Smell detectors could be installed inside criminals' homes
The detector, which uses synthetic brain cells and artificial intelligence (AI) to replicate the behaviour of a human nose, is one of a series of devices pitched by tech companies to prisons and Lord Timpson, the probation minister, on Tuesday.
It can 'smell' spice or fentanyl and could be deployed in the homes of offenders as part of their probation conditions or their community sentence, as well as used in prisons to try to tackle drug abuse.
Cameras could also be installed inside offenders' homes, with AI used to analyse offenders' behaviours, ensuring they comply with licence conditions.
The technology was among devices produced by seven 'finalist' companies, whittled down by the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) from more than 90 submissions.
They had been chosen as part of a competition to find ways of improving how the criminal justice system monitors criminals and cuts reoffending.
Shabana Mahmood, the Justice Secretary, has said emerging technology has the potential to 'impose a digital prison outside of prison'.
The Government has accepted recommendations from the independent sentencing review to tackle overcrowding behind bars, which will see fewer criminals jailed and more serving sentences in the community.
Lord Timpson said: 'We inherited a justice system in crisis and in need of reform. Prisons and probation are working in analogue while tech drives forward a new digital age.
'That's why we have invited companies to present bold new ideas to help us deliver tough punishment and enhanced surveillance.
'Embracing new technologies will help us to protect victims, reduce reoffending and cut crime as part of our plan for change.'
Alcohol tagging
Other tech ideas pitched included software to help staff consistently input information on offenders and transcription tools to cut administrative tasks.
Another finalist was the company behind alcohol tagging, which has seen thousands of offenders fitted with the sobriety tags. Criminals on the tags have stayed sober 97 per cent of the time.
The successful businesses will have their proposals considered for pilot rollouts, helping staff on the front line to tackle violence in prison and monitor offenders.
Tracking devices inserted under offenders' skin, robots assigned to contain prisoners and driverless vehicles used to transport them were among the measures proposed by technology companies at a meeting of more than two dozen tech companies last month.
'Deeper collaboration between government and tech'
The meeting, chaired by Ms Mahmood, included representatives of Google, Amazon, Microsoft and Palantir, which works closely with the US military and has contracts with the NHS.
Ms Mahmood told the tech companies she wanted 'deeper collaboration between government and tech to solve the prison capacity crisis, reduce reoffending and make communities safer'. She invited them to 'scale and improve' the existing use of tagging 'not just for monitoring but to drive rehabilitation and reduce crime'. Lord Timpson called for a 'tech-led approach to justice'.
The initiative is the latest sign of the Labour government's embrace of the technology industry to help deliver efficiency savings in creaking public services, from schools to hospitals. In January, Sir Keir Starmer declared that AI was a way 'to transform our public services' and spoke about 'totally rewiring government'.
At the meeting last month, hosted by the industry lobby group Tech UK, ministers asked the tech companies what a 'digital, data and technology-enabled justice system' could look like in 2050.
Responses included: 'Real-time behaviour monitoring and subcutaneous tracking' to support the health, and 'behaviour management' of people under the control of the criminal justice system; artificial intelligence advisers to support offenders' rehabilitation; and robotics 'used to manage prisoner movement and containment' including 'self-driving vehicles [to] transport prisoners'.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
BBC News
14 minutes ago
- BBC News
Payout offered to Afghans hit by UK data breaches
Afghan nationals whose personal information was mistakenly exposed by the Ministry of Defence in 2021 will be offered up to £4,000 each in compensation, the government has said. The data breaches affected 277 people, some of whom had worked for the UK government and were in hiding from insurgent Taliban forces at the Minister Luke Pollard said he could not "undo past mistakes" but promised that the payments would be made "as quickly as reasonably practical". The government expects the total cost to be around £1.6m and comes on top of the £350,000 it had to pay after receiving a fine from the data watchdog. The biggest breach took place in September 2021 when the Afghan Relocations and Assistance Policy (Arap) team was working to evacuate people from Afghanistan following the chaotic withdrawal of western troops.A mass email was sent to those, such as interpreters, whose work with the UK government meant they could be targeted by the Taliban and therefore made them eligible to be relocated. Their email addresses were added to the 'To' field instead of the 'blind carbon copy' (Bcc) section, meaning their names could be seen by all Ministry of Defence later launched an internal investigation that revealed two similar breaches on 7 September and 13 September of that Humber from the Leigh Day law firm which is representing some of those affected said the government's statement about compensation contained "little information"."As far as we are aware, there has been no consultation with those affected or their legal advisors about the scheme - it is not clear the criteria that will be used to identify the proposed payment amount."In our client's case, he and his family spent five very scared months in hiding in Kabul concerned that the Taliban were now aware that he had assisted UK forces and were looking for him. "He feared for his life and was aware of the Taliban beating and killing others that had assisted UK forces. "We will need to review critically with our client whether any sum that is now being offered adequately compensates him for distress that he has undoubtedly suffered." After investigating the breaches in 2023, information commissioner John Edwards said the error could have led to a "threat to life" and had "let down those to whom our country owes so much".The commissioner initially fined the government £1m but that was reduced to £700,000 in recognition of the measures taken by the Ministry of Defence to report the incident, limit its impact and the difficulties of the situation for teams handling the relocation of was further reduced to £350,000 as part of a change in approach by the watchdog to public sector fines. Announcing the compensation payouts in a statement on Friday, Pollard said his department would "drive improvement in the department's data handling training and practices".Earlier this week, the government announced that the Arap scheme was closing to new applicants, having resettled 21,316 Afghans in the half of those brought to the UK were children, and a quarter were women. A Home Office paper published on Tuesday said Defence Secretary John Healey believed the scheme had "fulfilled its original purpose".It said the scheme could now be shut down "not least so that defence efforts and resources can be focused where they are most needed - on our nation's security, to combat the acute threats and destabilising behaviour of our adversaries".
The Guardian
15 minutes ago
- The Guardian
To Starmer, his achievements are obvious. As a thought experiment, let's see things through his eyes
He doesn't look like the innovative type, but Keir Starmer is staging a radical experiment. He is testing out a theory of politics a matter of months after it was seemingly – and spectacularly – disproved and, in the process, hoping to pull off a turnaround that would constitute a comeback so stunning it would be closer to a resurrection. The theory in question is that if you deliver practical improvements to the lives of voters, they will reward you at the ballot box. Its guiding principle is 'show, don't tell', with the emphasis on results rather than talk, pragmatism rather than ideology. He's not the first to try it: this was also the animating creed of Joe Biden's presidency – and we know how that worked out. So far the approach seems to be bearing similarly sour fruit in Britain. As Starmer marks one year since his landslide victory, Labour has suffered the biggest post-election drop in public approval since the Conservatives were tanked by Black Wednesday in 1992. The prime minister's personal numbers are the lowest ever recorded for a PM 12 months in: his net approval stands at -54 points. At the equivalent moment in October 2023, Rishi Sunak scored -37. No one has ever come back up from such depths. The PM appears unfazed by all this. It's not that he insists he knows how to climb out of the current hole; rather, he refuses to accept he or his government are in a hole at all. He has a list of first-year achievements he is proud of and, besides, he believes he was written off once before, early in his spell as leader of the opposition – only to plough on, methodically reaching each of the milestones he had set himself and, finally, to win. By way of an anniversary gift, let's assess Starmer as he wants to be assessed. Let's put aside the various missteps of the past year as 'noises off', or as the mere teething pains of a new government. Let us look past both the fiasco of this week's near-defeat on welfare, staved off only by a series of panicked concessions and U-turns, and last summer's baffling determination to strangle at birth any feelgood factor that may have greeted the ejection of a despised Tory government, filling the air instead with gloom and the promise that things would get worse before they got better. Let's not dwell on the one act of these past 12 months that cut through most to voters: the withdrawal of the winter fuel allowance from millions of pensioners. Let us instead judge Labour on its own terms: delivery. On that list of Starmer's, there's a decent range of items, from the three trade deals that had eluded the Conservatives – with the US, EU and India – to a fall in NHS waiting lists, down to their lowest level in two years; from the expansion of free school meals provision to increased wages. The trouble is, none of those achievements goes anywhere close to repairing the damage Labour itself says was done over the past decade and a half. Inside Downing Street, they still profess their shock at the state they found the country in. Whether it's overcrowded prisons or a dysfunctional water industry, so much is 'busted'. It is a herculean task to turn all that around, and especially to do it fast – all the more so when there is so little money to spend. Starmer might be calm about the fact that a great change hasn't happened within a year, but it requires a Panglossian optimism to believe it will come even within five, in time for the next election. In whichever direction you look, delivery is maddeningly hard. To take just one example, the government has won plaudits for its first moves on housing, including a target of an additional 1.5m homes in England by 2029. That means building 300,000 each year. But for the most recent 12-month period, the tally stood at just over 200,000. If everything goes right, Labour's planning reforms should eventually boost housebuilding by 25% – but that still won't be enough to reach its goal. Still, let's be like Starmer and hope his various plans work and the government really does deliver. The lesson of Biden is that even that won't be enough. In fairness, Labour's high command does get that point, acknowledging mere 'lines on a graph' or stats won't cut it. The improvement has to be felt in people's lives. And yet, that too may not be sufficient. Voters don't usually go in for gratitude; they are as likely to credit themselves as the government for a material advance in their circumstances. What's needed, and Team Starmer swear they understand this too, is a story, a narrative of where the country has been and where it could go next, that the public can follow. Land on the right one, and it gives you the time and space this government has been denied. Margaret Thatcher's self-proclaimed mission to wean Britain off a sclerotic state was compelling enough to make a virtue even of economic hardship: the bitterness of her medicine was deemed proof that it was working. With no equivalent story, every setback of Starmer's is taken in isolation, evidence that the government doesn't know what it's doing. The PM offers no persuasive explanation of what is happening or why it may take a while. That wrecks a party's relationship with the electorate, obviously, but also with its own MPs, as the increasingly restive and frustrated parliamentary Labour party attests. Most Labour folk admit this narrative weakness is their achilles heel, and that it stems from a deficiency in the leader himself. A lawyer, a technocrat, a manager: whatever word they use to describe the prime minister, no one ever accuses him of being a storyteller. The man who seems least worried by this narrative void is Starmer himself. The formative experience of his (short) political career was his early tenure as Labour leader, half a decade ago. Trailing far behind his then opponent, he read commentaries daily telling him that Boris Johnson was going to dominate British politics for the next 10 years and that his destiny was to replicate Neil Kinnock as a transitional figure, preparing the ground for someone else more capable of winning. Those prognosticators got him wrong then and, he believes, they have got him wrong now. Besides, in his mind, the narrative of his government is obvious. How could anyone look at all he has done so far and not see that the common thread is an earnest effort to improve the lives of ordinary working men and women? To him, it's so clear it scarcely needs to be spelled out. Unfortunately, as the last US president discovered, everything needs to be spelled out, a hundred times a day, on every conceivable platform and very loudly. The days of quiet, patient, unflashy achievement, eventually recognised by a grateful electorate, are long gone, if they ever existed. Starmer and those around him need to adapt to that reality soon. If he fails, there is a grinning master of the new politics, who revels in the primacy of talk over action, of grievance over solution, who is currently 10 points ahead – and waiting to pounce. Jonathan Freedland is a Guardian columnist
The Independent
18 minutes ago
- The Independent
Teenager's sentence for killing Bhim Kohl to be reviewed
The Court of Appeal is set to review the sentence handed to a teenage boy convicted of killing Bhim Kohli, who was filmed being attacked, slapped in the face with a shoe and racially abused while walking his dog. Bhim Kohli called out for help when he was attacked in Franklin Park, Braunstone Town, near Leicester, on 1 September 2024. He died the next day with a spinal cord injury and fractured ribs. In June, Mr Justice Turner sentenced a boy, aged 15, who punched and kicked Mr Kohli, to seven years in custody, and a 13-year-old girl, who encouraged the attack by filming parts of it while laughing, to a three-year youth rehabilitation order. Both children, who cannot be named because of their age, denied their crimes but were convicted by a jury at Leicester Crown Court. A spokesperson for the Attorney General's Office said the case will be reviewed under the unduly lenient sentence scheme. The spokesperson said in a statement: 'The Solicitor General, Lucy Rigby KC MP, was appalled by this violent, cowardly attack on an innocent man. 'She wishes to express her deepest sympathies to Bhim Kohli's friends and family at this difficult time. 'After undertaking a detailed review of the case, the Solicitor General concluded the sentence of the 15-year-old boy could be referred to the Court of Appeal. 'The court will determine if the sentence is increased or not.' Mr Kohli's daughter spoke of feeling 'angry and disappointed', adding that she believes their sentences do not 'reflect the severity of the crime they committed'.
