Would people like Barry George be better of in jail?

[Swan_Vesta 11]

Good point.

Although the legal argument is that going equipped is in itself a crime, and was made so because there is only one reason to do that, the intent to commit further crime is clear.

Having the potential to commit crime though, that's not illegal, we all have that potential, you might go to the shop and steal a bag of crisps, but since we can't read your mind we have to wait until it happens in order to do something about it.

 

For sure - I agree that the realms of the thought police is a dubious place but I still come back to monitoring based upon previous criminal activity.

 

I remember Craig Charles doing a stand up routine about the judicial reasoning exercised in arrests for going equipped to burgle in that he (and every other bloke) should be arrested for going equipped to commit the offence of rape ....... Strange how life went on to mirror art.

[Swan_Vesta 11]

Lets have done with it and get rid of all bad DNA at birth.

 

This is Sparta!

 

This is Eugenics!

 

The last bloke who started that lark had a habit of invading Poland and gassing Jews.

[wearetherobots 10]

This is Eugenics!

 

The last bloke who started that lark had a habit of invading Poland and gassing Jews.

 

 

Tony's hero by the sounds of it

[EdnaKrabappe 14]

Remember this from minority report?

 

I think Wii consoles are only a few steps away from this. Watch out for any pasty looking bald people and Phillip K Dick was right.

[flamingjimmy 10]

Remember this from minority report?

 

I think Wii consoles are only a few steps away from this. Watch out for any pasty looking bald people and Phillip K Dick was right.

 

No thankgod, i've forgotten all about that terrible film. this thread did remind me of the book though.

[Tony 10]

Tony's hero by the sounds of it

 

I don't think that Hitler jumped to erroneous conclusions as quickly as you.

[Cyclone 10]

For sure - I agree that the realms of the thought police is a dubious place but I still come back to monitoring based upon previous criminal activity.

 

I remember Craig Charles doing a stand up routine about the judicial reasoning exercised in arrests for going equipped to burgle in that he (and every other bloke) should be arrested for going equipped to commit the offence of rape ....... Strange how life went on to mirror art.

 

That wasn't what Tony suggested though, his suggestion had nothing to do with previous convictions, and all to do with locking someone up without due process and without any judicial oversight.

[Greybeard 10]

The govt already have this idea well in hand. The 'ContactPoint' database should be up and running later this year. Ostensibly intended for child protection and monitoring it has the obvious attraction of being a tool for fingering likely crims and will inevitably be used for that purpose.

 

There are already concerns about security...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1579472/Child-database-will-never-be-fully-secure.html

 

Perhaps what we really need is a secret police force and network of public spirited informers like the GDR had ?

[donkey 10]

The Police and courts don't do the assessments now - detaining somebody under the mental capacity aspects of the act is requires medical judgement. A doctor must make the decision, though a psychiatric nurse or social worker can make an initial decision to section, later endorsed by a psychiatrist.

The courts can't make random decisions to detain for mental health reasons, they simply enforce the recommendations of medical professionals.

 

 

I know that, I'm refering to the suggestion in the OP that people who are obviously mentally unbalanced should be subject to detention orders handed down by courts.