As countries introduce systems to control and monitor individuals for crime prevention purposes, there are growing concerns about privacy and human rights issues. Biometric data collection and electronic ankle bracelet systems in the United States and Europe contribute to crime prevention, but they also pose the risk of abuse of power and human rights violations. While they may be justified from a utilitarian approach, the human rights of individuals must be respected as an absolute value. Ongoing communication and agreement between states and individuals is necessary to ensure that these systems function in a human rights-responsive manner.

National management systems for crime prevention and human rights violations

With the rapid development of science and technology, many countries have emphasized the need for systems that control and manage individuals to prevent crime. In particular, advances in data collection and AI technology in the 21st century have made it possible to prevent crime more efficiently and systematically. The reasons behind the introduction of these systems include the rapid increase in crime rates and social unrest, which the state aims to manage to ensure the safety of its citizens. However, the violation of individual privacy and human rights in the process of applying these systems has also become a major issue in society at large.
For example, after the September 11, 2001 attacks, the United States began to indiscriminately collect biometric information on all entrants to the country in the name of protecting its citizens and preventing crime, emphasizing its vigilance against terrorism. For example, systems to identify individuals through irises and fingerprints were introduced at airports and public facilities, and these surveillance systems have recently been expanded to airports in various countries. The United Kingdom has also introduced X-ray airport screening scanners (aka “naked body scanners”) to enhance explosives detection and enable faster detection, as well as surveillance as a crime prevention measure. These scanners are capable of detecting deep enough to see passengers’ underwear, but have sparked serious privacy controversy.
Several developed countries, such as the United States, Germany, and France, have implemented systems such as enhanced disclosure of child sexual assault convictions and electronic anklet management to prevent child sexual assault and recidivism of sexual offenders, and have shown positive results in reducing sexual crime rates. Inspired by this, Korea has made it mandatory for sex offenders to wear electronic anklets since 2008. However, this system has raised the possibility of violating the human rights of offenders, and this controversy remains an unresolved issue. In addition, in 2006, a law was proposed to collect and manage genetic information of violent criminals, making it possible to collect personal information for crime prevention, but the issue of human rights violations arising from this continues to be discussed.
The state’s system of controlling individuals for the purpose of crime prevention is also frequently explored in science fiction movies. For example, the movie Minority Report depicts a highly developed futuristic society that predicts and prevents crimes in advance through a crime prediction system called the Precrime System. In the movie, three predictors visualize a crime scene and the Precrime team arrests the criminals based on their predictions, which are collected in the system’s data bank, and the system uses iris recognition technology to identify individuals. This is a surveillance society in which individuals’ every move is monitored by the system in the name of crime prevention, with a marked lack of privacy. This surveillance society is seen as one in which ‘individual human rights’ are subordinated to ‘state management systems’, and is a cautionary tale of the possible future of modern society.
The movie also warns of the danger of such a system being abused as a tool for abuse of power. The scene in the movie where Lamar Burge, the administrator of the Pre-Crime System, uses the system to identify the main character as a criminal, illustrates how innocent citizens can become victims of abuse of power when crime prevention systems are misused by those in power. The fact that innocent individuals can easily be labeled as criminals when a state management system is dominated by a certain group is shocking and suggests the need for vigilance against possible abuse of the system.

Crime prevention systems and human rights violations from a philosophical perspective

If we take a consequentialist approach from a utilitarian perspective, we can come to the conclusion that societies where individual human rights are controlled by the state and its systems, as seen in Minority Report, may be necessary for the maintenance and survival of the state. Crime prevention systems, as seen in developed countries, have a positive impact in terms of reduced crime rates and ease of management. However, this utilitarian approach, which emphasizes the greatest happiness of the greatest number, has the limitation that it can ignore individual human rights. Michael Sandel criticizes utilitarianism using the “lifeboat” story as an example. If the utilitarian mindset is to sacrifice one person to save three, this is contrary to human dignity and suggests that human value cannot be subject to such calculations, meaning that individual human rights must be respected as an absolute value and cannot be sacrificed simply for the greater good.
From a Kantian ethical perspective, we can also apply the proposition that humans should be treated as ends in themselves and not simply as means to an end. If a crime prevention system controls individuals through excessive intelligence gathering and surveillance, it is treating them as mere objects to be controlled, and the human rights violations that may result are unacceptable.

Conclusion

While state-managed systems for crime prevention show the positive side of reduced crime rates and ease of management from a utilitarian perspective, they can also violate the absolute value of individual human rights. Furthermore, if abused, they can lead to abuse of power and danger to innocent citizens. In such a confrontational situation, the issue of crime prevention and human rights violations is not one that can be solved by simply weighing one value over the other. Communication and consensus between the state and the individual are essential to resolve it.
To ensure that national management systems function without violating human rights, the role of independent oversight bodies, such as public data management boards, must be strengthened, and ongoing feedback and coordination is needed to ensure that the collection and surveillance of individuals’ information is justified and within the law. Under the premise that individual human rights are absolutely guaranteed, a process of constant communication between the state and individuals is necessary to ensure the transparency and rationality of the system.
Therefore, it will be up to the state and the individual to work together to ensure that any current or future national management system for crime prevention can fully fulfill its crime prevention function while ensuring human rights.