So, how would a reformed thief go in to buy basic goods once this becomes more widespread?
Do we no longer believe that someone can pay off their debt to society and become a useful member of said society?
Do we no longer believe that someone can pay off their debt to society and become a useful member of said society?
> "The people who are on the list are not guilty until they've been prosecuted and taken to court, and the system makes that very clear", Simon says - and under the Data Protection Act "if anyone misuses that data there are very significant fines".
Probably someone will follow you around the shop or ask you if they can help you instead of you not being let in into the shop. Those are already pretty common tactics.
Those tactics also don't feel nice though (I experienced them first hand, when I was in a foreign country and was a bit nervous in shops - not because I was shoplifting but because I wasn't sure wether I would be understood by the cashier).
Personally, I'm not comfortable with that concept.
"Property offenders were the most likely to be rearrested, with 82.1 percent of released property offenders arrested for a new crime compared with 76.9 percent of drug offenders, 73.6 percent of public order offenders and 71.3 percent of violent offenders."
http://www.nij.gov/topics/corrections/recidivism/pages/welco...
Basic human rights include a lot of things, but the list of those does not include a right to be trusted despite your prior actions, and it does not include a right to be served in particular location - those are privileges or interpersonal relationships that may be granted or withheld as the others believe is best for them.
Unless you're breaking the rehabilitation of offenders law.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rehabilitation_of_Offenders_Ac...
However, for good reasons, this doesn't happen automagically at the end of a prison sentence, it requires much more time than that and many thieves (the profession having a high rate of re-offending) spend most of their out-of-prison lives without this expiry/rehabilitation occurring.
It's no different to companies choosing not to do business with people based on credit history, financial standing, etc.
Or, perhaps I'm just suspected of shoplifting because one of my friends did shoplift while I was with them, and I'm added to the list. The doubt is reasonable enough that it wouldn't get me convicted, but it's enough for this system to add me and keep me in it.
For the rest of my life, I would be treated as a criminal by shopowners, even if I never commit another crime.
Also, I could be badly mistaken, but isn't slander strongly enforced in the UK? Wasn't there a scandal involving forced apologies?
If they opt for a stricter system (which would cover the edge cases you describe) that loses them some genuine custom, that's their loss.
The target is of course persistent offenders, not the kind you mention.
Although I'm sure some local corner shop will try and "ban" a positive result and make the headlines. That's inevitable. But for the larger shops, I doubt they will make it known that they know.
Maybe the way to handle it could be that if you're a thief and had a change of heart, report to the local Police station and agree to serve your time in exchange for getting your face removed from the database.
Hopefully the significant fines would keep this at bay. In all honesty kicking the store off the system would be the best way to stop it.
As a side note: I support the right of store owner to punish dick customers. I believe society needs to have stronger mechanisms to penalize douchy behaviour.
I agree with this, but I don't believe that a store ought to be able to farm out this punishment to every other retailer that subscribes to this system.
If a customer is being a dick, bar him from your establishment; don't subscribe them to be discriminated against and harassed everywhere else.
From this article:
> and other potential offenders
And from this article about a different system:
> Police forces are already using face-recognition to identify people, much as they might with DNA or fingerprints.
> A national police database contains up to 18 million "custody suite" photos - hundreds of thousands could be of innocent people.
Many of those people will be those arrested for an offence, but not cautioned or tried. (To be clear here: they really didn't do the crime, not just they weren't convicted of a crime).
I, for one, welcome our precog overlords.
Assuming that 1% or less of general population are thieves, it still would mean that a previously known thief has a 10% chance of being 'unreformed', and that they are a 10 times bigger risk than the average person; and it's not prohibited to use that information to safeguard yourself.
He's of course welcome to never come back again. Seems like a fair trade off. Not my job to feel bad for criminals, it's my job to put food on the table legally.
Your reputation is not like that, everybody should treat you according to your reputation, wether it's good or bad.