It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Future criminals "can be spotted at age of two"

page: 1
13
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 07:38 PM
link   

Future criminals "can be spotted at age of two"


www.telegraph.co.uk

Children at risk of “going off the rails” and descending into a life of crime can be spotted at the age of two, the Government’s adviser on discipline has said.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 07:38 PM
link   
This story comes out of the UK, which always seems to be on the frontlines of new and disturbing forms of social control these days.

I find it worrisome that people could be pigeonholed at such an early age and marked as "future criminals," shunted off to some kind of school that would essentially be a glorified juvie hall. These things become self-fulfilling prophecies: If somebody is told from age two that they are a crimial, guess what kind of self-image they are likely to internalize growing up?

The human brain is very flexible, especially when young, and nobody deserves to have their future defined for them by this kind of label when they are that age. No two-year-old is criminal. No two-year-old deserves to be treated like a future criminal. And nobody can predict the future of personality of a two-year-old.

This reminds me uncomfortably of eugenics, a now-discredited pseudo-science that was popular in the early 20th century. Eugenics sought to "cleanse" the human race through selective breeding and other means (as if humans were dogs or horses to be bred for desirable characteristics). One aspect of eugenics involved trying to look for clues to identify "innate criminal types" based on their looks or other characteristics. Are we going back to the days of eugenics?



Below: old images of supposed "criminal types" identified based on facial features.




www.telegraph.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)


edit on 3/8/12 by silent thunder because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 07:43 PM
link   
This is both intriguing and alarming at the same time. Alarming due to the fact that i can see where this could possibly head, Profiling at the age of two. Especially with the way society and out governments have already changed for the worse. Good find S+F



posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 07:50 PM
link   
They should be locked up at the age of two, because we know damn well they will be raping and pillaging by the time they are 7.

Someone save us from these monsters.



posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 07:54 PM
link   
yes we can tell you're gonna be a thug at age 2 let's go ahead and lock you up before you do any real harm. and we're gonna need to use some of your tax money for a crime prevention force that'll come bust you for stuff that you might do in the future.



posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 08:05 PM
link   
When i first read your thread, I will admit i was fairly alarmed.

Now I realize why your quoted section only contains 1 sentence. You cherry picked it out of the article.




Nurseries should identify toddlers showing early signs of aggression and crack down on bad behaviour by marking them out for specialist tuition, said Charlie Taylor. He said showing the worst-behaved children how to socialise and giving them proper boundaries could prevent problems escalating.


That is a far cry from eugenics.




It was also appropriate for some five and six year-olds with the most serious difficulties to spend some time at institutes for the most unruly pupils


Oh noes!!! I am 100% for this. Looking back at my elementary school, I cant even fathom how much time of mine, my classmates, my teachers, and tax payer dollars were ABSOLUTELY WASTED, because of 3-4 (same)kids who would cause some kind of incident every day because they didn't want to read a damn book. I dont want my kids going to school with these kind of idiots. Ship them out and straighten them up. Im sick and tired of having our lives be dictated by rules that are necessary due to the lowest common denominators in society.



posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 08:17 PM
link   
What a sensationalist title and OP. I see nothing wrong with identifying children at risk by their behavior and then placing them into an environment capable of dealing with the issues. Seems to give more protection to the children that need extra help, while minimizing risks to others.



posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 08:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Domo1
What a sensationalist title and OP. I see nothing wrong with identifying children at risk by their behavior and then placing them into an environment capable of dealing with the issues. Seems to give more protection to the children that need extra help, while minimizing risks to others.


Sounds good on paper but what exactly will this special "environment" mean? And with this on a kid's record, how will it impact his future?

Juvie hall is a "special environment" for "troubled kids." But we all know that when kids are labeled and separated from the general population this way, they rarely grow up to be "normal."

Do you want your 2-year-old being targeted by this kind of program, however well-meaning?



posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 08:30 PM
link   
I would think that in some point in someones life, they did something to be called a "criminal"

I know I took candy from a drugstore when i was about 7 or 8.

-------------------
crim·i·nal
   [krim-uh-nl] Show IPA
adjective
1.
of the nature of or involving crime.
2.
guilty of crime.



posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 08:31 PM
link   
I am of the belief that certain individuals are literally " born bad" .

Consider the case of Gary Gilmore - the American murderer who killed a hotel clerk in Utah, then killed a student the following night, and was fatally shot himself a year later by a firing squad - which was chronicled by Norman Mailer in his 1979 book The Executioner's Song.
Gilmore had a brother, Frank, who turned out to be as peaceable and inoffensive in character as Gary was violent and destructive



Jeffrey Dahmer in Milwaukee strangled and dismembered 17 men between 1978 and 1991. Much was made of his upbringing by a self- obsessed mother and largely absent father.
He inherited their lack of human warmth and inability to empathise and see the world through eyes other than their own. He was dangerously disconnected from humankind.
But he, too, had a brother, David, who never did anyone any harm and who now lives quietly under another name. David had the same parents, the same start in life and carried the same cartload of genes and DNA as his brother.


I think the earlier these monsters are spotted , the better .



posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 08:39 PM
link   
Sorry,
but you people are incredibly incredible!!!
No offence but who are we, (all the others) to say what will become of another human being?
I believe we ALL have equal chances of becoming good or bad.
In one way or another we were all brats for a part of our lives!



posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 08:40 PM
link   
reply to post by dawnprince
 


I just finished reading a very interesting fiction book about the topic of being born bad, called "We Need to Talk About Kevin". Here is a wiki link about the book.



posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 08:42 PM
link   
The first thing I thought about when I saw this was the government taking people who showed a keen interested in greed, theft, deceit and financial domination.

Imagine if a Cheney or a Bush could have been spotted at age 2.

Taken, grown, educated then released on the world as a public official.

God help us.



posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 08:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by silent thunder

Future criminals "can be spotted at age of two"


www.telegraph.co.uk

Children at risk of “going off the rails” and descending into a life of crime can be spotted at the age of two, the Government’s adviser on discipline has said.
(visit the link for the full news article)



Now I wonder who's words "future criminals" was, I didn't get that was the language they actually used. "Going off the rails" I see is in quotes (Is that a rererence to Ozzie's "Crazy-Train"?) but did the assessment even mention the link to crime? I see "descending into a life of crime" But was that the addition of the story's author?

Anyway, sure identify those kids going around smacking the other kids around, or the bullies, or the isolated., or those who seem sick....... etc. If there are actual behavioral problems on a repeated basis, of a serious nature, yeah, find out how to offer the appropriate guidance and help, I think for many kids society has been pumping out many physcially' toxic' children not to mention the other ways. Not a slam to todays young, we're all in the toxic soup, but wow how many milion kids just on Ritalin alone? Sad.

The bad side as has been pointed out is the slippery slope, instead of aiding the child, the state come in a tries to push the child into an incorrect mold or a 'one size fits all' mentality. Separating a child or especially labeling them as 'future criminals' until they come around to the correct 'thinking' sounds earily like something Orwell might have imagined, certainly plenty of room for massive misuse And what might work well on one child might be the kiss of death for another. BUt yeah if you see johnny, running repeatedly at little Billy, with his scizzors raised and shouting die, I would say, yeah we need to have a little talk.



posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 08:57 PM
link   
Proper parenting dictates how a child will develop, but that is my opinion. Environment, I do not believe at all. I know kids that were born with silver spoons in their mouths that had been arrested and incarcerated by age fifteen. On the flip side I've know kids that lived in crime infested neighborhoods that have stayed out of trouble and have become successful . You can look at a sapling and say that it will never grow strong and straight. A child ? Not so much.



posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 09:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrainDispatcher
I would think that in some point in someones life, they did something to be called a "criminal"

I know I took candy from a drugstore when i was about 7 or 8.

-------------------
crim·i·nal
   [krim-uh-nl] Show IPA
adjective
1.
of the nature of or involving crime.
2.
guilty of crime.


There were at least half a dozen people from school I know that went on to be police officers. They were all guilty of something large or small along the way.

Most people are, but then again, most people don't get caught. Makes you think it's kinda unfair for the ones that did though, doesn't it?



posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 09:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by theAmericanStory
Proper parenting dictates how a child will develop, but that is my opinion. Environment, I do not believe at all. I know kids that were born with silver spoons in their mouths that had been arrested and incarcerated by age fifteen. On the flip side I've know kids that lived in crime infested neighborhoods that have stayed out of trouble and have become successful . You can look at a sapling and say that it will never grow strong and straight. A child ? Not so much.


Well my thoughts on this are that environment absolutely has profound effect on how a human or animal will develop, it is ONE of the many factors that shape us, some people in life changing profound ways, some people in lesser amounts. Too, being even in an 'inner city' environment is not nearly the same for all who live in a 'close proximity', it has it's likely shared challenges, say in a blighted inner city neighborhood, but these can be DRAMATICALLY different even amoung neighbors in all sorts of influencial ways.

The thing is most all individuals will respond to a variety of environmental stressors quite differently, one can witness this in animal studies. Things like nutritional differences, subjection to recurring 'violence', toxic elements, will often have profound effects in changing an animals behavior. Humans too. But you're right, I am convinced the more obstacles human overcome the more 'free will' they gain.



posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 09:13 PM
link   
Someone throw a brick in my face, these people and their scientific research need to mummified for eternity as the most stupidest scientists in the human race.

....at the age of 2...wtf...what happens when he becomes 5, his able to construct some nerve agent...sheeeez..



posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 09:13 PM
link   
Incredible, people here have not clue what this is all about, this about starting what will be future trouble individuals at a young age to be treated with prescribe drugs to control behavior, doesn't anybody here remember anymore from where Ritalin came from? and what is use for, how about anti depressants, we already treating children in the US with prescribe drugs for social behavior, that includes anti depressants and anti anxiety the younger big pharma can get them in their pockets the better.

Wake up people this is been done already.

Remeber when Bush was trying to have the nation screened for behaviour problems in order to spot those that had mental problems? remember how we the people reacted to that moronic idea.

edit on 8-3-2012 by marg6043 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 09:18 PM
link   
Does this article mention brain scans? I can't read it right now.

There are many links to brain scan technology - - - recognizing potential dangers - - - even in young children.



new topics

top topics



 
13
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join