This topic reminds me a little of the ethical conflict that arose in the movie "Minority Report". Is it lawful to detain someone when they have not yet committed the crime? Evidently there are differences, but we are not so far from science fiction ...
Scotland Yard forensic science director defends that of the elementary students whose behavior indicates that they could commit a crime be included in the DNA database in the future. Which raises several difficult questions to solve that are propitiated by that future conditional, "could."
Because, where to put the limit between what is a "difficult" child and what is not? Probably if we talked about fights at school, the majority of the population would be "signed" ... Even so, if we go to "extreme" cases, does that mean they will commit a crime in the future? Should the DNA of a child be signed "just in case"? What is the next step?
But let's ask ourselves what fault do we adults have that these children have problematic behavior. Perhaps we also have to "sign" the parents of these children, and television programmers, and politicians ...
Wanting to identify potential criminals as soon as possible seems to me to reflect an inability to control and a desire for it. The proposal comes from the lack of security and impotence in the face of the dangers that today affect many societies.
The truth is that reading the statements of this man I give less credit to his proposal:
"If we have the way to identify young people before they comment on a crime, the long-term benefits for society are very large." "It can even be said that the younger they are identified, the better. We have to find out who will represent the greatest threat to society."
The coroner recognizes that his proposal can be controversial for parents and teachers, but insists that society needs a free and mature debate on how to prevent crime.
It is clear that the British DNA bank, which with the genetic data of 4.5 million individuals is the largest in Europe, is not enough to prevent crime or terrorism. I don't think to extend it this way to children who have a behavioral problem at school it will bring light on the matter.
However, it seems that even the idea of taking DNA data universally is also considered as a possibility in the future, and if this is not possible, it is due to the high cost and logistical difficulties.
As I say, I think the root of the problem is another. I wish it were invested in more social measures, more prevention programs (which are to be extended as of 5 years), a more personalized education ...
And let's not forget that adults have everything to do with how our little ones are, so we should start by asking ourselves what happened so that these children behave violently. To act, prevent and resolve. And it is not necessary to sign "just in case".
