Molecular Manufacturing and the Need for Crime Science
Molecular manufacturing increases the potential for high-tech crimes; it can also be used to prevent them, says a crime analyst and book author.
Originally published in Nanotechnology Perceptions: A Review
of Ultraprecision Engineering and Nanotechnology, Volume 2, No.
2, May 8, 2006. Reprinted May 24, 2006 by KurzweilAI.net.
The anticipated emergence of molecular manufacturing (MM) within
decades requires new conceptualizations about crime and new strategies
to address it. The seeds of possible solutions are planted in the
United Kingdom where formal policing began. These seeds are called
"crime science."i
Early policing stressed that the principal duty of police was to
prevent crime rather than detect it.ii Crime science
focuses on using science in creative and unprecedented ways to prevent
crime.
What type of crime will occur in a world with MM? If the terrorist
activities of this decade so far are indicators, it is likely that
fundamentalist reactions to science will result in terrorist acts
against scientists who threaten world order as we know it. This
alone is cause for examining how we might prevent crime, as preventing
crime is similar to preventing terrorism. Since much of the crime
of the future will be enabled by new technology, it will be necessary
to develop strategies to prevent the abuse of technology.
We use little science in policing strategies today, despite
the enormous progress in technology in the past century. Tools have
improved, but advanced strategies are rare. We use police cars instead
of horse and buggies; citizens call 911 from cell phones and officers
come running to almost every single request for police help; we
have better weapons, better communications, and better transportation.
Most of the time, however, we do not assess why police keep running
to the same locations and dealing with the same problems.
Too often today, we look at crime incident by incident. In medicine,
this would be like studying each individual virus case separately
to find a way to combat that one particular infection. Finding practical
ways to prevent, contain, and minimize crime by studying it in aggregations—as
research scientists study strains of viruses—with objective
measures and creative solutions: this is what policing in the world
of the future will demand.
Only the most progressive agencies, very few in number, have a
grasp of how to maximize the wealth of information made accessible
by technology, to turn it into a resource for better policing. The
status of information technology in the United States is a disaster,
not only on the federal level (in the FBI), but also in most local
law enforcement agencies—the first responders to crime and
to terrorism.iii Fear of Big Brother and of losing civil
liberties is not unreasonable, considering the capacity of existing
technologies to monitor people. However, at least in policing, we
are moving toward a more transparent society.iv (The
ability to track officers with GPS, and the ubiquitous surveillance
cameras on police cars are examples of transparency in police work.)
That said, the truth is that very little analysis of information
on repeat offenders, on crime hot spots, on serial crimes—the
very things the police are charged with knowing —exists today.
In many cases, we do not need more intelligence or secret information
to prevent crime and arrest dangerous offenders. We just need to
learn how to analyze the information we already have.
In a world with molecular manufacturing, more information will
become available in real time; thus, the capacity to create actionable
information will grow, but its utility will benefit society only
if the police know how to maximize information as a resource.
Because of the mystique and mythology surrounding police, as reflected
on television and in movies, the ability of civilians to question
police work is impaired. They believe the media version of how to
be a good cop. The good cop always gets the bad guy, and this may
be the mindset of most people for the post-MM world: who will be
the enemies, and how can we defeat them? But perhaps these are the
wrong questions.
Recently, at a national focus group in Washington on intelligence
and crime analysis, Dr. Jerry Ratcliffev cited a study
showing that out of every 1000 crime occurrences (including the
one-quarter of these that go unreported), only four persons
are convicted of a crime. Even if this figure is not reliable across
all policing jurisdictions, the reality is that our entire criminal
justice system depends on catching a few bad people and locking
them up rather than researching and funding measures to reduce the
opportunities or motivations to commit crime.
How can crime science make a difference? Why does molecular manufacturing
make it even more important?
Three core premises change the paradigm of "fighting crime."
The first premise is that criminal behavior and disorder are much
more common than we realize, and that offenders are often very similar
to you and me – in fact, they sometimes are you and me. How
often have you gone over the speed limit? When you were a teen,
did you break minor laws? The moral outrage at crime usually is
reserved for the "other," the person who is not you. Crime science
acknowledges habitual offenders and studies ways to prevent their
crimes (as well as identifying those who should be fully prosecuted
because of recidivist behavior). However, it also opens the curtain
to reveal that crime is not always a battle of good against bad.
MM in the hands of "good" people still may result in crime.
Acknowledgement of the potential "shadow" in each of us is
a best practice when developing MM. While not something stressed
in the emerging field of crime science, it is a view supported by
Carl Jung.
Unfortunately, there can be no doubt that man is, on the
whole, less goodthan he imagines himself or wants to be. Everyone
carries a shadow, andthe less it is embodied in the individual's
conscious life, the blacker anddenser it is. If an inferiority is
conscious, one always has a chance tocorrect it. Furthermore, it
is constantly in contact with other interests, sothat it is continually
subjected to modifications. But if it is repressed andisolated from
consciousness, it never gets corrected.vi
The second premise in crime science is that crime occurs where
there is opportunity, and that opportunity itself can be a cause
of crime. Using a system approach to problem solving, designing
MM with built in crime prevention elements would be a best practice.vii
The third premise is that existing criminal justice systems will
never be good enough to deal with modern crime opportunities—and
MM will certainly prove this premise correct.viii
Although there are multitudes of criminal justice and criminology
degree programs, little focus has been placed on the scientific
study of crime prevention in universities and colleges. Those academics
that have chosen to focus on this area often are marginalized by
their peers. Obviously, because of the severity of the dangers posed
by MM, preventing criminal activities is optimal when compared to
reacting to their consequences. Academia must respond to this urgent
need to bring a multiple-disciplinary approach to crime prevention,
incorporating all the various sciences to this task. A serious examination
of the efficiency and effectiveness of our current systems of policing,
courts, and studies is necessary prior to the arrival of MM. This
should lead to subsequent major reforms, dynamic in nature to adapt
to a rapidly changing world.
Who will be policing the world when MM comes to be? Who do you
want to be policing this world? How do you want it policed? In 2002,
in the United States, police and detectives held 840,000 jobs and
approximately 81% (680,400) were local-level law enforcers.ix
According the International Association of Chiefs of Police, based
on facts from the Bureau of Justice Statistics, only 9% of local-level
law enforcement agencies required their officers to have an associate's
degree, and only 2% required them to have a bachelor's degree.x
Molecular manufacturing means we need to create a much better educated
police force. MM means we need to think in terms of built-in crime
preventative measures—the prevention of opportunity for crime.
MM means we need to rethink the emphasis on individual justice and
begin a sincere quest to bring science beyond the thin blue line,
before it is too late.
i http://www.jdi.ucl.ac.uk/
ii http://www.met.police.uk/history/peel.htm
iii http://www.infoworld.com/article/05/03/21/12FEfbi_1.html
iv Brin, David (1998) The Transparent Society: Will Technology
Force Us to Choose Between Privacy and Freedom? (Perseus Books
Group)
v http://jratcliffe.net/
vi Jung, Carl, "Psychology and Religion" (1938). In CW
11: Psychology and Religion: West and East. P.131
vii http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/prgpdfs/fprs98.pdf
viii http://www.jdi.ucl.ac.uk/downloads/crime_science_series/pdf/LAUNCHING_CS_FINAL.pdf
ix http://www.bls.gov/oco/oco/160.htm
x http://www.theiacp.org/faq.htm
| 
