This blog post examines whether national systems for crime prevention can truly realize the public interest without violating individual human rights.
National Management Systems for Crime Prevention and Human Rights Violations
Alongside rapid advances in science and technology, many nations have emphasized the need for systems to control and manage individuals for crime prevention. Particularly since the 21st century, advancements in data collection and AI technology have enabled more efficient and systematic crime prevention. The backdrop for introducing such systems includes a sharp rise in crime rates and social unrest, with the state aiming to secure public safety by managing these issues. However, the implementation of these systems has also raised significant concerns across society regarding the infringement of individual privacy and human rights.
A prime example is the United States, which, after the 9/11 terrorist attacks in 2001, began indiscriminately collecting biometric information from all incoming travelers under the banner of protecting its citizens and preventing crime, while emphasizing vigilance against terrorism. For instance, systems identifying individuals through iris and fingerprint scans were introduced at airports and public facilities, and recently, such surveillance systems have been expanding to airports in various countries. The UK also enhanced its explosive detection capabilities and introduced X-ray airport security scanners (commonly known as ‘naked body scanners’) for rapid detection, enabling surveillance for crime prevention. While these scanners allow deep scanning capable of revealing passengers’ underwear, they sparked serious controversy over privacy infringement.
Several advanced nations, including the United States, Germany, and France, have implemented systems such as enhanced public disclosure of child sex offenders’ personal information and electronic monitoring bracelets to prevent recidivism among child sex offenders and sex offenders. These measures have shown positive effects in reducing sex crime rates. Influenced by this, South Korea also mandated electronic monitoring bracelets for sex offenders starting in 2008. However, this system has raised concerns about potential human rights violations against offenders, and this controversy remains an unresolved issue. Furthermore, while a 2006 law enabling the collection and management of genetic information from violent offenders for crime prevention purposes was proposed, the resulting human rights violations continue to be debated.
National systems for individual control aimed at crime prevention are also frequently depicted in science fiction films. For example, the film ‘Minority Report’ depicts a highly advanced future society where a crime prediction system called the ‘Precrime System’ anticipates and prevents crimes before they occur. In the film, three precogs visualize crime scenes, enabling the Precrime team to arrest criminals based on this information. This process involves collecting all individuals’ information into the system’s data bank and implementing a system that identifies individuals through iris recognition technology. This represents a state where, under the guise of crime prevention, every move of individuals is monitored by the system, resulting in a significant lack of privacy protection. Such a surveillance society appears to subordinate ‘individual human rights’ to a ‘state management system,’ raising awareness about a future modern society could face.
The film also warns of the risk that such systems can be abused as tools for power. The scene where ‘Lama Verge’, the administrator of the ‘Precrime System’ in the film, uses the system to label the protagonist as a criminal, clearly shows that if a crime prevention system is misused by those in power, innocent citizens can become victims of power abuse. The fact that innocent individuals can easily be labeled criminals when a national management system is controlled by specific groups is shocking, implying the need for vigilance against potential system abuse.
Crime Prevention Systems and Human Rights Violations from a Philosophical Perspective
From a utilitarian perspective, focusing on outcomes, one might conclude that a society where individual rights are controlled by the state and its systems, as seen in ‘Minority Report’, could be necessary for national maintenance and survival. As seen in advanced nations, crime prevention systems positively impact crime rate reduction and ease of management. However, this utilitarian approach, while prioritizing the greatest happiness for the greatest number, has the limitation of potentially disregarding individual human rights. Michael Sandel critiques utilitarianism using the ‘lifeboat’ story as an example. If utilitarian thinking justifies sacrificing one person to save three, this contradicts human dignity, as human value cannot be subject to such calculation. In other words, individual human rights must be respected as absolute values and cannot simply be sacrificed for the public good.
Kant’s ethical perspective also applies here: humans must be treated as ends in themselves, not mere means. If a crime prevention system controls individuals through excessive information collection and surveillance, it treats them as mere objects of control. The resulting human rights violations are unacceptable.
Conclusion
While state management systems for crime prevention demonstrate positive aspects like reduced crime rates and ease of management from a utilitarian perspective, they can infringe upon the absolute value of individual human rights. Furthermore, if the system is abused, it can become a factor for power abuse and pose risks to innocent citizens. Within this conflicting situation, the issue of crime prevention versus human rights violations cannot be resolved by prioritizing just one value. To address this, communication and consensus between the state and individuals are essential.
To ensure the state management system functions without infringing on human rights, the role of independent oversight bodies, such as a Public Data Management Commission, must be strengthened. Continuous feedback and adjustments are necessary to ensure the collection and surveillance of personal information occur within just and lawful boundaries. Under the premise that individual human rights are absolutely guaranteed, a process is needed where the state and individuals continuously communicate to secure the system’s transparency and rationality.
Therefore, the state and individuals must work together to ensure that current or future crime prevention state management systems can fully perform their crime prevention functions while guaranteeing human rights.
