Posted by Hazel Stone | Filed under Buttinskis
Ick, ick and ICK:
Primary school children should be eligible for the DNA database if they exhibit behaviour indicating they may become criminals in later life, according to Britain’s most senior police forensics expert.
Gary Pugh, director of forensic sciences at Scotland Yard and the new DNA spokesman for the Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo), said a debate was needed on how far Britain should go in identifying potential offenders, given that some experts believe it is possible to identify future offending traits in children as young as five.
Holy merde, pre-criminals?? You know, compared to what we DON’T know about the human brain, what we DO know could fit inside Michelle Obama’s tiny black heart, and leave ample room for the furnishings from a four bedroom Cape Cod. But still these people think it might be a good idea to slap the label “serial killer” or “child molester” or whatever other heinous description they can noodle up, on a child as young as five? It boggles the mind.
If such an insane database were to come about, who would have access? Police, certainly…school officials, maybe? So what happens when Mrs. Smithers, first grade teacher, notices that little Johnny has been flagged as a potential weenie-wagger by the Magic AlgorithmTM? Does her behavior towards that child change? Absolutely it does, and not for the better. And who can predict what effect THAT will have on the little potential-monster’s psyche. What about the parents? Will they be told little Mary Anne is well on her way to becoming chapter president of Future Whores of Knightsbridge? How will that change the family dynamic, hmm?
This is a freaking nightmare waiting to happen. Look at the mentality of the genius pushing this concept in the first place:
‘If we have a primary means of identifying people before they offend, then in the long-term the benefits of targeting younger people are extremely large,’ said Pugh. ‘You could argue the younger the better. Criminologists say some people will grow out of crime; others won’t. We have to find who are possibly going to be the biggest threat to society.’
“The biggest threat to society…” Sometimes, Mister Pugh, society NEEDS threatening. There will always be criminals, just as there will always be people who will stand up to them. You cannot save humanity from itself, but fortunately people are more than capable of rising to the occasion.
Chris Davis, of the National Primary Headteachers’ Association, said most teachers and parents would find the suggestion an ‘anathema’ and potentially very dangerous. ‘It could be seen as a step towards a police state,’ he said.
Sorry, Mister Davis, but from here it looks like you lot are already up to a steady jog.