Future criminals "can be spotted at age of two"

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.

They are two years of age!! And actually most of those so called nasty criminals is those that was "saved" by the state and put into foster families or abused at child care homes.

You cannot identify a criminal just by looking at 2 year olds.

I believe that certain features are indicators not that someone will become a criminal, but that someone has a low IQ.

I don't know about you, but when I look at someone I can tell by their face that they are beyond dumb as #. This is usually confirmed when they open their mouths.

It's the "manly" features I'm talking about. The Rocky Balboa look. Their brain is so unevolved they are more caveman than modern man, and they have the animalistic instincts that stick with other less evolved creatures. Putting up claims for territory ("this is MY hood!") or stealing, often times with violence (like a dog that wants another dogs bone).

I'm not agreeing we should lock them up, I'm just saying I agree you can see it in their features.

The pictures posted with the OP were fairly misleading. The article was only talking about aggression and misbehavior, not physical traits or features.

reply to post by marg6043


Yeah, I agree alot with what you're saying, and concur reasonable 'disicpline' when needed is ONE tool that can be used, but on the other hand you can beat a kid almost to death and if their are other chemical,genetic, home, family, combination problems that are too great likely all that will happen is you will further damage the kid in some way. Not all square pegs can be forced into round holes.

I happen to have a genetic/chemical super sensitivity to glucose imbalances that greatly changes my brain functioning, when I was in the early grades I used to get so pumped up (yes higher than a kite) on simple sugars/refined carbs, I would get paddled at school EVERY day almost, I had no understanding what was happening or why, I was SO hyperactive, I could never sit still or quiet, I never was aggressive or mean or hurt anyone but yeah looking back I must have been seen as very disruptive.
And all of that 'discipline' the teachers/principle meted out, no matter how hard they paddled (and they drew back and hit hard) did ANY good, it was like trying to quiet down a young kid you had just dosed up on coc aine or something. I think in some ways it may have had some lasting damage, just another nail in the coffin, I suspect all it did was further alienate me.

People are complex creatures, one size definately IMO does not fit all, some people do somewhat similar appearing things for VASTLY different reasons, I think if society would really want to help our young the first thing that needs to be done by whomever offers the help is to find out EXACTLY what the ROOT of the 'problems' are and try to offer correct remedies in line with root causes.

But we live in an age and country IMO that puts $$$ first even over or own children's well being and health, we have long established 'businesses' that make their livlihood off of the sick and imbalanced and like a doctor that makes 9 out of 10 of his patients actually worse (or dead), but receives a huge check by keeping them coming back forever we have created highly lucrative but massively ineffective revolving doors. But hey we gotta keep the job numbers up eh, even if it means going around breaking windows with a hammer just so they can be 'fixed', again and again and again.

Wow to read this directly after reading, "A Brave New World" is quite scary sounds like the beginning of what happens in that book.

I can't wait to see how boring the future is
if these aholes get what they want.

No more tears and also no more laughter.

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.

But who will be tasked with identifying the little criminals? The teachers? I don't feel they are qualified to make that diagnosis. Look at how many children have now been diagnosed with ADD (something that didn't exist when I was a kid) and now these kids are worse off due to the medication they are given. It seems that when something like this starts, it tends to eventually get out of hand with a large percentage of children being given the label very casually. Many children behave badly at two (terrible twos?). I think this is nonsense.

Anybody who is anybody from obsessive painter to crazed mathematician are usually the ones to go off the rails. The best of society dont come from society, they break out of society and do their own thing... what are we robots !?

Theres no doubt ....my neighbor kid is a serial killer,im gonna call police rigth now,hes 2 and 1/2....

I have a child in kindergarten who has been assessed and is being tutored in communicating rather than hitting.
I fully support the idea behind the article the OP posted.
Not everybody is born with a natural ability to explain themselves, find the words to disagree effectively, read body language or facial expressions.
If left alone, these unfortunate people are shunned and mocked, leaving them frustrated and without self-esteem. The perfect candidate for drugs, gangs or other criminal activities.

reply to post by silent thunder


The notion that criminals can be spotted as early as two is absolutely absurd since all of man kind has free will & criminal acts vary from culture to culture! This sounds like something people who study Sociology & Psychology would eat up & could definitely spur a large can of worms open for debate with no right or wrong answer...

Originally posted by Mississippi
reply to post by silent thunder

 

The notion that criminals can be spotted as early as two is absolutely absurd since all of man kind has free will & criminal acts vary from culture to culture! This sounds like something people who study Sociology & Psychology would eat up & could definitely spur a large can of worms open for debate with no right or wrong answer...

I tend to agree (except maybe the 'free will' part), while it's not too difficult to spot VIOLENT tendencies, spotting a two year old 'future criminal' does seem a bit absurd. Let's not forget the world at large can't often even agree as to which behaviors should be considered a 'crime' or not, and too at different time periods, what is completely legal and accepted and considered 'normal' behavior in some parts of the world might get someone locked up for a long time in a different part of the world. A child growing up even in this country some 150 years ago who felt slavery was barbaric and behaved in ways to try and stop it might have been viewed as a potential 'future criminal' back then, but possibly as a hero only decades later.