. The sharp dip in the crime rate from the later 1990s through the 2000s is thought to be due to much longer sentences being handed down to violent criminals starting in the late 1980s-early 1990s. Incarceration costs are up, but public harm is down. Spend money, get benefit.
The third option is to try to keep people (kids, mostly) from getting into trouble in the first place. I agree this is the best choice, but it has a 50 year return on investment, and teen programs rarely get politicians much positive traction. They get much better election results from being 'tough on crime' instead of being 'smart on kids'.
Or are you still believing there's a fourth option, in which we gently talk the prisoners into never reoffending, and somehow magically rehabilitating them through the use of winged monkeys and invisible pink unicorns? Because that's worked out so well.

--
John
Re:Statistically speaking, a lot by gnasher719 · 2013-03-26 07:34 · Score: 4, Informative

Of the two strategies, the second seems better backed by numbers. The sharp dip in the crime rate from the later 1990s through the 2000s is thought to be due to much longer sentences being handed down to violent criminals starting in the late 1980s-early 1990s. Incarceration costs are up, but public harm is down. Spend money, get benefit.
I read it was due to abortion becoming much more acceptable, which led to fewer kids being born into a bad family situation that would eventually lead to criminal behaviour.
Re:Statistically speaking, a lot by H0p313ss · 2013-03-26 07:54 · Score: 1

Of the two strategies, the second seems better backed by numbers. The sharp dip in the crime rate from the later 1990s through the 2000s is thought to be due to much longer sentences being handed down to violent criminals starting in the late 1980s-early 1990s. Incarceration costs are up, but public harm is down. Spend money, get benefit.
I read it was due to abortion becoming much more acceptable, which led to fewer kids being born into a bad family situation that would eventually lead to criminal behaviour.
Voluntary eugenics?

--
XML is a known as a key material required to create SMD: Software of Mass Destruction
Re:Statistically speaking, a lot by tnk1 · 2013-03-26 07:59 · Score: 1

While it is understandable that people wouldn't want to hire felons, particularly violent ones, this is a very good point. It begins a downward spiral of one bad choice ending your ability to return to society even after "serving your time". Your "time" is not over if you can't get a job afterward.
Of course, the problem is that these criminals may suffer from something that even true remorse may not be sufficient to overcome: violently impulsive behavior. Until someone figures out how to deal with that, we're in a bit of a pickle.
Re:Statistically speaking, a lot by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-26 08:03 · Score: 0

Yes, killing the people who might cause a problem is a valid solution to the problem. It also works on adults too, but for some reason we don't even want to kill people who are actually guilty of crimes, but we're good with killing people who are only "potentially" liable to commit crime. If we go with that theory, we should also just execute young, black males because that would decrease the incidence of crime too.
Re:Statistically speaking, a lot by PRMan · 2013-03-26 08:40 · Score: 0

That WAS the thinking of the woman who started Planned Parenthood. She was a racist who was all too happy to encourage minorities to kill their own children...
http://www.blackgenocide.org/sanger.html

--
Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
Re:Statistically speaking, a lot by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-26 08:49 · Score: 1

Thats the Freakonomics take on the subject. A far more convincing case has been made that its due to the reduction in lead in our environment. http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2013/01/lead-crime-link-gasoline
Re: Statistically speaking, a lot by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-26 09:43 · Score: 0

It's not just the recently incarcerated. Felony bias will follow an individual around for the rest of their life.
Re:Statistically speaking, a lot by organgtool · 2013-03-26 10:50 · Score: 2

And I heard the reduction in crime was caused by banning lead from gasoline. Excessive quantities of lead have been proven to make people more violent. The fact of the matter is that it is difficult to know exactly why it happened, but I know of studies that claim to have proven the reduction was caused by banning leaded gasoline and I have never heard of any studies even finding a correlation with the acceptance of abortion.
Re:Statistically speaking, a lot by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-26 10:56 · Score: 0

The general economy was also improved compared to the previous 10-15 year period.
Re:Statistically speaking, a lot by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-26 21:00 · Score: 0

Actually living and working conditions for many poor people are so rotten that they have become aware that they live better in prison. If we do not increase the happy qualities of employment and get nasty employers out of business we may lose control of our nation. Convicts can easily bankrupt America and they sort of know that.
Re:Statistically speaking, a lot by n3tm0nk · 2013-03-27 03:35 · Score: 0

One of the consequences of an open society is crime. No matter what is done, there will always be criminals. There are even criminals in dictatorships. There is no way to stop criminal activity. Manage it a little, sure. But no way to stop it. If we as a species did ever happen to find a magic bullet, we would redefine what is criminal behaviour and start the process all over again.

Re:Block brain scanners by memorizing a host file by dyingtolive · 2013-03-26 06:35 · Score: 4, Funny

Speaking of people with lower ACC activity..

--
Support the EFF and Creative Commons. The war is coming, and they're supporting you...

I can predict it pretty good by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-26 06:44 · Score: 0

Out here in Manitoba, damn near ANYONE is capable of predicting who will likely re-offend.

Let's see. How about the guy that's been in prison 3 times, who has re-offended within the first few days of being released EVERY SINGLE TIME, who the last time re-offended within 12 hours of being released, who has shown absolutely NO improvement or willingness to improve himself while in prison, whom you're releasing AGAIN into the public, after a few months behind bars.

Well gosh golly gee, I wonder if there's going to be something about a violent, recently-released criminal attacking someone in the local newspapers in a day or two.

Story of our lives around here. I don't know if they need to build another prison, or start sending people outside the province, or get whoever the goddamn hell keeps releasing these people fired... but hey, if you're a criminal and looking to do violent crime with very, very little prison time afterwards, no matter how many times you're cycled through the system, move into gang-run Winnipeg! Murder capital of Canada (or at least it was... not sure if we got the crown for 2012). Do something silly like stab someone repeatedly, we'll see you back on the streets in a few months even if the only rehabillitating you did in prison was spitting on the guards instead of shanking them. And even then, I imagine we'd see you in a few months anyway.

Although, most of it is gang vs. gang related stuff, so unless you're just the unlucky bastard at the wrong place and the wrong time when a gang member or asshole is looking to beat the shit out of someone out of boredom, odds are the crimes were committed against other criminals.

Nice... by RLU486983 · 2013-03-26 06:47 · Score: 1

"Minority Report" LIVE... getting popcorn, brb!

and the system will rig it so most people get out by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-26 06:48 · Score: 0

and the system will rig it so most people get out as we are out of room right now.

how can this be used for training? by uepuejq · 2013-03-26 06:49 · Score: 1

is it possible to devise tasks that prisoners can perform in prison which will strengthen this part of the brain?

I can't wait! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-26 06:50 · Score: 0

I can't wait until we can pre-screen and imprison children depending on brain scans before they even commit a crime.

Re:Block brain scanners by memorizing a host file by TheP4st · 2013-03-26 06:51 · Score: 2

Hahahaha! Thank you, you actually had me laughing out loudly and my inner voice ceased screaming "Die die die AC!"

--
"I have downloaded hundreds and hundreds of records, why would I care if somebody downloads ours?" Robin Pecknold

Crime Coefficient: 330 by GameboyRMH · 2013-03-26 06:53 · Score: 1

Lethal Eliminator mode engaged, trigger unlocked.

--
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel

Re:Crime Coefficient: 330 by Iceykitsune · 2013-03-26 07:33 · Score: 1

Dammit. beat me to it. :)

--
GENERATION 24: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social exper
Re:Crime Coefficient: 330 by lightknight · 2013-03-26 09:33 · Score: 1

I love you. The Sybil system...*shudders*...imperfection magnified.
I mean, on one hand, it's fascinating...the idea that enough eccentric / psychopathic minds acting in unison can average things out. On the other hand, for set of waves that cancel, there are also a set of waves that magnify, when overlapped. 'Tis just an anime series...but it's interesting that the original author left that out...or perhaps that's the error that the Sybil system can't account for...the one it produces by its mere existence. It believes, that because it consider its own operations purely logical, that it can peer into the future...that it will act today, as it will act tomorrow. But that's just intellectual laziness...the replacement of a complex equation, not fully understood, with a mere symbol, that triggers a delayed calculation. What is the 5th order derivative of its actions next Tuesday, accounting for it having taken the 5th order derivative today? Since it believes it's purely logical, then it must be a 0, 1, or infinity (something like that). If it's a 1.3, the entire calculation is off, and requires additional work. Part of the series, especially the end, points out the flaws present...the Sybil system has to make compromises to further its agenda...logical, in a way, illogical, in that it perverts its own actions, and allows for increased error.
The true problem, faced with a system of this magnitude, that is never discussed, is over of playing God. If you can spot an individual who is at risk, how well can you alter the variables so that they are no longer at risk? Do you compromise by hijacking their mind, or do you move the environment around to achieve this end? Think about it.

--
I am John Hurt.
Re:Crime Coefficient: 330 by EuclideanSilence · 2013-03-26 21:02 · Score: 1

What's scary was that 330 was the lesser of the two crime coefficients. Gotta wonder how high the old man's coefficient was.

but it's a hell of an excuse by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-26 06:58 · Score: 0

to make every human being run through these once a week.. you know.. just in case they might commit a crime

Well... by TheCarp · 2013-03-26 07:00 · Score: 1

As far as I can tell from what I have seen, when it comes to being arrested or not, what you got caught doing matters, but your attitude matters too. So ability to think fast and inihibit impulses? Would that maybe include the impulse to blurt out confessions? The impulse to tell the cop what you really think about him "helping you" by confiscating that joint?

I know a few people that got more trouble than they deserved because they couldn't keep their mouths shut, and conversely those who, in almost identical situations, walked away because they cast their eyes down all submissive and sorry like and said "yes officer, your right officer, im sorry officer" even though they didn't mean a word of it.

Maybe these researchers are really on to something.

--
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"

Isn't an IQ Test Cheaper and More Effective? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-26 07:14 · Score: 1

Doing brain scans to detect lower levels of cognitive function in a brain...? Perhaps the researchers should scan themselves, or this whole thing can be traced to an MRI machine manufacturer.

Ahhh.. yep. From the researcher's web site front page: "The Avanto is the most advanced system of this strength in the Siemens product line. It features an ultra-short, 150 cm-long whole-body superconductive 1.5T magnet, with 5th generation active-shielding technology with counter coils,.." The scent of agenda bullshit is strong with this one.

Re:Isn't an IQ Test Cheaper and More Effective? by dotar · 2013-03-26 07:26 · Score: 2

It's not "lower levels of cognitive function", it's "lower activity when making a decision". It absolutely stands to reason that an area of the brain largely involved in detection of errors or shortfalls from some standard, anticipation and preparation before task performance, and regulation of emotions would be less active in someone who makes poor decisions.

low activity in the PFC? by dotar · 2013-03-26 07:18 · Score: 1

That's a no-brainer.

Fiddlesticks... by jasonq · 2013-03-26 07:20 · Score: 2

We all know that phrenology is more reliable!

Minority Report by cheesecake23 · 2013-03-26 07:23 · Score: 1

Everything from Minority Report seems to be coming true: first we get the idiotic vertical touch UI, now apparently pre-crime detection is here. Does this mean I'm FINALLY going to get my flying car?

Re:Minority Report by fyngyrz · 2013-03-26 09:21 · Score: 1

No, but it does bring one step closer: The cops showing up at your door with a warrant without the precursor of you actually committing a crime.
"Sir, the TSA took this brain scan on your last trip to Seattle; at the time, you were under the metric, but the legislature has since changed the metric and applied it retroactively. You'll have to come with us."

--
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.

Decision Making Abilities? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-26 07:24 · Score: 0

It sounds to me like people are still trying to blame criminals for there inability to rehabilitate anyone let alone repeat offenders. How could they test such things especially over time? Did they costly put criminals in a scan machine? Who are these individuals that would come willingly to be scanned before they commit crimes? This just a giant tird they are trying to smear in everyone else's face so they can receive little to no blame for the prison system failing to do anything but cage people.

Re:Decision Making Abilities? by fyngyrz · 2013-03-26 09:28 · Score: 1

It's not even that. It's just a way to keep the population up. Lots of money in prisons, you know.
Rehabilitation: That's not part of the US prison system (can't speak for others.) We don't rehabilitate. We cage you, abuse you to the most extreme limits we can arrange, including rape, terror, and the very real possibility of death, then we release you but we do so while marking you indelibly as unemployable in any significant job, thus cutting you off from most legitimate upward paths. Only the most clever, most self-reliant, and the most skilled -- or those with friends in high places -- can navigate those rocks to rise above the most basic levels of existence in this country.
Willingness to be scanned: Been to an airport recently?

--
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.

criminality ia social construct by Mister+Liberty · 2013-03-26 07:29 · Score: 1

The one thing that society badly needs, is more white collar workers,
such as bankers, convicted as criminals, where society pays for their
transgressions.

Up till then, research such as this is class warfare.

really. by the+biologist · 2013-03-26 07:36 · Score: 1

Essentially, they found that individuals with poor impulse-control are more likely to get arrested.

Let me break out the Champagne... oh wait, people already knew that poor impulse-control was at the root of most criminality... and we also already knew that the ACC was involved in impulse-control... I guess we now know that A and B = (A and B).

Here we go by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-26 07:42 · Score: 0

This doesn't bode well for colored folks.

Re:Here we go by fyngyrz · 2013-03-26 09:30 · Score: 1

This doesn't bode well for colored folks.
Politician: "Why, SURE it does! We'll give them FREE brain scans!"

--
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.

Real article? by perceptual.cyclotron · 2013-03-26 07:53 · Score: 1

Anyone found the actual source paper? The doi in the nature summary is broken, and a search for the listed author on PNAS doesn't pull up anything at all. Similarly, a search for anterior cingulate doesn't show anything recent that's even remotely related. I'd like to take a closer look at the stats here...

How much more likely? by MrL0G1C · 2013-03-26 07:54 · Score: 1

FTA: Had to read the article to get this:

Men who were in the lower half of the ACC activity ranking had a 2.6-fold higher rate of rearrest for all crimes and a 4.3-fold higher rate for nonviolent crimes.

--
Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.

Mentally deficient by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-26 08:11 · Score: 0

It seems like we're imprisoning the mentally deficient, exposing them to smarter malicious people, then releasing them to inevitably re-offend. Maybe they should be institutionalized or kept under other supervision like a halfway-house, because they're physically incapable of being responsible people.

Re:criminality ia social construct by tnk1 · 2013-03-26 08:38 · Score: 1

I'd have to disagree. Research such as this could be extremely useful. The problem you are referring to is the fact that we are not also investigating the cause of white collar crime. I'm not sure that is true, but I agree that all crime needs to be investigated and the reasons for it eliminated to the greatest degree that we can ethically do so.

However, in the end, whether or not we stop white collar criminals, stopping "blue collar" criminals would also be very useful as well. Unless you are suggesting that crime serves some sort of social equalization factor for poor people. In that case, I'd suggest that there are probably better ways for progressive-thinking individuals to achieve that without ignoring good science.

Pre Pre Crime by JacobLeclerc · 2013-03-26 09:14 · Score: 0

Next up: At birth determination on when and which crimes will be committed by any individual.

Life Imitates Art? by rmdingler · 2013-03-26 09:47 · Score: 1

Attention governmental bureaucrats: Take a deep breath. Listen to that little voice inside your head that tells you not to react impulsively... we'll call this the consequences and repercussions identity. Law enforcement, aided and abetted by doctors and psychologists, has attempted to classify "the criminal type" for many generations. Despite theories prevalent at various times, crime has not been predictable using physiognomy, eugenics, or social Darwinism. Crime is a characteristic of human nature that is unwelcome in civilized society, but undoubtedly a survive till breeding age advantage in an uncivilized world. Predilection to a given behavior, as in being okay with taking what doesn't belong to you, is not a crime while it rests in your mind. Let's hold up the funding for a precrime investigative unit before the penal system goes all Minority Report based on a sampling of 90 something souls.

--
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

Ernest Hemingway

also similar to anime "psychopass" by iggymanz · 2013-03-26 10:10 · Score: 1

psychopass - ubiquitous scanners connected to a master system can tell if a person's "criminal coefficient" is high enough to warrant therapy, being institutionalized or needing summary execution.

Re:also similar to anime "psychopass" by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-26 14:00 · Score: 0

psychopass - ubiquitous scanners connected to a master system can tell if a person's "criminal coefficient" is high enough to warrant therapy, being institutionalized or needing summary execution.
Exactly, psycho-pass is the first thing comes to mind.
And just like in the anime, what happens if someone is somehow anomalous and can beat these scans?

Prison by Azure+Flash · 2013-03-26 11:36 · Score: 2

Couldn't the fact that we take criminals and put them in a giant cage with all of the other criminals and then forget about them for decades have something to do with recidivists?

Re:Prison by Neil+Boekend · 2013-03-26 20:39 · Score: 1

The prison corporations have their own future in hand. Useless rehabilitation gives repeat customers!

--
Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.

maybe we need a safe place for them by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-26 13:40 · Score: 0

some kind of area that is away from us, and they can live without fear. maybe some type of big island continent. do we have any such place?

What? by Zynder · 2013-03-26 14:02 · Score: 1

Now hold on. Michael Moore showed me a video where the news only reports awesome stuff like puppies and kittens and new speed bumps in school parking lots. The only murders Canada has are from those damned thugs in Detroit crossing the border to raid your maple syrup reserves.

All joking aside (actually serious here), as an American, I've generally thought you guys were pretty lax as far as violent crime. I was certainly not aware of Winnipeg being a gangster run town. Are you suggesting that Candada is actually just as bad as everywhere else but your gov has a better PR department? I have been considering a move to Vancouver for awhile now.....

People STILL not getting it by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-26 20:07 · Score: 0

This study did NOT track those who were most likely to re-offend.

They tracked those who were re-arrested!

It is known that the majority of rape cases are NEVER reported. Of those reported, some are never investigated, the majority never lead to a succesful arrest of those in which a suspect is found, many never lead to a conviction.

In Brussel, Belgium, the number of REPORTED (a minority) cases that led to conviction was 4%.

The changes for a criminal to be caught are shockingly low. This goes from anything to rape cases that are never reported to the stolen bike you don't report because you know there is no point.

Politicians LOVE this, it is an EXCELLENT way to massage figures. See India were police told women to go away and ignored their cases as a matter of policy. This is why people who judge a country by its incarceration rate are such utter fools. It is easy to have a low prison population, just don't punish criminals. It is the "no gays in Iran" things. You might say "but there is a gay guy right there" then there is a bang and they say "no there isn't".

The rehab industry is part of gigantic psychiatry scam and it is worth BILLIONS. In Holland we got something called TBS, it is a sentence for the criminally insane on top or instead of a prison sentence in which they must undergo treatment. Recently a case appaerred where a man send to TBS for an attempted murder of an old woman was diagnosed with an uncontrollable lust to kill. He was released and he killed a 15 year old girl. A "doctor" released him as cured... is that doctor under investigation? No. A real doctor who blundered that badly would be removed... oh wait... no... that is another scandal... doctors who blunder not being removed from their job.

In the rehab industry there is no accountability, just an endless paycheck depended on releasing figures that show that it works because only 70% to 80% of those treated are convicted in the same jurisdiction AND a link is made between the two cases... only 70% to 80%. By magic, the claim is then that the remaining 20%-30% NEVER EVER commit any crime anywhere again because we all know that the police success rate of finding a suspect for every crime and having him convincted and that conviction linked to his past conviction is 100%...

Eh... no...

To give you an idea of how BAD the justice system is. An American woman is going on trial again in Italy for murder. If she is convicted, the US won't extradite her nor imprison her. The US shelters murderers. Belgium won't extradite anyone under the age of 18 no matter the crime. These are just recent examples.

Do you think that if countries knowingly shelter convicted criminals, that they link convictions? What if any of those US criminals re-offended and were actually against all odds convicted in Canada? Do you think that is counted in re-offender statistics? No. It is not.

The only thing this study found is those who were actually caught again. The majority of criminals is never caught and you could assume that even criminals would learn, so those caught once might be harder to get caught again...

Even with all those odds against it. How many were caught again?

Exactly... when the re-offend rate is that high, and the changes of the remaining group not having been caught NOT because they were innocent but because most criminals are never caught in the first place, I want evidence NOT showing how many were caught but how many can be proven to NOT have re-offended again. And that is impossible. But until that becomes possible, I see no reason not to asume 100% re-offended and just a subset was caught doing it.

That is the truth about the rehab industry. It would be like testing a drug and then only testing the people who showed up at the end of the trial for ill effects... all the dead people who stayed at home? Nah... no need to look at those, they are just slackers. It is like testing collisions between trains and cars, taking a look at the train, see little damage and conclude

NEXT by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-26 20:56 · Score: 0

It won't be long before there is also a very real issue in that even school kids could be studied in advance of violent behavior and those destined to get violent could be spotted in advance. Then what? What do we do if we have a good testing method that predicts a violent criminal act within the next seven years with an 85% accuracy rate? Prison wouldn't be the best idea for obvious reasons. Therapeutic intervention may not have much effect even if we can afford to pay all of the huge costs to get appropriate mental health treatment to be readily available. So in the end we would know we had a human time bomb out and about but would be helpless to prevent his crimes. Punishment also goes out the window. Obviously if we can x-ray the problem and it is chemo-physical in nature where does guilt enter the picture. It is not as if the individual wanted or somehow deliberately applied a malfunctioning brain. And for such persons to control their crimes may not be something within their powers at all. In essence they are brain damaged victims of their condition. It would force the public to challenge basic notions such as responsibility.

Prediction -- not. by percy69 · 2013-03-27 04:58 · Score: 1

This isn't a prediction. For that you'd have to be able to prove that the repeat offenders actually did something heinous. Like became politicians.

News Flash! by saveferrousoxide · 2013-04-05 05:18 · Score: 1

People who are bad at making decisions are more likely to do stupid shit and get arrested.

Film at a 11!

Slashdot Mirror

Brain Scans Predict Which Criminals Are More Likely To Re-offend

187 comments