Can technology end crime and in an acceptable way?

[latent aaaack]

I have some questions related to crime and technology and I put it in this section because I think the issue is mainly societal acceptance.

1. Using any plan concievable, is it now technologically possible to eliminate violent crime?

2. Will it be in the foreseeable future, with continued advances in current industries and sciences?

I'm thinking of a technology allowing a small surgical implant(s) that can intelligently record information about the user's body and what the body is physically doing at any moment and this information is kept private, like info on a pc. The implant can disable the user, perhaps through a shock, temporarily if it detects that the body is committing a violent act. It could also be removed surgically if the user chooses and for not a huge amount of money. It could also be made to leave a cosmetic mark letting people know you have the implant, which could eventually be useful socially and for a range of conveniences.

3. What would be worse - the government forcing everyone to have this implant (but otherwise remaining non-oppressive and unchanged in any other way) or 1.5 million violent crimes occuring and between 100 - 400 billion dollars lost each year in the US?

4. If such a technology was invented, it was made affordable, and the implant caused no or very little problems to the user in terms of noticeability and malfunctions, wouldn't it only be a matter of time before people realized that it would be great if everyone had these devices? Prisons, then schools, then workplaces might start strongly encouraging or mandating the use of these devices until they became common and accepted. Wouldn't all parents want their kids to go to the school where it's impossible for shootings to take place?

5. Would it be an Orwellian nightmare world if the advantages of having something like this implanted voluntarily outweighed the negatives and it became as commonplace and useful as having a driver's license or social security number?

As for the cost of such an idea, it should be compared to what this site http://www.libraryindex.com/pages/449/Victims-Crime-COST-VICTIMIZATION.html says the per person total cost of crime in the US is - between $425 and $1800 a year. I think that even a device weighing 5-10 pounds divided between different parts of the body would go unnoticed after a few days so I don't know why exactly it isn't feasible.

 

[Wauthan]

1. Yes, I can think of a number of solutions, using present day technology, that would fully protect people of being injured or murdered by "criminals". But just because they are possible doesn't make them feasible. Heck! The simplest solution would be to remove all human-to-human contact and just lock everyone up in a somekind of enormous prison.

2. Since violent crime is a result of humans being humans I can't see why technology would hold any solutions. Your main problem is the shoddy definitions on what "violent crime" is. What a crime is, and what kind of punishment that is "appropriate" for it, depends way to much on the context wherein the crime took place. Well it does as long as you don't simply hand suspects over to somekind of allpowerful robot judge.

3. Your question can't be answered since it lacks so many important facts. How much will these surgical implants cost? How much will the surgery cost? How will you keep the system from being tampered with? How can you make sure that it's not abused? Why would anyone agree on having this kind of mindcontrol device installed inside them, especially "them" that the system are supposed to protect "us" from?

Also your argument is based on a flawed premise. Hundreds of billions of dollars are not "lost". Money is only lost if someone literally collects a stack of bills and destroys them, and the new bills are not placed into circulation. This question has little to do with economy.

4. I strongly doubt that this would happen. There would have to be a tremendous cultural change before the innocent will be ready to accept prepunishment for future potential guilt. I could see how the technology could be forced upon a few individuals that society deem too dangerous to ever trust, but such a development is unplausible at best. My own opinion is that it would simply turn very dangerous people into very desperate people, and that doesn't sound like an improvement.

5. Might be, or it might not. [Yoda] Difficult to see. Always in motion is the future. [/Yoda].

 

[Bob Klase]

3. What would be worse - the government forcing everyone to have this implant (but otherwise remaining non-oppressive and unchanged in any other way)

And how do you make sure the government remains non-oppressive and unchanged in any other way? Maybe a good plan would be to vote in a good government and then they could use this power on future elections to disable any voter who might try to vote them out.

 

[Ocelot]

I see the same probelms as trying to program a practical application of the three laws of robotics. How does a computer system determine violent crime?

Lets say the car I'm in fall off a bridge and is sinking in water. I want to break the window, how do I know that the system won't read such vandalism as a violent crime and disable me?

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

Maybe good for a Phillip K Dick novel, but I'm skeptical about this whole thingie as a real life approach.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Smith and Wesson is one technology used to reduce crime. So too is Glock.

If you are asking for tech to solve crime, as in eliminate it, you might want to reconsider what you think you know about human nature. It is a behavior.

DR

 

[rjh01]

I do not see the solution to violent crime in high tech.

The answer is social. Educate people on how to treat other people properly. Teach them how to do with anti-social behaviour, such as bullying.

Also make legal certain recreational drugs. Then people will not have to commit violent crime to get the money to buy drugs or have turf wars.

 

[Bikewer]

Human nature is what it is. We have tendencies towards violence, which are exacerbated by much of what modern society is all about.
But violence is only part of the problem. I read a book some time back about root causes of crime and such, and the author pointed out that though violent "street" crime is the most feared and draws the strongest reaction from citizens, the monetary losses from this sort of crime pale into insignificance besides so-called "white collar" crime.
One could make the case that it costs more to attempt to control street crime than it's worth, at least from the standpoint of monies alone.
Law enforcement, judicial process, incarceration, probation and parole, etc, etc, are all rather costly activities...j

I suppose you could make the case that the best way to reduce violence would be to reduce the human population to a few millions, and return to a nice hunter-gatherer situation, with folks living in little family groups. By most anthropological accounts, peoples living in such situations have little crime or violence....

 

[UserGoogol]

Smith and Wesson is one technology used to reduce crime. So too is Glock.

If you are asking for tech to solve crime, as in eliminate it, you might want to reconsider what you think you know about human nature. It is a behavior.

DR

I think that the technology to change human nature might very well come out within this century, though. People already have various psychological forces that discourage them from committing crime (guilt, fear of retribution, empathy, etc) the obvious solution is to figure out how to reach into the brain and augment them in some way.

Another possibility might be that if life gets prosperous enough that people can get whatever they want at any time, (through virtual reality or Santa Claus machines or whatever) then the incentive for crime would be quite thoroughly reduced, although unless people were strapped into the virtual reality machines at all time, there might be some people who are just purposefully malicious who feel like causing trouble for the sake of causing trobule. (I suspect such people are quite rare, but they exist.)

The idea of having a all-seeing recording device in everyone's body (even if it's only examined if a judge can get a warrant) seems somewhat troubling, though. Even if the government was far more benign than the present one, it seems like it would have far too much of a chilling effect on "deviant but not justifably bannable" behavior. [ETA: I seem to have misunderstood what the device does. But still, a device that physically stops people from doing bad things seems like a rather unpleasantly crude way of doing things.]

 

[Complexity]

Nah.

 

[Loss Leader]

1. Using any plan concievable, is it now technologically possible to eliminate violent crime?

No.

2. Will it be in the foreseeable future, with continued advances in current industries and sciences?

No.

I'm thinking of a technology allowing a small surgical implant(s) that can intelligently record information about the user's body and what the body is physically doing at any moment and this information is kept private, like info on a pc.

How would the device know an individual's intentions? The same act can be a violent assault or a lawful endeavor. A boxer in the ring can lawfully punch an oponent but the same boxer cannot punch his adversary at the press conference half an hour later. A person can hit another with a crowbar either to disable him so he can rob his apartment (illegal) or in self-defense so that he can stop a robber (legal).

And even if your device could divine intention, how would it deal with the sociopath who can kill without feeling emotion or considering his actions?

The implant can disable the user, perhaps through a shock, temporarily if it detects that the body is committing a violent act.

Most violent crimes are committed by people who know their victims - husbands, parents, co-workers, etc. These people are always close to each other and physically interacting with each other. How would your device allow all those day-to-day contacts but disallow violence?

And how would your device interpret sex? Rough sex? S&M?

3. What would be worse - the government forcing everyone to have this implant (but otherwise remaining non-oppressive and unchanged in any other way) or 1.5 million violent crimes occuring and between 100 - 400 billion dollars lost each year in the US?

The government forcing people to have the implant. The price of freedom is that there is some risk of harm.

4. If such a technology was invented, it was made affordable, and the implant caused no or very little problems to the user in terms of noticeability and malfunctions, wouldn't it only be a matter of time before people realized that it would be great if everyone had these devices?

I think every person in the world would think, "Everyone but me should have one."

5. Would it be an Orwellian nightmare world if the advantages of having something like this implanted voluntarily outweighed the negatives and it became as commonplace and useful as having a driver's license or social security number?

Yes.

 

[bigred]

1. Using any plan concievable, is it now technologically possible to eliminate violent crime?

Short of brain-washing/"thought control," of course not.

2. Will it be in the foreseeable future, with continued advances in current industries and sciences?

See #1.

I'm thinking of a technology allowing a small surgical implant(s) that can intelligently record information about the user's body and what the body is physically doing at any moment and this information is kept private, like info on a pc.

lol - I hope you're kidding -

The implant can disable the user, perhaps through a shock, temporarily if it detects that the body is committing a violent act.

Even disregarding the flagrant Big Brother aspect to that, do you have any idea how full of holes that idea is? What if someone is "committing a violent act" in a good way, like to save someone, or themselves?

It could also be removed surgically if the user chooses and for not a huge amount of money.

And you think well over 99.9%+ of all "users" would NOT choose to have it removed (or refuse it in the first place) because-?

It could also be made to leave a cosmetic mark letting people know you have the implant, which could eventually be useful socially and for a range of conveniences.

I'm just curious: do you have three sixes on your scalp somewhere?

3. What would be worse - the government forcing everyone to have this implant (but otherwise remaining non-oppressive and unchanged in any other way) or 1.5 million violent crimes occuring and between 100 - 400 billion dollars lost each year in the US?

I vote #1, and there is no freakin way it would ever get off the ground.

4. If such a technology was invented, it was made affordable, and the implant caused no or very little problems to the user in terms of noticeability and malfunctions, wouldn't it only be a matter of time before people realized that it would be great if everyone had these devices? Prisons, then schools, then workplaces might start strongly encouraging or mandating the use of these devices until they became common and accepted. Wouldn't all parents want their kids to go to the school where it's impossible for shootings to take place?

And where Big Brother can give them a little shock anytime they want. I'll take my chances w/the shootings.

5. Would it be an Orwellian nightmare world if the advantages of having something like this implanted voluntarily outweighed the negatives and it became as commonplace and useful as having a driver's license or social security number?

To say the least.

As for the cost of such an idea,

Irrelevent.

I don't know why exactly it isn't feasible.

Yikes.

 

[latent aaaack]

It might 'know' the person's intentions by being able to detect sensors in nearby people and detect forces involved only under those circumstances would it stop the person, leaving it possible for a person to say punch their car window out in an emergency. Or such a sensor could detect proximity of another living thing through other means.

Even if it was completely impossible for it to distinguish between attacking someone and tackling them out of the way of a train, you're still saying that thousands of murders and acts of violence are better than a vastly smaller amount of harm occuring because assistance was prevented.

It should also be within eventual technological reach to allow for rough contact with only certain allowed people a user could designate, using remote communication of the devices, along the lines of what exists now in many devices. One could just press a remote control button and allow everyone with a 100 meter radius for a few hours for touch football, like how allowing a buddy on text messaging applications goes. That's just off the top of my head, I'm sure decades from now or now even there's be a much easier, more palatable method.

I can see how that would be viewed as depressing, that everyone would have to presume danger in effect just to play football. But also you'd have to keep in mind the mood of schools and parents now which are already increasingly resembling heavily secured locked-down detention facilities, just to keep students safer. If this technologically advanced method were done instead the overall fear trade off now might favor this method, with schools no longer needing metal detectors, guards observing and coralling students around, and school shooting drills and plans.

What makes this not "Big Brother" in my opinion is that the devices would be designed to not be able to be controlled remotely and they would have nothing to do with the government. You could say that they could be made later to be controllable by the government and designed to spy on and/or control the population, but refrigerators, vaccines, electric tooth brushes, or water reservoirs could be made to do the same if the government wanted to.

FYI I'm strongly against all the new powers the Bush administration has been taking - that's different because it's something the government is doing which is concentrating a lot of power in the hands of politically ambitious leaders, hence a recipe for abuse.

How would the device know an individual's intentions? The same act can be a violent assault or a lawful endeavor. A boxer in the ring can lawfully punch an oponent but the same boxer cannot punch his adversary at the press conference half an hour later. A person can hit another with a crowbar either to disable him so he can rob his apartment (illegal) or in self-defense so that he can stop a robber (legal).

And even if your device could divine intention, how would it deal with the sociopath who can kill without feeling emotion or considering his actions?

Most violent crimes are committed by people who know their victims - husbands, parents, co-workers, etc. These people are always close to each other and physically interacting with each other. How would your device allow all those day-to-day contacts but disallow violence?

And how would your device interpret sex? Rough sex? S&M?

Even disregarding the flagrant Big Brother aspect to that, do you have any idea how full of holes that idea is? What if someone is "committing a violent act" in a good way, like to save someone, or themselves?

 

[Rufo]

Ignoring the moral part of the idea, there are practical problems. With each new type of technology comes peolpe who will be able to exploit it. This theoretical invention is no different.

No matter how noble the original cause, there would be people with knowledge of the technology who could be bribed into leaking it to less noble causes. In no time, there would be ways to get it removed without anyone knowing. Wait a little longer, and there would be modified versions of them out there. Give them any form of networking capabilities - any - and there will be people able to hack them remotely and exploit them in every single way you can imagine.

On the bright side, this makes for some awesome science-fiction.

 

[plumjam]

I haven't read all the responses, but anyway.

Look at the crime/technology interface currently. It is not like the state/judiciary..etc has access to the technology and the criminals don't.

It is more like an arms race between the criminals on one side and the state/judiciary/police/legitimate businesses on the other. So, for example, a legitimate business like a shop brings in an electronic tag to stick on clothes to prevent or deter shoplifting. More shoplifters get arrested, and the demand increases for a device/technique to disable this electronic tag. The criminals find it (crims aren't all stupid, my father defends them in court, and I hear about them adapting their techniques and apparatus all the time.)

So, IMO, Hokulele.. the central problem with your OP is that you assume that the state etc.. has this big technological advantage over the crims. In reality it does not.
Any technology of great anti-crim value... well.. imagine its value if you sold it surreptitiously to a crim. Very high.
So whatever technology the good guys develop is shortly within the hands of the bad guys.
Never ending story.

The only way you could eradicate crime is to look at the motivators for crime, and these are not technological, they are moral... such as greed, desire for power, desire for drugs and the like.
You could only conceivably do it by concentrating on morality. But given that we are all at different levels of moral perception, and are being constantly reincarnated, there's no real way it could be done.

I admire your sentiment though

 

[Dorian Gray]

Stopping violence will never happen in any way. Attempts to stop violence with technology will encourage violence against the oppressors.

You said it all when you said "kept private like info on a PC"....

 

[Wowbagger]

I don't think we could ever end crime completely, but perhaps at best reduce the population of criminal minds to about 2% or so. A society that is too trusting could be a bad thing.

We might be able to achieve that with the technology we already have. It could only be a matter of education to reduce crime to a super-low level.

Futhermore, the more Orwellian the technology, the more it will be prone to abuse and the more likely people would be to try to fool it.
To paraphrase Star Wars: "The more you tighten your grip, the more star systems will slip through your fingers."

Promote Human Brotherhood, not Big Brother.